reframing climate change: from long- term targets to emission pathways professor kevin anderson...
TRANSCRIPT
Reframing climate change: from long-term targets to emission pathways
Professor Kevin AndersonDirector of the Tyndall’s Centre’s Energy Programme
Kevin AndersonResearch director
Tyndall Centre’s energy programme University of Manchester
17th June 2008
Reframing Climate Change: From long-term targets to
emission pathways
Based on research by Kevin Anderson & Alice Bows
Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering
Talk outline
1) What is dangerous climate change?
2) Reframing the debate - cumulative emissions
3) “It’s energy demand stupid”
4) The critical role of aviation & shipping
5) Responding to the challenge… the UK’s climate change bill?
6) Revisiting the global context
What is dangerous climate change?
UK & EU define this as 2C
Links to total quantity of CO2 in atmosphere- measured in parts-per-million by volume (ppmv)
Currently 380ppmv & increasing 2-3ppmv each year- 280ppmv before industrial revolution
Still feasible to keep below 450ppmv CO2
- i.e. 70% chance of exceeding 2C 50% chance of exceeding 3C
What are the ‘correct’ emission targets for 2C ?
UK & EU have long term reduction targets- e.g. UK’s 60% reduction in CO2 by 2050
But CO2 stays in atmosphere for approx. 100years
Hence, today’s emissions add to yesterdays & will be added to by tomorrows
So, focus on long-term targets is very misleading
the final % reduction in carbon has little
relevance to avoiding dangerous climate change
(e.g. 2C)
Put bluntly …
What is important are the cumulative emissions of carbon
How does this scientifically-credible
way of thinking, alter the challenge
we face?
A bank-account analogy
We know:
.. how much money we have in the bank between 2000-2050 (the carbon budget)
~ 4.8 billion tonnes of carbon
between 2000-2050
the UK’s budget is
For a 30% chance of “avoiding dangerous climate change”
1. What are the emissions between 2000 & today?
2. What emissions are we locked into in the
immediate future?
From this two questions arise
… emissions between 2000-2006
were
~ 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon… i.e. we’ve used ¼ of our permitted
emissions for 50 years in around 6 years!
Answer 1
Looking at this graphically …
Answer 2
Carbon trajectories
Year
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Ca
rbo
n e
mis
sio
ns
(MtC
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
s curve from 2012
Plot data from 2000 to 2006
Carbon trajectories
Year
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Ca
rbo
n e
mis
sio
ns
(MtC
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
s curve from 2012
Plot data from 2000 to 2006Dip due to September 11th
Carbon trajectories
Year
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Ca
rbo
n e
mis
sio
ns
(MtC
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
s curve from 2012
What about the next 6 years …
with more aviation & shipping
Carbon trajectories
Year
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Ca
rbo
n e
mis
sio
ns
(MtC
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
s curve from 2012
… emissions are likely to rise
Carbon trajectories
Year
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Ca
rbo
n e
mis
sio
ns
(MtC
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
s curve from 2012
4.8 billion tonnesCarbon
in the bank
But we only have
Carbon trajectories
Year
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Ca
rbo
n e
mis
sio
ns
(MtC
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
s curve from 2012… locking the UK into dramatic
annual carbon reductions from
around 2012-2032
Carbon trajectories
Year
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Ca
rbo
n e
mis
sio
ns
(MtC
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
s curve from 2012
~ 9% p.a. reduction
Carbon trajectories
Year
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Ca
rbo
n e
mis
sio
ns
(MtC
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
s curve from 2012… even a 550ppmv pathway has
an emission reduction of ~ 6% p.a
from 2015 for 2 decades
What does this pathway say about
emission policies ?
Carbon trajectories
Year
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Ca
rbo
n e
mis
sio
ns
(MtC
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
s curve from 2012
mos
t em
issio
ns
are
relea
sed
in
next
15
yrs
2006
Carbon trajectories
Year
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Ca
rbo
n e
mis
sio
ns
(MtC
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
s curve from 2012
demand
supply&
demand
2006
… how does aviation fit into this?
