1
Dangerous Interference with the Climate System:Implications of the IPCC Third Assessment Report
for Article 2 of the Climate Convention
Greenpeace Briefing Paper
Sixth Session (Part Two)of the Conference of the Parties to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
16-27 July, 2001Bonn, Germany
Greenpeace International
2
3
Dangerous Interference with the Climate System:Implications of the IPCC Third Assessment Report
for Article 2 of the Climate Convention)
Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................4Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................4Science Assessment........................................................................................................................................5Impacts Assessment .......................................................................................................................................6Mitigation Assessment ...................................................................................................................................6
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................10Introduction......................................................................................................................................................10Background: The IPCC ....................................................................................................................................10Working Group I Findings ...............................................................................................................................11
Warming of the last 50 years is mostly due to human activities, principally burning of fossil fuels...................................................................................................................................................................11Risks of warming are increasing and we are already seeing the first signs of this. ..........................11Unless emissions are reduced, there is a major risk that the warming expected during the next fivedecades would trigger meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet..............................................................12Risk of large positive feedbacks from the response of the biosphere to climate which would significantlyenhance climate change............................................................................................................................13
Main Conclusions.........................................................................................................................................13Working Group II Findings..............................................................................................................................14
Impacts of upper temperature projections not examined...................................................................14Threats to most natural and many human systems.............................................................................14Changes already underway ...................................................................................................................14Threats from extreme whether events ..................................................................................................15Potential for Large Scale and Irreversible Impacts ............................................................................15Developing Countries most at risk........................................................................................................16More people projected to be harmed than benefited even for small warming .................................17
Extensive Regional Impacts Identified.........................................................................................................17Africa .......................................................................................................................................................17Asia ..........................................................................................................................................................17Australia and New Zealand ......................................................................................................................18Europe ......................................................................................................................................................19Latin America...........................................................................................................................................19North America..........................................................................................................................................20Polar Regions ...........................................................................................................................................21Small Island States ...................................................................................................................................21
Main Conclusions.........................................................................................................................................22Working Group III Findings ............................................................................................................................2323Relatively low cost of greenhouse gas emission reductions.....................................................................23
Stabilization of CO2 in the atmosphere at or below 450 ppmv is possible.........................................23Energy Investments need to be changed if stabilization is to be possible ..........................................24Current fossil fuel reserves if released to the atmosphere would lead to very high atmosphericCO2 levels. ..............................................................................................................................................24Lower emissions and stabilization of CO2 concentration require different energy developments .24
Critical comments on the report ...................................................................................................................27Economic modeling and determination of costs insufficient ...................................................................27Unequal treatment of technologies...........................................................................................................28Less certain future for nuclear power.......................................................................................................28The issue of sinks .....................................................................................................................................29
Major Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................30
4
Executive Summary
Introduction
COP6 (Part Two) is to receive thefindings the three working groupreports of the IPCC ThirdAssessment Report at a time whenthe very principle of internationalaction on climate change is beingchallenged by the USA. Yet thereport shows more clearly andstrongly than ever before that thescale of the risks posed by climatechange are enormous and that we arealready seeing the first signs of theimpacts of climate change. It hasalso found that international, co-ordinated action is critical to theefforts to reduce emissions.
Perhaps of most importance to thecurrent context of the US rejectionof the Kyoto Protocol and the USAdministrations fossil fuel intensiveNational Energy Plan are thefindings of IPCC Working Group IIIon mitigations options. This hasfound that the choice of energyinvestments made over the comingdecade will determine whether andat what level atmospheric CO2 levelscan be stabilized. If the choice ismade towards fossil fuel intensivetechnologies then atmosphericstabilization may not be possible.
Article 2 of the UNFCCC to whichthe USA (and its allies in therejection of the Kyoto Protocol) suchas Australia are Parties, requires thatatmospheric CO2 levels be stabilizedat a level and within a timeframe thatprevents dangerous climate change.
It is clear that US energy policy atpresent is in clear violation of thisobjective as it would not lead to orcontribute to global efforts atstabilization of CO2 at any level.Furthermore, US energy policy is ontrack to contribute substantially totriggering the meltdown of theGreenland ice sheet which couldbegin as a result of a local warmingof some 3oC (or a global meanwarming of 1-3oC). This couldhappen within the next 3-5 decadesand if sustained would lead to a 3metre sea level rise over the nextmillennium.
At the end of this ExecutiveSummary we have summarizedmany of the impacts which the IPCCThird Assessment Report hasidentified by level of futureprojected warming. We wouldinvite any delegates to look at thistable and tell us what level ofwarming is dangerous. We have afeeling that many will find even 1oCdangerous and that nearly all willfind much to fear in a 1-2oCwarming. Perhaps the most chillingpart of this table is what is not there:warming of more than a few degreeshave not been examined by theimpacts community. Yet the IPCCis projecting a warming range of 1.4-5.8oC by 2100. This range oftemperature increases does notinclude the effect of climatefeedbacks on the terrestrialbiosphere. Climate induced forestdieback and release of carbon fromwarming soils could add, accordingto the IPCC WG I report nearly 300ppmv CO2 to the atmosphere above
5
the 970 ppmv which would beachieved from the most fossil fuelintensive scenarios (such as the USNational Energy Plan). This wouldadd a few degrees to the high end ofthe warming range.
Interestingly, the high end of thewarming range comes from futureemissions scenarios premised onfossil fuel intensive energydevelopment patterns, whosearchetypal form is to be found in theUS National Energy Plan.
Science Assessment
The IPCC’s Third AssessmentReport comes to much stronger andclearer conclusions on the scienceand impacts of climate change, aswell as on the economics ofcombating climate change thaneither of it’s two predecessors in1990 and 1995. The TAR depicts anincreasingly dramatic situation thathumanity and the earth’s naturalecosystems are facing due to climatechange predictions, unless actions tomitigate climate change are adoptedand successfully implementedKey findings of IPCC WorkingGroup I on the scientific aspects ofthe climate system and climatechange are:
There is new and strongerevidence that most of theobserved warming over thelast 50 years is attributableto human activities. …
“[M]ost of the observedwarming over the last 50years is likely to have beendue to the increase in
greenhouse gasconcentrations. …
“[I]t is very likely that the20th century warming hascontributed significantly tothe observed sea level rise…
“About three quarters of theanthropogenic emissions ofCO2 to the atmosphereduring the past 20 years aredue to fossil fuel burning”.
Not only has the IPCC considerablystrengthened its opinion that therecent warming is mostly due tohuman activities, it links thisincrease principally to the burning offossil fuels.
The IPCC has projected a higher rateof temperature increase than in theSecond Assessment Report:
“The anticipated increase intemperature over the nextcentury has increased from arange of 1 – 3.5° C in theIPCC’s Second AssessmentReport, to 1.4 – 5.8°C;”
This report has also found that:
“The projected rate ofwarming is much larger thanthe observed changes duringthe 20th century and is verylikely without precedentduring at least the last10,000 years…”
The report finds that there is a risk oflarge positive feedbacks from theresponse of the biosphere to climatewhich would significantly enhanceclimate change. Human induced climate
6
change could cause forest diebackreleasing huge volumes of carbon to theatmosphere, substantially increasing CO2concentrations in the coming century.
