Glenn Peters, faglig innlegg MDG lsm 14.06.2014

Governing the willingness to extract, combust and consume less carbon

Miljøpartiet de Grønne June 14, 2014 (11-12)

Glen Peters

Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (CICERO) Email: [email protected] Twitter: @Peters_Glen

Fossil Fuel and Cement Emissions

Global fossil fuel and cement emissions: 9.7 ± 0.5 GtC in 2012, 58% over 1990 Projection for 2013 : 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC, 61% over 1990

With leap year adjustment: 2012 growth rate is 1.9% and 2013 is 2.4%

Source: Le Quéré et al 2013; CDIAC Data; Global Carbon Project 2013

Uncertainty is ±5% for one standard deviation (IPCC “likely” range)

http://www.earth-syst-sci-data-discuss.net/6/689/2013

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html

http://www.globalcarbonproject.org


Observed Emissions and Emissions Scenarios

Emissions are on track for 3.2–5.4ºC “likely” increase in temperature above pre-industrial Large and sustained mitigation is required to keep below 2ºC

Fossil fuel and cement emissions only Linear interpolation is used between individual data points

Source: Peters et al. 2012a; CDIAC Data; Global Carbon Project 2013







Short-term • Reverse emission trajectory • Emissions peak by 2020







Medium-term • Sustain emission trajectory • Around 3%/yr reductions globally









Medium-term • Sustain emission trajectory • Around 3%/yr reductions globally

Long-term • Net negative emissions • Unproven technologies



How to share the mitigation challenge?

Depending on perspective, the importance of individual countries changes

GDP: Gross Domestic Product in Market Exchange Rates (MER) and Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) Source: CDIAC Data; Le Quéré et al 2013; Global Carbon Project 2013








Top Fossil Fuel Emitters (Absolute)

Top five emitters in 2012 covered 63% of global emissions China (27%), United States (14%), EU28 (10%), India (6%), Russia (5%)

With leap year adjustment in 2012 growth rates are: China 5.6%, USA -4.0%, EU -1.6%, India 7.4%, Russia 4.8%. Source: CDIAC Data; Le Quéré et al 2013; Global Carbon Project 2013





Top Fossil Fuel Emitters (Per Capita)

Average per capita emissions in 2012 China is growing rapidly and the US is declining fast

Source: CDIAC Data; Le Quéré et al 2013; Global Carbon Project 2013





Historical Cumulative Emissions by Country

Cumulative emissions from fossil-fuel and cement were distributed (1870–2012): USA (26%), EU28 (23%), China (11%), Russia (8%), and India (4%) covering 71% of the total share

Cumulative emissions (1990–2012) were distributed USA (20%), EU28 (15%), China (18%), Russia (6%), India (5%) Source: CDIAC Data; Le Quéré et al 2013; Global Carbon Project 2013





miljøpartiet de grønne 14/06/2014

The mitigation challange

• “Common but differentiated” leads to fragmented policies

• Strong, weak, none • Global commons

• “Free rider” problems • Relevant in a global economy

• Carbon leakage • Competiveness concerns


CARBON FOOTPRINTS


Dealing with fragmentation

Global emissions allocated to the goods and services consumed in country X



Global emissions allocated to the goods and services consumed in country X Consumption = Production + Imports – Exports




Production




Production

Exp Domestic




Production

Exp Imp Domestic




Production

Exp Imp

Consumption

Domestic




Production

Exp Imp

Consumption

Domestic The adjustment for

international trade is the key factor


Large share of consumer emissions are territorial

“Imported” emissions



Consumption-induced: The increase in net import into Annex B countries 1990-2008 was five times greater than the achieved emission reduction


Policy-induced: Negligible effect 0.3% of territorial

Consumption-induced: The increase in net import into Annex B countries 1990-2008 was five times greater than the achieved emission reduction


Carbon leakage

• Policy-induced carbon leakage • Caused by climate policy • Small at today’s carbon prices

• Consumption-induced carbon leakage

• Caused by a changing division of labour • Increased consumption, met by imports • Large, but not related to carbon prices


Carbon footprints and scale

• Scale is important for footprints

• Big country, small share imported

• Small country, large share imported

• City, most imported

• Household, all imported



City and the Hinterland GHG t/household Sydney Melbourne Brisbane Adelaide Perth Greater

Hobart Canberra Darwin

GHG Footprint 52.9 66.8 63.3 51.4 69.3 44.3 58.3 50.1

GHG Footprint - Domestic 12.3 16.2 15.6 16.2 11.4 5.3 4.7 10.2

GHG Footprint - Import 40.5 50.5 47.7 35.2 57.9 39.0 53.6 39.8

Share imported (%) 77 76 75 69 84 88 92 80

70-90% of carbon footprint imported!