Carbon trajectories
Year
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Ca
rbo
n e
mis
sio
ns
(MtC
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
s curve from 2012
11 MtC
2006
Aviation is currently 7% of UK emissions (over ½ of that from cars)
Carbon trajectories
Year
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Ca
rbo
n e
mis
sio
ns
(MtC
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
s curve from 2012
11 MtC
2006
• if emissions grow at 7% until 2012(historical mean)
• reducing to 3% from 2012-2050
Aviation is currently 7% of UK emissions (over ½ of that from cars)
Carbon trajectories
Year
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Ca
rbo
n e
mis
sio
ns
(MtC
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
s curve from 2012
17MtC2012
Carbon trajectories
Year
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Ca
rbo
n e
mis
sio
ns
(MtC
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
s curve from 2012
17MtC2012
28MtC2030
Carbon trajectories
Year
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Ca
rbo
n e
mis
sio
ns
(MtC
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
s curve from 2012
28MtC2030
~ 70% of UK emissions
17MtC2012
… and a similar situation exists for
shipping
What emissions pathway is implied by the climate change bill
UK Domestic Carbon Emissions - Government targets
Year
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Em
issi
on
s (M
tC)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
UK Domestic Carbon Emissions - Government targets
Year
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Em
issi
on
s (M
tC)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Domestic emissions already released (ex. international aviation & shipping)
(though 32% by 2020)
Climate Bill’s implied trajectory (though 26% by 2020)
UK Domestic Carbon Emissions - Draft Bill's targets & pathways
Year
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Em
issi
on
s (M
tC)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
60% reduction
UK Domestic Carbon Emissions – Bill’s targets & pathways
UK Domestic Carbon Emissions - Draft Bill's targets & pathways
Year
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Em
issi
on
s (M
tC)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Climate Bill’s implied trajectory (though 26% by 2020)
Area = Cumulative carbon budget
UK Cumulative budget – implied by the bill
UK Domestic Carbon Emissions - Draft Bill's targets & pathways
Year
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Em
issi
on
s (M
tC)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Climate Bill’s implied trajectory (though 26% by 2020)
Bill equates to ~ 6.0GtC (2000-2050)(ex. international aviation & shipping)
UK Cumulative budget – implied by the bill
UK Domestic Carbon Emissions - Draft Bill's targets & pathways
Year
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Em
issi
on
s (M
tC)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Climate Bill’s implied trajectory (though 26% by 2020)
UK Cumulative budget – implied by the bill
Bill equates to ~ 6.0GtC (2000-2050)(ex. international aviation & shipping)
… adding International Aviation & Shipping
Adding International Aviation & Shipping Emissions to the Bill(based on a significant reduction in growth of these sectors)
Year
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Em
issi
on
s (M
tC)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
~1.5GtC
… adding International Aviation & Shipping
Adding International Aviation & Shipping Emissions to the Bill(based on a significant reduction in growth of these sectors)
Year
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Em
issi
on
s (M
tC)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
i.e.
With a low growth future for aviation & shipping (2000-2050)
~1.5GtC
… adding International Aviation & Shipping
Year
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Em
issi
on
s (M
tC)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Consequently, the Bill implies:
- a UK total cumulative 2000-2050 budget of ~ 7.5GtC
- an atmospheric concentration of over 650ppmv CO2
- virtual certainty of exceeding 2°C
- a 50% chance of exceeding 4°C
… so what should a 2°C science-based
climate change bill contain
• adopt cumulative emissions as basis for targets
• acknowledge 2°C is much more demanding than previously thought (~6 to 9% carbon reduction p.a.)
• include aviation & shipping emissions
• recognise need for immediate action on demand (acknowledge reliance on low-carbon supply is misguided)
… the bill should :
Revisiting the global context
What are the latest CO2 emission trends?
What are implications of factoring in:
- land-use & forestry?
- non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions?
When will global CO2e emissions peak?
Tyndall’s
‘global emission scenarios (CO2e)’
~ 2.7% p.a. last 100yrs
~ 3.3% p.a. in last 5 years
What are the latest global CO2 emission trends?
What are the latest global CO2e emission trends?
~ 2.8% p.a. since 2000
~ Stern assumed 0.96%
Land-use & forestry emissions
Tyndall analysis uses
most ‘optimistic’ estimate from the literature
Tyndall very low emission scenario
Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
Tyndall analysis uses
Short-term EPA estimates
Tyndall optimistic scenarios up to peak emissions
Stabilisation at low-level by 2050
USA - 2025
Stern - 2015
Tyndall - 2015, 2020, 2025
When will global CO2e emissions peak?
USA - 2025
Stern - 2015
Tyndall - 2015, 2020, 2025
When will global CO2e emissions peak?
450ppmv cumulative emission scenarios peaking in 2020
Year
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Em
issio
ns o
f g
ree
nh
ou
se
ga
se
s (
GtC
O2e
)
0
20
40
60
80
Low ALow BMedium AMedium BHigh AHigh B
Unprecedented annual
reductions (~10% pa globally)
What does all this imply for a 450ppmvCO2e future?
For 550ppmv CO2e with emissions peaking by 2020:
6% annual reductions in CO2e
9% annual reductions in CO2 from energy
For 650ppmv CO2e with emissions peaking by 2020:
3% annual reductions in CO2e
3.5% annual reductions in CO2 from energy
annual reductions of greater than 1% p.a. have only
“been associated with economic recession or upheaval”
Stern 2006
UK gas & French 40x nuclear ~1% p.a. reductions
(ex. aviation & shipping)
Collapse Soviet Union economy ~5% p.a. reductions
What are the precedents for such reductions?
Even assuming:
… an unprecedented step change in mitigating emissions
… stabilising at 650ppmv CO2e appears increasingly to be
the best we can expect
i.e. human-induced climate change of ~4°C or more
So where does this leave us?
We need to urgently reframe the climate change debate:
For mitigation
2°C should remain the driver of policy
For adaptation
4°C should become the driver of policy
To conclude
… ultimately ..
“at every level the greatest obstacle to
transforming the world is that we lack the
clarity and imagination to conceive that it
could be different.”Roberto Unger
1-person living in 3 bedroom housespatio heaters10 halogen bulbs lighting the kitchen3 tonne 4WD car to transport 70kg flesh 3milesdriving children to school business tycoons with private jetsacademics flying to climate change conferencesmusicians flying to climate change concerts celebrating the excesses of celebrities‘right’ to fly & drive when & to wherever we want year-round strawberrieshen parties in Prague & birthdays in Barcelonadouble door refrigerators & home cinemasecond homes, 2 cars & 3 TVs & all with 9 billion people living on our planet!
From long-term targets to emission pathways
EndReframing Climate Change:
Kevin Anderson & Alice BowsTyndall Centre
University of Manchester