Impacts Assessment
IPCC Working Group II addresses thevulnerability of socio-economic andnatural systems to climate change,negative and positive consequences ofclimate change, and options for adapting.This working group has found thatwarming in the last few decades isalready having an effect on naturalsystems:
“Thus, from the collectiveevidence there is high confidencethat recent regional changes intemperature have had discernibleimpacts on many physical andbiological systems"
Some of the most immediate threatsidentified by the IPCC come fromextreme weather events. The greatestdangers-those that would result in globalcatastrophe-are posed by the potential forlarge scale and irreversible impacts.
Among Working Group II’s mainconclusions are that projected human-induced climate change:
• Risks large scale and irreversibleimpacts, such as the melting of theGreenland and Antarctic ice sheets,the slowing down or shutting down ofthe Gulf Stream, and massive releasesof greenhouse gases from meltingpermafrost and dying forests;
• Will have severe impacts on aregional level. For instance, inEurope, river flooding will increase
over much of the continent; and incoastal areas, the risk of flooding,erosion and wetland loss will increasesubstantially;
• Will have the greatest impacts onthose least able to protect themselvesfrom rising sea levels, increase indisease and decrease in agriculturalproduction in the developingcountries in Africa and Asia. At allscales of climate change, developingcountries will suffer the most. Morepeople will be harmed than benefited,even for small amounts of warming.
Mitigation Assessment
IPCC Working Group III has found thatthe cost of fulfilling the Kyotocommitments and further reducingemissions are relatively low.
The report finds that it is possible tostabilize carbon dioxide concentrations inthe atmosphere at well below doubling ofCO2 above pre-industrial levels (at orbelow 450 ppmv). This is based on aconservative assessment with no newtechnological breakthroughs. However, itfinds that government policies to put inplace energy efficient technologies and tointroduce more rapidly low, or no-carbonenergy supply technologies are needed ifthis is to be achieved. Stabilization ofCO2 will require, in addition to emissionreduction action in the developedcountries, technology transfer todeveloping countries.
Working Group III warns that the choiceof energy investments in the future willdetermine whether or not, and at whatlevel and cost CO2 concentrations can bestabilized. At present the report finds thatinvestment is directed towards
7
discovering and developing moreconventional and unconventional fossilresources.
The limited scale of conventional oil andgas resources means there will have to bea change in the mixture of fossil fuelsused in the next century. In replacing oiland gas there is a choice between eitherunconventional fossil fuels (tar sands, oilshales, methane hydrates or using coal tomake liquid fuels) or non-fossilalternatives. The carbon contained inunconventional oil and gas deposits andcoal contain more than enough carbon,which if released to the atmosphere,would increase CO2 to very high levels.
Finally, the report confirms the finding ofthe 1995 IPCC report that early action toreduce emissions is needed. The reportnotes that a gradual transition in the nearterm of the world energy system towardslower carbon emissions will minimize thecosts arising from the prematureretirement of capital stock (eg closingdown coal fired power stations).
However, more rapid short term action toreduce emissions would decrease the riskof human and environmental damagesfrom climate change and stimulate thedeployment of low carbon technologiesand help to avoid locking in carbonintensive technologies.
Figure 5(d) from IPCC WGI Summary for Policy Makers
8
Summary of Impacts by Temperature BandHuman Health Impacts:
Expected temperature increases will strain healthservices currently struggling to cope withinfectious diseases and infrastructure deficiencies.
Increase of temperature up to 2ºC:
Direct - more heat-related deaths especiallyamong vulnerable populations;
Indirect - more illness and death resulting fromincreased frequency and intensity of extremeweather events.
Increased risks to human life, risk of infectiousdisease epidemics, and many other health riskswhere floods, droughts or storms increase infrequency and/or intensity. Increased heatrelated deaths and illness, affecting particularlythe elderly, sick, and those without access to airconditioning
Increase of temperature between 2-3ºC:
Indirect - greater exposure to infectiousdiseases such as malaria and dengue.Expansion of the areas of potential transmissionof malaria and dengue fever with roughly 300million more people at risk of malaria.
(Decrease in cold weather-related deaths willoccur in counties that are already more resilientto the impacts of climate change.)
Ecosystem Impacts:
Minimal temperature increases are alreadydestroying sensitive ecosystems while species dieoff is underway—a portent for the next fewdecades.
Increase of temperature up to 1ºC:
Shrinking ice and snow cover disruptshydroelectric capacity and systems dependenton spring thaw timing.
Changes in growing seasons, shifts inpopulation ranges, and premature reproductionin plants, insects, and birds threaten the integrityof complex systems dependent on timing of
seed dispersal, pollination, availability of food,etc.
Extinction of some critically endangered andendangered species. Species immediatelythreatened by rising sea levels and shrinkingranges include the Bengal tiger (Ganges delta),the mountain gorilla (Central Africa), thespectacled bear (Andes mountains),resplendent Quetzal (Central America).
Increase of temperature between 1-2ºC:
Wildfires and insect infestations will disruptrelationships in complex ecosystems alreadyundergoing stress from direct effects of heat.Increased disturbances of ecosystems by fireand insect pests-
Coral bleaching events will increase infrequency and duration, leading to destruction ofbrain corals and loss of related reef ecosystems.
Loss of up to 10% of coastal wetlands globallyfrom sea level rise will eliminate habitat of majormigratory bird populations.
Increases of temperature between 2-3ºC:
Reduction of ice cover during Arctic summer willeliminate habitat of seals, walruses, and polarbears.
Some unique biodiversity hotspots alreadypressed to latitude or altitude limits will be lost,such South Africa’s Cape Fynbos region andCosta Rica’s cloud forests.
Increases of temperature between 3-4ºC:
Elimination of tropical glaciers and significantreduction in ice cap and temperate glaciervolume will alter hydrology and dependentecosystems.
Coral death from sea temperature increaseslasting for 6 months or more will eliminate wholereef ecosystems.
Other ecosystems under threat include atolls,mangroves, boreal and tropical forests, alpinemeadows, prairie wetlands, and remnant nativegrasslands.
9
Summary of Impacts by Temperature Band
Agricultural Impacts:
Nations, regions, and communities alreadystruggling to feed themselves will face furtherdifficulties due to the effects of highertemperatures, altered hydrology, and extremeweather events on agriculture.
Increase of temperature between 1-2ºC:
Heat waves will damage crops (rice unable toform grains, fruit unable to set) and livestock willsuffer from heat stress (reductions of milkproduction and conception difficulties in dairycows).
Decreased cereal crop yields in tropical andsubtropical regions would reverse agriculturalself-sufficiency progress in many developingnations.
Increased cereal crop yields in many mid- andhigh latitude regions providing adaptationopportunities are available and water stressdoes not outweigh CO2 fertilization effect.
Increases of temperature between 2-3ºC:
Food prices will increase throughout the globaleconomy.
Crop yields will drop in regions affected by moredrought conditions.
General decrease in cereal crop yields extend tomid-latitude, temperate regions.