City and the Hinterland GHG t/household Sydney Melbourne Brisbane Adelaide Perth Greater

Hobart Canberra Darwin

GHG Footprint 52.9 66.8 63.3 51.4 69.3 44.3 58.3 50.1

GHG Footprint - Domestic 12.3 16.2 15.6 16.2 11.4 5.3 4.7 10.2

GHG Footprint - Import 40.5 50.5 47.7 35.2 57.9 39.0 53.6 39.8

Share imported (%) 77 76 75 69 84 88 92 80

y = 0.8955x1.0911 R² = 0.9869

1.0

10.0

100.0

1 10 100

GHG Footprint vs Income 70-90% of carbon footprint imported!

Income dominates footprints, other factors (urban form,

house size, etc) are marginal


101

102

103

104

101

102

103

104

ε=0.35

Food

101

102

103

104

101

102

103

104

ε=0.77

Clothing

101

102

103

104

101

102

103

104

ε=0.79

Manufacturing and Industry

101

102

103

104

101

102

103

104

ε=0.85

Mobility services

101

102

103

104

101

102

103

104

ε=0.23

Housing

101

102

103

104

101

102

103

104

ε=0.85

Infrastucture

101

102

103

104

101

102

103

104

ε=0.88

Electricity, gas, water

101

102

103

104

101

102

103

104

ε=0.61

Services and retailing

East AsiaSouth-East Asia and OceaniaSouth AsiaNorth AmericaSouth AmericaEuropeRussian Federation and former SovietMiddle East and North AfricaAfrica

Consumption (USD/capita)

Em

issi

ons

(CO

2-eq/

capi

ta)

Consumption by income


Consumption policies

• Country level consumption cap, border carbon adjustment

• Complex, equity issues • Financial transfers along trade flows

• Labelling • Generally ineffective

• Information (less meat, less flights, ...) • Not effective at the aggregate (nationally)

• Rebound effects


FOSSIL FUELS


The emissions supply chain

Production (Territorial)

(Combustion)



Consumption (Carbon Footprint)


(Combustion)



Extraction Production



(Combustion)



Extraction Production



(Combustion)


Trade and Carbon

Relevant in two ways

1. Trade in fossil fuels (physical) 2. Trade in goods and services (embodied)

Major Flows from Extraction to Production

Start of Arrow: fossil-fuel extraction End of arrow: fossil-fuel combustion

Values for 2007. EU27 is treated as one region. Units: TgC=GtC/1000 Source: Peters et al 2012b

http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/3247/2012/bg-9-3247-2012.html

Major Flows from Production to Consumption

Start of Arrow: fossil-fuel combustion End of arrow: goods and services consumption



Major Flows from Extraction to Consumption

Start of Arrow: fossil-fuel extraction End of arrow: goods and services consumption



Responsible Norway?

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20150

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Car

bon

(MtC

O2)

Extracted oil: 10432 MtCO2Extracted gas: 3491 MtCO2

Proven oil reserves: 3105 MtCO2Proven gas reserves: 4194 MtCO2

Glen Peters (CICERO)Extracted Oil (BP)Extracted Gas (BP)Territorial emissions (CDIAC)


Net trade per capita


Norwegian GHG emissions


EQUITY


Consumption more just?

• “Emissions should be allocated to consumption because it is fairer”

• Consumption policies implicitly/explicitly put a price on imports

• Developing countries are worse off! • (they have to mitigate our consumption) • Offset this by financial transfers


Extraction more just?

• “It is fairer to make fossil fuel exporters pay for the carbon they extract”

• Revenue • Could be used for financial transfers • Buy support for carbon price by letting

extractors keep the income


POLICY IMPLICATIONS


The policy problem

• Differential carbon pricing Countries unwilling to deepen and broaden climate policies unilaterally

• Two main issues • Competitiveness concerns (economic) • Carbon leakage (environmental)

• International trade is a key factor


Extraction Extractors collect tax revenue

In principle easy

Production/Territorial Easy and status quo

Fragmentation, free riders, carbon leakage

Consumption Puts focus on key drivers Complex (and uncertain)

Alternate carbon policy


Thank you

I would love some questions

folk.uio.no/glen

Twitter: @Peters_Glen

https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen

https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen

Date post:	16-May-2015
Category:	Environment
Upload:	partiet
View:	183 times
Download:	2 times