Water Resource Impacts:
The effects of climate changes on water scarcity,water quality, and the frequency and intensity offloods and droughts, will intensify demands onwater and flood management.
Increase of temperature between 1-2ºC:
Decreased water supply will be available inregions already suffering from water scarcity
such as the Mediterranean, southern Africa, andarid parts of central and south Asia affecting halfa billion people.
Increases of temperature between 2-3ºC:
More flood damage will result from intensestorms, especially in areas affected bydeforestation, wildfires, insect infestations, andecosystem degradation.
Areas of increasing drought will suffer fromdecreases in water quantity and quality.
Market Impacts:
The effects of climate change will have marketsector effects by changing the abundance, quality,and prices of food, fibre, water, and other goodsand services.
Less than 1ºC warming:
Net negative market sector impacts indeveloping countries and net market sectorgains in developed countries. Applying moreweight to impacts on poor countries indicatesnegative aggregate impacts globally.
Increase of temperature between 1-2ºC:
Many developing countries will suffer from netmarket losses in important sectors.
Energy demands for air conditioning willincrease.
Increasing frequency and intensity of extremeweather events will result in increased insurancecosts and decreased insurance availability(coastal areas, floodplains).
Increases of temperature between 2-3ºC:
Most regions will suffer net market losses inimportant sectors that will affect globalaggregates.
10
Introduction
This Greenpeace Internationalbriefing paper is designed to presentthe salient points emerging from therecently completed ThirdAssessment Report (TAR) of theIntergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC).
The TAR contains a very largeamount of information that has beeninterpreted and compiled intoSummaries for Policymakers andTechnical Summaries that areavailable at the IPCC website:http://www.ipcc.ch. This documentrepresents a selective summary ofthe WG I, II, and III Summary forPolicy Makers. Items in quotationmarks are taken from theSummary(s) for Policy Makers.
Background: The IPCC
Recognizing the problem ofpotential global climate change, theWorld Meteorological Organization(WMO) and the United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP)established the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC) in1988. It is open to all members ofthe UNEP and WMO. The role ofthe IPCC is to assess the scientific,technical and socio-economicinformation relevant for theunderstanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does notcarry out new research nor does itmonitor climate related data. It basesits assessment mainly on publishedand peer reviewed scientifictechnical literature.
The IPCC has three working groups:
• Working Group I assessesthe scientific aspects of theclimate system and climatechange.
• Working Group II addressesthe vulnerability of socio-economic and naturalsystems to climate change,negative and positiveconsequences of climatechange, and options foradapting to it.
• Working Group III assessesoptions for limiting greenhousegas emissions and otherwisemitigating climate change (not theimpacts and of climate change).
The IPCC completed its FirstAssessment Report in 1990. Thisreport played an important role inestablishing the IntergovernmentalNegotiating Committee for a UNFramework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC) by the UNGeneral Assembly. The UNFCCCwas adopted in 1992 and enteredinto force in 1994. It provides theoverall policy framework foraddressing the climate change issue.
The IPCC continues to providescientific, technical and socio-economic advice to the worldcommunity. In particular, it advisesthe 170-plus Parties to the UNFCCCthrough its periodic assessmentreports on the state of knowledge ofcauses of climate change, itspotential impacts and options forresponse strategies. Its Second
11
Assessment Report, Climate Change1995, provided key input to thenegotiations, which lead to theadoption of the Kyoto Protocol tothe UNFCCC in 1997.
The most recent Third AssessmentReport is a comprehensive and up-to-date assessment of the policy-relevant scientific, technical, andsocio-economic dimensions ofclimate change. It concentrates onnew findings since 1995, paysgreater attention to the regional (inaddition to the global) scale, andincludes non-English literature to theextent possible.
Working Group I Findings
In January 2001 governmentrepresentatives met in Shanghai tonegotiate and approve the Summaryfor Policymakers of the IPCCWorking Group I contribution to theThird Assessment Report on ClimateChange 2001: The Scientific Basis.
Warming of the last 50 years is mostlydue to human activities, principallyburning of fossil fuels.
“There is new and strongerevidence that most of theobserved warming over the last50 years is attributable to humanactivities”.
• “…[M]ost of the observedwarming over the last 50years is likely to have beendue to the increase ingreenhouse gasconcentrations”.
• “…[I]t is very likely that the20th century warming hascontributed significantly tothe observed sea level rise…”(10 –20 cm over the lastcentury).
• “About three quarters of theanthropogenic emissions ofCO2 to the atmosphere duringthe past 20 years are due tofossil fuel burning”.
Risks of warming are increasing andwe are already seeing the first signs ofthis.
• “Globally it is very likely thatthe 1990s were the warmestdecade and 1998 the warmestyear in the instrumentalrecord since 1861.”
• “The anticipated increase intemperature over the nextcentury has increased from arange of 1 – 3.5° C in theIPCC’s Second AssessmentReport, to 1.4 – 5.8°C;
• “The projected rate ofwarming is much larger thanthe observed changes duringthe 20th century and is verylikely without precedentduring at least the last 10,000years…”;
• There is very likely to be anincrease in extreme weatherevents such as heat waves,increased precipitationleading to floods, and higher
12
minimum temperatures andfewer cold days;
• There is likely to be anincrease in the risk of droughtin the mid-latitudes interiorsof continents;
• There is likely to be anincrease in some areas in thepeak wind and precipitationintensities of tropicalcyclones;
• 20th century trends ofincreasing temperature, sea-level rise, and increasedprecipitation will continueand intensify in the 21stcentury unless emissions arereduced;
• The anticipated range ofglobal sea level rise over thenext century is now between 9and 88 cm, compared to 13-94centimeters in the IPCC’sSecond Assessment Report;
• Glaciers and polar ice willcontinue to melt and therewill be a continued decreasein Northern Hemisphere snowand ice cover;
• “[G]lobal warming is likely tolead to greater extremes ofdrying and heavy rainfall andincrease rainfall and increasethe risk of droughts andfloods that occur with El Ninoevents in many differentregions.”
• “It is likely that warmingassociated with increasing
greenhouse gas concentrationswill cause an increase ofAsian summer monsoonprecipitation variability”;
• Climate change will persistfor many centuries, due to thelong life of greenhouse gasesin the atmosphere however“…the lower the level atwhich CO2 concentrations arestabilised, the smaller the totaltemperature change”.
Unless emissions are reduced, there is amajor risk that the warming expectedduring the next five decades wouldtrigger meltdown of the Greenland icesheet.
• “Ice sheets will continue toreact to climate warming andcontribute to sea level rise forthousands of years afterclimate has been stabilised.”
• Warming around Greenland islikely to be from 1-3 times theglobal average warming,which as noted above isprojected to be in the range1.4-5.8ºC, hence a 3ºCwarming around Greenlandappears likely within the nextcentury and probably withinthe next 50 years unlessaction is taken to reduceemissions.
• Ice sheet models project that alocal warming of larger than3°C, if sustained formillennia, would lead tovirtually a complete meltingof the Greenland ice sheet
13
with a resulting sea level riseof about 7 metres.
• “Current ice dynamic modelssuggest that the WestAntarctic Ice Sheet couldcontribute up to 3 meters tosea level rise over the next1000 years…”
Risk of large positive feedbacks fromthe response of the biosphere toclimate which would significantlyenhance climate change.
The risk of large positive feedbacksfrom the biosphere is presented inthe Summary for Policy Makers inthe following way:
• “As the CO2 concentration of theatmosphere increases, ocean andland will take up a decreasingfraction of anthropogenic CO2emissions. The net effect of landand ocean climate feedbacks asindicated by models is to furtherincrease projected atmosphericCO2 concentrations, by reducingboth the ocean and land uptake ofCO2 . By 2100, carbon cyclemodels project atmospheric CO 2concentrations of 540 to 970 ppmfor the illustrative SRES scenarios(90 to 250% above theconcentration of 280 ppm in theyear 1750)... Uncertainties,especially about the magnitude ofthe climate feedback from theterrestrial biosphere, cause avariation of about �10 to �30%around each scenario. The totalrange is 490 to 1260 ppm (75 to350% above the 1750concentration).”
Decoding these paragraphs, the clearmessage is that there is a significantrisk that feedbacks from thebiosphere (forest decline, increasedfires and losses of carbon fromwarming soils caused by climatechange) could enhance CO2concentrations by nearly 300 ppmvCO2 by 2100. In other words themagnitude of the potential positivefeedback is equivalent, in CO2concentration terms, to a doubling ofCO2 above pre-industrial levels.
Main Conclusions
• The warming of last 50years is mostly due tohuman activities,principally the burning offossil fuels.
• The risks of warming areincreasing and we arealready seeing the firstsigns of this.
• One of the major risksidentified is that warmingin the next five decadescould be large enough totrigger meltdown ofGreenland ice sheet, unlessemissions are reduced.
• There is a high risk of moreextreme events includingflooding, drought and moreintense storms.
• Positive feedbacks from theimpacts of climate changeon forests couldsubstantially accelerate thewarming.
14
Working Group II Findings
In February 2001 governmentrepresentatives met in Geneva tonegotiate and approve the Summaryfor Policymakers of the IPCCWorking Group II of the ThirdAssessment Report on ClimateChange 2001: Impacts, Adaptation,and Vulnerability. The reportemphasized the threats to nature andsociety posed by climate change.
Impacts of upper temperatureprojections not examined
As noted above the WG1 TARprojects to cause average globaltemperatures to warm 1.4 to 5.8ºCby 2100 relative to the 1990temperature average, however theWorking Group II assessment doesnot investigate the upper end of thistemperature range. The availableliterature on climate impacts that ingeneral do not investigate theimpacts associated with the upperrange of increased averagetemperatures. Therefore, impactsfrom the higher range of warmingestimates are not represented in thisreport.
Threats to most natural and manyhuman systems
The report finds that climate changepresents are a threat to most naturalsystems. Those natural systemsthreatened include glaciers, coralreefs, mangroves, arctic ecosystems,
alpine ecosystems, prairie wetlands,native grasslands, and biodiversity“hotspots”. Climate change willincrease existing risks of speciesextinction and biodiversity loss inecosystems at every latitude and ineach region. The level of damagewill increase with the magnitude andrate of global warming.
Threats to human systems, beyondthe loss of natural ecosystems,derive from threats to waterresources, agriculture, forestry,health, settlements, energy, industry,and financial services. Vulnerabilityof particular human populations isdetermined by degree of the natureof the threat, sensitivity and abilityto adapt--characteristics that dependon geographic location anddevelopment level of social,economic and environmentalconditions. Tens of millions ofpeople living in low lying coastalareas face the risk of having to movedue to flooding.
Changes already underway
Observed 20th century climatechanges have already affectedphysical systems. Examples includeshrinkage of glaciers, thawing ofpermafrost, later freezing and earlierbreakup of ice on rivers and lakes.Biological systems also appear to beresponding through the lengtheningof growing seasons, animal rangeshifts to higher altitudes andlatitudes, declines of some animalpopulations, and earlier treeflowering, insect emergence, andbird egg laying.
15
• “there is emerging evidencethat some social andeconomic systems have beeneffected by the recentincreasing frequency of floodsand droughts in some areas.”
• “Thus, from the collectiveevidence there is highconfidence that recentregional changes intemperature have haddiscernible impacts on manyphysical and biologicalsystems".
Associations between these physicaland biological phenomena andchanges in regional climate havebeen documented in aquatic,terrestrial, and marine environmentson all continents.
Threats from extreme whether events
While a change in averagetemperatures or precipitation canhave significant impacts, the changesin extremes are most immediate andhave great negative effects. Thereport outlines the following threats:
• Increased frequency of heatwaves will increase crop andlivestock losses, frequency ofwildfires, wildlife mortality,energy demand for cooling,and human deaths and illnessfrom heat stress and airpollution.
• Decreased frequency of coldwaves and fewer frost dayswill extend the range of somepests and disease vectors
while reducing losses due tocold.
• Increased frequency of highintensity rainfall will increaseflood (and flash flood) risk,with consequent propertydamage, soil erosion, flushedpollutants, health threats, anddeaths.
• More frequent drought inmid-latitude continentalinteriors will increaseagricultural losses, threatenterrestrial and aquaticecosystems, reduce qualityand availability of water withconsequent health effects, andpromote land subsidence.
• Increased intensity andfrequency of tropical cycloneswill threaten property, coastalstability, ecosystems, health,and life.
• Any increase in intensity andfrequency of extreme climateevents will increase demandson already overburdenedpublic and private financialmechanisms to cover weatherrelated losses.
Potential for Large Scale andIrreversible Impacts
The most troubling researchconsiders the possibility ofirreversible, large scale, and abrupteffects triggered by human inducedclimate change. The report finds thatthat greenhouse gas increases overthe next century could trigger largescale and irreversible impacts.
16
These events may not be likely tooccur in the next century but there isa significant likelihood that theycould be triggered by humanactivities in the next 100 years.Amongst these risks are:
• The slowing down or stoppingof the North Atlantic’sthermohaline circulationwhich could plunge Europeinto the climate regimeexperienced by Labrador.
• Melting of the Greenland andWest Antarctic Ice Sheets,which could lead to up to 3metres of sea level rise eachover the next 1000 years and“submerge many smallislands and inundate extensivecoastal areas.”
• *Acceleration of globalwarming caused by releasesof carbon to the atmospherefrom forest disturbance whichis itself caused by climatechange.
• Releases of terrestrial carboncaused by the meltingpermafrost and releases ofmethane, a powerfulgreenhouse gas, from thedecomposition of hydratesunder coastal sediments onthe sea bed “would furtherincrease greenhouse gasconcentrations and amplifyclimate change”.
The timing of the triggering of theseevents are uncertain but theirlikelihood increases with the rate,
magnitude and duration of climatechange.
Developing Countries most at risk
The report finds that developingcountries are most at risk fromclimate change. Global increases intemperature would produce neteconomic losses in many developingcountries for all magnitudes ofwarming and these losses would begreater the higher the warming.Those with the least resources havethe least ability to adapt, and will bemost damaged by climate change.Increase in global meantemperatures will produce neteconomic losses in many developingcountries for all magnitudes ofwarming, and the condition is mostextreme among the poorest people inthese countries
• “The effects of climatechange are expected to begreatest in developingcountries in terms of loss oflife and relative effects oninvestment and the economy.For example, the relativepercentage damages to GDPfrom climate extremes havebeen substantially greater indeveloping countries than indeveloped countries.”
• “The projected distribution ofeconomic impacts is such thatit would increase the disparityin well-being betweendeveloped countries anddeveloping countries, withdisparity growing for higherprojected temperatureincreases.”
17
• “…[I]ncreases in global meantemperatures would producenet economic losses in manydeveloping countries for allmagnitudes of warmingstudied, and losses would begreater in magnitude thehigher the level of warming.
• “In contrast an increase inglobal mean temperature ofup to a few degrees C wouldproduce a mixture ofeconomic gains and losses indeveloped countries, witheconomic losses for largertemperature increases.”
More people projected to be harmedthan benefited even for small warming
• “More people are projected tobe harmed than benefited byclimate change, even forglobal mean temperatureincreases of less than a fewdegrees"
Extensive Regional ImpactsIdentified
Africa
The impacts of climate changethreaten large populations of Africaalready struggling for sustainabledevelopment.
“Grain yields are projected todecrease for many scenarios,diminishing food security,
particularly in small food-importing countries.”
In a region already facing the effectsof AIDS and malnutrition, climatechange will foster the expansion of ahost of infectious diseases.
“Extension of ranges of infectiousdisease vectors would adverselyaffect human health in Africa.”
Floods, famine, and refugeemigrations are very likely as climatechange tips the balance inoverburdened regions of the Africancontinent.
“Increases in droughts, floods,and other extreme events wouldadd to stresses on waterresources, food security, humanhealth, and infrastructures, andwould constrain development inAfrica.”
As climate change grips Africa andvital ecosystems wither, some of therichest biodiversity on Earth is likelyto disappear.
“Significant extinctions of plantand animal species are projectedand would impact rurallivelihoods, tourism, and geneticresources.”
Asia
Climate change is already beingexperienced across the Asiancontinent.
“Extreme events have increasedin temperate and tropical Asia,
18
including floods, droughts, forestfires, and tropical cyclones.”
Climate change is likely to bringdisruption and instability to millionsof people in Asia.
“Decreases in agriculturalproductivity and aquaculture dueto thermal and water stress, sealevel-rise, floods and droughts,and tropical cyclones woulddiminish food security in manycountries of arid, tropical, andtemperate Asia; agriculture wouldexpand and increase inproductivity in northern areas.
In the most densely populatedregions of the world, climate changeis likely to intensify threats frominfectious disease.
“Human health would bethreatened by possible increasedexposure to vector- borneinfectious diseases and heat stressin parts of Asia.”
Mega-cities and densely populatedareas along the Pacific and IndianOcean coastlines are caught betweenthe threats of sea level rise and riverflooding from increased upstreamprecipitation.
“Sea level rise and an increase inintensity of tropical cycloneswould displace tens of millions ofpeople in low-lying coastal areasof temperate and tropical Asia;increased intensity of rainfallwould increase flood risks intemperate and tropical Asia”.
The combined effects of acceleratingclimate change and land-usepressures are fragmenting and likelyto significantly damage Asianecosystems that comprise some ofthe richest biodiversity on Earth.
• “Climate change wouldexacerbate threats tobiodiversity due to land-useand land-cover change andpopulation pressure in Asia.Sea level rise would putecological security at risk,including mangroves andcoral reefs.”
“Many species of mammals andbirds could be exterminated as aresult of the synergistic effects ofclimate change and habitatfragmentation.”
Australia and New Zealand
Despite the hopes that climatechange will be a help for some cropsin Australia and New Zealand, anyshort-term gains for some crops insome regions are likely to beoverwhelmed by other regionallosses and long term damage.
“The net impact on sometemperate crops of climate andCO2 changes may initially bebeneficial, but this balance isexpected to become negative forsome areas and crops with furtherclimate change.”
Droughts and fires will be even morecommon and water more valuable asgreat portions of Australia dry up.
19
“Water is likely to be a key issuedue to projected drying trendsover much of the region andchange to a more El Nino-likeaverage state.”
Threats from extreme events arelikely to change the lives of manyAustralians.
“Increases in the intensity ofheavy rains and tropical cyclones,and region-specific changes in thefrequency of tropical cyclones,would alter the risks to life,property, and ecosystems fromflooding, storm surges, and winddamage.”
The unique biological evolutionaryline that has evolved in Australia andNew Zealand over millions of years,as well as some of the richestbiodiversity on Earth could bedevastated by climate change.
“Some species with restrictedclimatic niches and which areunable to migrate due tofragmentation of the landscape,soil differences, or topographycould become endangered orextinct.
“Australian ecosystems that areparticularly vulnerable to climatechange include coral reefs, aridand semi-arid habitats insouthwest and inland Australiaand Australian alpine systems.”
“Freshwater wetlands in coastalzones in both Australia and NewZealand are vulnerable, and someNew Zealand ecosystems are
vulnerable to accelerated invasionby weeds.”
Europe
Glaciers and distribution ofpermafrost are sensitive indicators ofclimate change. In Europe they areboth shrinking at an unprecedentedrate.
“Half of alpine glaciers and largepermafrost areas could disappearby the end of the 21st century.”
Expected flood patterns will placelarge portions of Europe at high risk.
“River flood hazard will increaseacross much of Europe; in coastalareas, the risk of flooding,erosion, and wetland loss willincrease substantially withimplications for humansettlement, industry, tourism,agriculture, and coastal naturalhabitats.”
Many Alpine ecosystems are verylikely to disappear, along with vasttracts of precious wildlife habitat.
“Upward and northward shift ofbiotic zones will take place. Lossof important habitats (wetlands,tundra, isolated habitats) wouldthreaten some species.”
Latin America
Glaciers are shrinking in LatinAmerica also, where they supply thewater necessary for agriculture andenergy production as well asresidential and industrial use.
20
“Loss and retreat of glacierswould adversely impact runoffand water supply in areas whereglacier melt is an important watersource.”
In parts of Latin America, there willbe increasing frequency of damagingextreme events.
“Floods and droughts wouldbecome more frequent withfloods increasing sediment loadsand degrade water supply in someareas.”
In Central and equatorial America,the devastation of tropical cyclonescould get worse.
“Increases in intensity of tropicalcyclones would alter the risks tolife, property, and ecosystemsfrom heavy rain, flooding, stormsurges, and wind damages. “
Food security could become aserious problem for many countriesin Latin America.
“Yields of important crops areprojected to decrease in manylocations in Latin America evenwhen the effects of CO2 are takeninto account; subsistence farmingin some regions of Latin Americacould be threatened.”
Latin American problems withinfectious diseases that thrive in awarming world could beexacerbated.
“The geographical distribution ofvector-borne infectious diseases
would expand poleward and tohigher elevations, and exposuresto diseases such as malaria,dengue fever, and cholera willincrease.”
In Latin America, valuableecosystem resources will disappear,as already threatened biodiversityhotspots get hotter.
“The rate of biodiversity losswould increase.”
North America
Climate change is likely to destroyecosystems that define the NorthAmerican wilderness.
“Unique natural ecosystems suchas prairie wetlands, alpine tundra,and cold water ecosystems will beat risk and effective adaptation isunlikely.”
Large expanses of the NorthAmerican Atlantic coastal regionsare very likely to be threatened.
“Sea-level rise would result inenhanced coastal erosion, coastalflooding, loss of coastal wetlands,and increased risk from stormsurges, particularly in Florida andmuch of the US Atlantic coast.”
Insurance companies andgovernment disaster relief agenciesin North America are faced withincreasing demands from victims ofweather events and are unpreparedfor projected threats.
“Weather-related insured lossesand public sector disaster relief
21
payments in North America havebeen increasing; insurance sectorplanning has not yetsystematically included climatechange information, so there ispotential for surprise.”
As North America copes with threatsfrom unusual weather, risk fromclimate change induced healthproblems is likely to increase.
“Vector-borne diseases—including malaria, dengue fever,and Lyme disease—may expandtheir ranges in North America;exacerbated air quality and heatstress morbidity and mortalitywould occur socioeconomicfactors and public healthmeasures would play a large rolein determining the incidence andextent of health effects.”
Polar Regions
Rising temperatures in polar regionsare already causing problems fortraditional communities andpriceless ecosystems.
“Natural systems in polar regionsare highly vulnerable to climatechange and current ecosystemshave low adaptive capacity;technologically developedcommunities are likely to adaptreadily to climate change butsome indigenous communities, inwhich traditional lifestyles arefollowed, have little capacity andfew options for adaptation.”
Polar regions are already warming atalarming rates and many of their
ecosystems cannot survive theexpected rates of further warming.
“Climate change in polar regionsis expected to be among thelargest and most rapid of anyregion on the Earth, and willcause major physical, ecological,sociological, and economicimpacts especially in the Arctic,Antarctic Peninsula, and SouthernOcean.”
“Changes in climate that havealready taken place aremanifested in the decrease inextent and thickness of Arctic seaice, permafrost thawing, coastalerosion, changes in ice sheets andice shelves, and altereddistribution and abundance ofspecies in the Polar regions.”
Small Island States
The effects of sea level rise will beinfluencing, if not dominating, thesocioeconomic reality in many smallisland states from now on.
“The projected sea level rise of5mm per year for the next 100years will cause enhanced coastalerosion, loss of land and property,dislocation of people, increasedrisk from storm surges, reducedresilience of coastal ecosystems,saltwater intrusions intofreshwater resources, and highresource costs to respond to andadapt to these changes”.
Fresh water will become even morecrucial to small islands with climatechange.
22
“Islands with very limited watersupplies are highly vulnerable tothe impacts of climate change onthe water balance.
Current threats to the rich andunique coastal ecosystems of smallislands are exacerbated by theincreasing rates of climate change.
“Coral reefs will be negativelyaffected by bleaching and byreduced calcification rates due tohigher carbon dioxide levels,mangrove, sea grass beds, othercoastal ecosystems and theassociated biodiversity would beadversely affected by risingtemperatures and accelerated sealevel rise”.
The reef fisheries that supportpopulations on small island states areseverely threatened by expectedweakening and damage to coastalecosystems.
“Declines in coastal ecosystemswould negatively impact reef fishand threaten reef fisheries, thosewho earn their livelihoods fromreef fisheries, and those who relyon the fisheries as a significantfood source”.
Agricultural limitations on smallislands will be worsened by theprecipitation variability and sea levelrise resulting from climate change.
“Limited arable land and soilsalinization makes agriculture ofSmall Island States, both fordomestic food production andcash crop exports, highlyvulnerable to climate change.”
The socioeconomic repercussions ofclimate change threaten smallislands’ hopes of eco-tourism andsustainable development.
“Tourism, an important source ofincome and foreign exchange formany islands, will face severedisruption from climate changeand sea level rise.”
Main Conclusions
From the findings of the 2nd TARworking group Greenpeace comes tothe following main conclusions:
• Expected changes arealready underway.
• Both natural and humansystems are under threat.
• Threats from extremeweather events are mostimmediate.
• The greatest dangers areposed by the potential forlarge scale and irreversibleimpacts.
• Developing countries willsuffer the most.
• More people will beharmed than benefited,even for small amounts ofwarming.
23
Working Group III Findings
In late February and early March 2001government representatives met in Accra,Ghana to negotiate and approve theSummary for Policymakers of the IPCCWorking Group III contribution to theThird Assessment Report on ClimateChange 2001: Mitigation. The Reportpresents potential approaches to efficientand effective stabilization of GHGconcentrations in the atmosphere.
Relatively low cost of greenhouse gasemission reductions
The report notes that the progress ontechnologies to reduce emissions hasbeen faster in the last five years thanpreviously anticipated, particularly inrelation to wind turbines, fuel celltechnology, and renewable biomass fuels:
“Significant technical progressrelevant to greenhouse gasemissions reduction has beenmade since the SAR in 1995 andhas been faster than anticipated.”
“Technological options for emissionsreduction include improved efficiencyof end use devices and energyconversion technologies, shift to low-carbon and renewable biomass fuels,zero-emissions technologies, improvedenergy management, reduction ofindustrial by-product and process gasemissions and carbon removal andstorage.”
Using known and currently availabletechnologies, global greenhouseemissions can be reduced below year2000 levels in period 2010-2020 at zero
net costs with at least half of thisachievable at a profit (negative costs):
“Half of these potential emissionsreductions may be achieved by 2020with direct benefits (energy saved)exceeding direct costs (net capital,operating, and maintenance costs), andthe other half at a net direct cost of upto US$100/tCeq (at 1998 prices)”.
Government action and policies removingboth subsidies to fossil fuel productionand use and barriers to market debut ofemission reducing technologies areneeded to harvest these gains in a mostsuccessful way:
“Policies such as the removal ofsubsidies from fossil fuels mayincrease total societal benefitsthrough gains in economicefficiency…”
“Reduction of existing market orinstitutional failures and otherbarriers that impede adoption ofcost-effective emission reductionmeasures can lower private costscompared to current practice”.
Hundreds of technologies are currentlyavailable to improve energy efficiency:
“Hundreds of technologies andpractices for end-use energyefficiency in buildings, transportand manufacturing industriesaccount for more than half of thispotential.”
Stabilization of CO2 in the atmosphereat or below 450 ppmv is possible
24
Acknowledged conservativeestimates considering no newtechnological breakthroughs indicatethat it is possible to stabilize carbondioxide concentrations in theatmosphere at or below 450 ppmv.
“Most model results indicate thatknown technological optionscould achieve a broad range ofatmospheric CO 2 stabilisationlevels, such as 550ppmv,450ppmv or below over the next100 years or more, butimplementation would requireassociated socio-economic andinstitutional changes.”
Energy Investments need to bechanged if stabilization is to be possible
The report contains a warning thatthe choice of energy investments inthe future will determine whether ornot--and at what level and cost--CO2concentrations can be stabilized.
“Developing a response toclimate change is characterizedby decision making underuncertainty and risk, including thepossibility of non linear riskand/or irreversible changes.”
“The choice of energy mix andassociated investments willdetermine, whether and if so atwhat level and cost greenhousegas concentrations can bestabilized.”
“Currently such investment isdirected towards discovering anddeveloping more conventional
and unconventional fossilresources.”
To achieve this goal, government policiesmust encourage the adoption of energyefficient technologies and the rapidintroduction of more low- or no-carbonenergy supply technologies. It is veryimportant to start this change now, asenergy sector investments have a long lifetime and thus the choices of today willdetermine the opportunities for the future,especially in developing countries:
“For the crucial energy sector, almostall greenhouse gas mitigation andconcentration stabilisation scenariosare characterised by the introductionof efficient technologies for bothenergy use and supply, and of low- orno-carbon energy.
Stabilization of CO2 will require, inaddition to emission reduction actionin the developed countries,technology transfer to developingcountries:
“Transfer of technologiesbetween countries and regionswill widen the choice of optionsat the regional level andeconomies of scale and learningwill lower the costs of theiradoption.”
Current fossil fuel reserves if releasedto the atmosphere would lead to veryhigh atmospheric CO2 levels.
Lower emissions and stabilization ofCO2 concentration require differentenergy developments
25
The report contains several interlockingconclusions relating to the question offossil fuel supply, oil and gas abundanceand the question of stabilizingatmospheric CO2 concentrations.
“there are abundant fossil fuelresources that will not limitcarbon emissions during the21.century”.
Fossil fuel scarcity will not limitcarbon dioxide emissions thiscentury however the report pointsout that the supply of oil and gas ispotentially limited:
“different from the large coal andunconventional oil and gasdeposits, the carbon in provenconventional oil and gas reserves,are much less than the cumulativecarbon emissions associated withstabilization of carbon dioxide at450 ppmv or higher”
Whilst this shows that provenconventional oil and gas reserves areless than the carbon emissionsassociated with stabilization of CO2at 450 ppmv or higher this begs thequestion as to whether this level issafe or not. Greenpeace believesthat it is not safe. Resources of coaland unconventional oils are farlarger than the amount of carbon thatcan possibly be emitted to theatmosphere without dramaticconsequences. Currently, the shareof coal in the global energy mix isabove 30%, and expected to grow inthe absence of efficient GHGpolicies.
The limited supply of oil and natural gasimplies that there has to be a change from
oil and perhaps gas to some other fuelsources at some point in the next century
“These (fossil fuel) resource datamay imply a change in the energymix and introduction of newsources of energy during the 21stcentury.”
The choice of this transition willdetermine whether nor not and if so atwhat level CO2 can be stabilized:
“The choice of energy mix andassociated investments willdetermine, whether and if so atwhat level and cost greenhousegas concentrations can bestabilized.”
In other words if the change is to coaland/or unconventional oil then it may notbe possible to stabilize atmospheric CO2at low levels or at all. The changeinvolves substantial investment over along period either towardsunconventional or towards non-fossilalternatives. The Draft Summary forPolicy makers contained an importantfinding in this issue:
“The transition to sources otherthan conventional oil and gasreserves involves substantialinvestment over a long period,either towards unconventionalfossil resources or towards non-fossil alternatives.”
This was removed in the final draft at theinsistence of a number of countries led bythe USA for essentially political reasons.
Nevertheless the report finds that:
“Currently such investment isdirected towards discovering and
26
developing more conventionaland unconventional fossilresources.”
Choices have to be made in the energysystem toward either fossil intensiveinvestments or towards low carbontechnologies. This choice will decide ifCO2 stabilisation will be possible and atwhat level. Hence this choice has adirect bearing on Parties obligationsunder Article 2 of the UNFCCC tostabilise CO2 at levels that would preventdangerous climate change. This, this is aclear warning, and that there is no suchthing as business as usual in the longterm.
On the timing of action to reduceemissions a transition in the near term ofthe world energy system towards lowercarbon emissions will minimize the costsarising from the premature retirement ofcapital stock (e.g. closing down coal firedpower stations) and from the damages ofclimate change.
“This report confirms the findingin the SAR that earlier actions,including a portfolio of emissionsmitigation, technologydevelopment, and reduction ofscientific uncertainty increaseflexibility in moving towardsstabilisation of atmosphericconcentrations of greenhousegases”.
“On the other hand, more rapidnear-term action would decreaseenvironmental and human risksassociated with rapid climaticchanges.”
“It would also stimulate morerapid deployment of existing low-emission technologies, provide
strong near-term incentives tofuture technological changes thatmay help to avoid lock-in tocarbon-intensive technologies,and allow for later tightening oftargets should that be deemeddesirable in light of evolvingscientific understanding.”
Climate policies may have extensiveadditional benefits.
“[R]educing carbon emissions inmany cases will result in thesimultaneous reduction in localand regional air pollution. It islikely that mitigation strategieswill also affect transportation,agriculture, land-use practices andwaste management and will havean impact on other issues ofsocial concern, such asemployment and energysecurity.”
“It is likely that mitigation strategieswill also affect transportation,agriculture, land use practices andwaste management and will have animpact on other issues of socialconcern, such as employment, andenergy security.
“Double dividend. Instruments (suchas taxes or auctioned permits) providerevenues to the government. If used tofinance reductions in existingdistortionary taxes (“revenuerecycling”), these revenues reduce theeconomic cost of achievinggreenhouse gas reductions.
There will be winners and losers, but thedamages can be minimised byresponsible decision- making.
27
“Under mitigation policies, coal,possibly oil and gas, and certainenergy intensive sectors such assteel production, are most likelyto suffer an economicdisadvantage.”“Other industries includingrenewable energy industries andservices can be expected tobenefit in the long term fromprice changes and the availabilityof financial and other resourcesthat would otherwise have beendevoted to carbon intensivesectors.”
” [T]he cost of mitigation actionscould be reduced by appropriatepolicies”.
“Policies such as removal ofsubsidies from fossil fuels mayincrease total societal gains (...),while use of the KP mechanismscould be expected to reduce thenet economic costs of meetingAnnex B targets.”
“With full emissions trading betweenAnnex B countries, the estimatedreductions in 2010 are between 0.1%and 1.1% of projected GDP. (…) 0.5%of GDP corresponds to an impact oneconomic growth rates over ten yearsof less than 0.1 percentage point.”
“Induced technological change isan emerging field of inquiry.None of the literature reviewed inTAR on the relationship betweenthe century-scale CO2concentrations and costs, reportedresults for models employinginduced technological change.”
Critical comments on the report
While generally satisfied with the qualityof the work in the reports of WorkingGroups I and II, there are a number ofpoints that must be raised about theassessment of some of the issues in thereport of Working Group III.
Economic modeling anddetermination of costs insufficient
Mostly American global energyeconomic model results for estimating thecosts to Annex 1 countries ofimplementing the Kyoto Protocol areused in the findings of the report.Although these model studies are limitedbecause they do not take negative costs,ancillary benefits or targeted revenuerecycling into account, they are heavilyemphasised in the conclusions of theWorking Group without substantialqualification.
Even with these shortcomings, themodels show that with emission trading,which is built into the Protocol, “theestimated reductions in 2010 are between0.1 and 1.1% of projected GDP.”Footnote 15 of the Summary for PolicyMakers puts this in perspective:
“Many metrics can be used topresent costs. For example, if theannual costs to developedcountries associated with meetingKyoto targets with full Annex Btrading are in the order of 0.5% ofGDP, this represents US$125billion (1000 million) per year, orUS$125 per person per year by2010 in Annex II (SRESassumptions). This corresponds toan impact on economic growth
28
rates over ten years of less than0.1 percentage point.”
The following additional explanation wasin the original report, but deleted at theinsistence of the USA: “…whileprojected increase in GDP per capita isUS$ 3000- 5000 per year above today’slevels.” Further, the now deletedelements of the footnote explained thatthe impact is “well within inherentuncertainties (of economic growthmodels), and the overall effect would beto defer economic growth by a fewmonths”.
Unequal treatment of technologies
The report of Working Group III shouldhave dealt more positively withrenewable energy. The bullet point onlow carbon technologies ends with thegeneral qualifier which is applied to all ofthe technologies – renewable biomass,wind, nuclear and CO2 disposal equally:“Environmental, safety, reliability andproliferation concerns may constrain theuse of some of these technologies”. Inour view this is a serious distortion of therelative risk and problems facing thedifferent classes of technologies.
Less certain future for nuclear power
The reference to nuclear power inthe text is quite contentious and inGreenpeace’s view represents a realdistortion of the likely, realistic roleof nuclear power relative to all of theother options.
"Low carbon energy supplysystems can make an importantcontribution through biomass
from forestry and agricultural byproducts municipal and industrialwaste to energy, dedicatedbiomass plantations wheresuitable land and water isavailable, landfill methane, windenergy and hydro power, andthrough the use and lifetimeextension of nuclear powerplants.”
In our view this results directly from thefact that the nuclear section of the reportwas written by an author from theInternational Atomic Energy Agency.The lifetime extension of nuclear plants ishardly mentioned in the main report andis so small relative to other option that itis not quantified. In addition the mainreport is extremely one-sided in itsdiscussion of nuclear power with therelevant sections dominated by an authorrepresenting the International AtomicEnergy Agency. The sections of thisChapter are quite unbalanced and do notdescribe the real state of nuclear power inthe world today. A visitor from Marsreading this section could be excused forbelieving after reading this section thatNuclear power is expanding around theworld and has unlimited possibilities.There is no place in IPCC assessmentsfor such one-sided assessments. Whilst itis no secret that nuclear power is lowcarbon energy source it is also no secretthat nuclear power is being phased out ina number of countries and that the marketoutlook for nuclear power is very poorowing to a range of well knownproblems.
Arguably all the factors indicate that theprospects for nuclear power are evenworse than they were at the time of theSecond Assessment Report. Since thenGermany, Netherlands and Sweden have
29
set phase-out schedules for nuclear powerplants, and there has been substantialerosion of public confidence in nuclearpower in Japan, further delaying plannednuclear construction. Liberalisation ofenergy markets in Europe and the USAhave also reduced or removed theprospects for new nuclear plants inFrance and the USA. Long-term wastedisposal issues seem no closer toresolution and nuclear proliferationconcerns have escalated as a consequenceof bomb testing on the Indian Sub-continent and other developments.
The only difference appears to be that inthe IPCC’s 1995 assessment the IAEAwas not involved in writing the reportwhereas its designated author more orless controlled the writing of the sectionsin the Third Assessment Report.
A better rendition of the real prospectsfor nuclear power might read:
Nuclear power is being phasedout in several European countriesand there have been no new plantordered in the OECD Annex Bcountries since 1991 andeconomic, environmental, safety,nuclear waste disposal, publicacceptability and proliferationconcerns will constrain the use ofthis technology.
The issue of sinks
A contentious finding in Greenpeace’sview is that “After 2010, emissions fromfossil and/or biomass- fuelled powerplants could be reduced substantiallythrough pre- or post- combustion carbonremoval and storage.”
This is not specifically qualified in anyway by reference to environmental,economic or public acceptability issues.It is very unlikely for example that CO2disposal in the sea will be publiclyacceptable and it is currently illegal underinternational law, although experimentsare to be conducted. There are also likelyto be significant environmental concernsin relation to CO2 removal technologiesas well as to storage in aquifers andunderground etc. The economics of CO2removal and storage from power stationsare still speculative although technicallyfeasible. Finally the association ofbiomass fuelled power stations with CO2storage seems to be wrong, as in principlebiomass power stations should involvedlittle or no net addition of CO2 to theatmosphere and should be renewable andsustainable if done well. Most of theseissues have not yet been studied.Greenpeace feels that it is quite wrong toinclude this option without a specificqualification.
After much debate within WG III thecompromise text on sinks reads:
“Forests, agricultural lands, and otherterrestrial ecosystems offer significantcarbon mitigation potential. Althoughnot necessarily permanent,conservation and sequestration ofcarbon may allow time for otheroptions to be further developed andimplemented.”
“Conservation of threatened carbonpools may help to avoid emissions, ifleakage can be prevented, and onlybecome sustainable if the socio-economic drivers for deforestation andother losses of carbon pools can beaddressed.“
30
“the estimated global potential ofbiological mitigation options is in theorder of 100 GtC (cumulative),although there are substantialuncertainties associated with thisestimate, by 2050, equivalent to 10-20% of potential fossil fuel emissionsduring that period.”
This text is clearly a compromisebetween those that advocate sinks andthose with a critical stance toward them.Advocates see them as a low costplaceholder till emission reductiontechnologies fall into place in contrast tothose criticising the uncertaintysurrounding sinks and their temporarycharacter as well as the very likely effectthat they will only slow down the processof introducing emission reducingtechnologies.
Major Conclusions
From the findings of the WorkingGroup III Greenpeace comes to thefollowing major conclusions:
• The costs of fulfilling theKyoto commitments andfurther reducing emissionsare relatively low.
• Stabilizing CO2 atrelatively low levels basedon known technology ispossible.
• Unless energy investmentpatterns are changed wemay not be able to stabilizeCO2.
• Availability of fossil fuelswill not limit future GHGemissions. As the energymix needs to be changed assources of oil and gas arerunning out, the choice isbetween coal andunconventional oil or newrenewable energy sources.
• The more quickly weinitiate short-term action toreduce emissions the morewe minimize the risk ofdamaging human andnatural systems.
• Rapid adoption of emissionreducing actions willstimulate the deployment oflow carbon technologiesand insure avoidance ofpotential lock-in to carbonintensive technologies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONBill HareClimate Policy DirectorGreenpeace InternationalKeizersgracht 176,1016 DW Amsterdam,The NetherlandsPhone: +49-1709-057015
