View
216
Download
3
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
University of ManchesterMarch 2016
Kevin Anderson
web: kevinanderson.info
Beyond dangerous climate change:
twitter: @KevinClimate
does Paris lock out 2°C?
Richard Feynman on climate change?
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.
Richard P. Feynman.
Shuttle Presidential Commission 1986
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
Car
bo
n d
ioxi
de
em
issi
on
s p
er
year
fro
m f
oss
il fu
els
& c
em
en
t
(GtC
/yr)
Backdrop to Paris (& latest IPCC reports)
The mitigation message has changed little in the last twenty five years
Annual emissions ~60% higher than at time of the first report in 1990
Atmospheric CO2 levels higher than during past 800 thousand years
Paris Agreement – An important diplomatic triumph
… hold the increase in global average temperature to
well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue
efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C
…to undertake rapid reductions in accordance with best science
…on the basis of equity, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
no reference to fossil fuels or decarbonisation
aviation and shipping exempt from any action
voluntary pledges (INDCs) equate to ~3.5°C (focus on 2.7°C is
misleading)
no review of INDCs until ~2020; i.e. 200 billion tonnes of CO2 from now
fundamental reliance on highly speculative negative emission technologies
Derisory $100bill pa. to assist poorer nations adapt & mitigate
Cf. 2015 fossil fuel direct & indirect subsidy ~$5.3trill.( i.e. 53x $100b)
a 30th of UK GDP
‘Issues’ with the Paris Agreement?
My response published in Naturehttp://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.19074!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/528437a.pdf
Dec. 2015
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Car
bo
n d
ioxi
de
fro
m f
oss
il fu
el &
ce
me
nt
(GtC
O2
yr-1
)
YEAR
GCP new data
4°C to 6°CBefore Paris …
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Car
bo
n d
ioxi
de
fro
m f
oss
il fu
el &
ce
me
nt
(GtC
O2
yr-1
)
YEAR
GCP new data
Pledges (INDCs) ~3.5°C
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Car
bo
n d
ioxi
de
fro
m f
oss
il fu
el &
ce
me
nt
(GtC
O2
yr-1
)
YEAR
GCP new data
… as we build hi-carbon
power stations
Infrastructures
buildings
aircraft & ships
Lock-in
30
to
10
0+
yrs
Pledges (INDCs) ~3.5°C
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Car
bo
n d
ioxi
de
fro
m f
oss
il fu
el &
ce
me
nt
(GtC
O2
yr-1
)
YEAR
GCP new data
2°C
Pledges (INDCs) ~3.5°C
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Car
bo
n d
ioxi
de
fro
m f
oss
il fu
el &
ce
me
nt
(GtC
O2
yr-1
)
YEAR
GCP new data
2°CDeepCuts inEnergy
Demand
Pledges (INDCs) ~3.5°C
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Car
bo
n d
ioxi
de
fro
m f
oss
il fu
el &
ce
me
nt
(GtC
O2
yr-1
)
YEAR
GCP new data
“well below 2°C” & “pursue 1.5°C”
on the basis of equity
5 to 8 years of current global emissions
will consume all the remaining energy-carbon budget for 1.5°C
so…
it is now too late for 1.5°C
Returning to IPCC’s Carbon budgets
66% chance of 2°C is lost
50% chance demands a war-like footing on mitigation - now
33% chance demands mitigation far beyond anything discussed in Paris
✗
✗
… and for 2°C ?
What’s this mean for poorer & richer nations?
Method
[1] We have a global CO2 budget for 33% chance of <2°C(from the IPCC)
[2] Estimate mitigation by poorer/industrialising nations
(i.e. their CO2 budget)
subtract [2] from [1] = CO2 budget left for industrial nations
Assuming poorer/industrialising nations:
1. Collectively peak their emissions by 2025
2. Then rapidly increase mitigation to ~10% p.a. by 2035
3. Fully decarbonise their energy systems by 2050
… then, for 2°C, wealthy nations (inc. Ireland) require:
At least 10% reduction in emissions year on year from now,
… equivalent to:
50% reduction by ~2020 (c.f. 1990)
75% ~2025
90% ~2030
Fully decarbonise ALL energy by 2035
c.f. EU’s submission to Paris 40% by 2030
How can this be reconciled with ‘official’ accounts?
... mitigation costs would be so low that
“global economic growth would not be strongly affected”WGIII Co Chair Nov. 2014
How can this be reconciled with ‘official’ accounts?
“To keep … to 2°C … the UK [must] cut emissions by at least 80% …
the good news is that reductions of that size are possible without
sacrificing the benefits of economic growth and rising prosperity.”
UK Committee on Climate Change
… two rabbits from the hat:
1. Negative emissions technologies (BECCS):
Grow trees/plants
they absorb CO2 through photosynthesis
burn trees in powerstations
capture the CO2 from the chimney
~liquefy the CO2 & pump it underground
store for many 1000s of years
… two rabbits from the hat:
1. Negative emissions technologies (BECCS):
Never worked at scale
huge technical & economic unknowns
major efficiency penalty
limited biomass availability (fuel or food?)
and fingers crossed on feedbacks
… two rabbits from the hat:
1. Negative emissions technologies (BECCS):
e.g. - planting 1 to 3x the area of India,
- year after year; decade after decade
- store 100s of billions of tonnes of CO2
- securely underground for 1000s of years
… two rabbits from the hat:
1. Negative emissions technologies (BECCS):
e.g. - planting 1 to 3x the area of India,
- year after year; decade after decade
- store 100s of billions of tonnes of CO2
- securely underground for 1000s of years
2. Peak global emissions in the past
We don’t have a time machine …
Richard Feynman on climate change?
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.
Richard P. Feynman.
Shuttle Presidential Commission 1986
IPCC Scenario database:
400 scenarios for 50% or better chance of 2°C, of these:
- 86% include large scale negative emissions
- the remaining 14% peak in ~2010
- many use negative emissions & adopt a ~2010 peak
So Paris, some Academics & Politicians …
rather than focus on urgent & deep mitigation now
… with challenging political & economic repercussions
rely on non-existent negative emission technologies
… to suck CO2 out of the air after 2050 in huge quantities
Hypothesis: yes
Equity/behaviour - a small group to make radical & early reductions
Technology - demand side can deliver early & large reductions
Growth - there are alternative measures of a good life
… just
EQUITY
50% of global CO2 comes from 10% of the population
Top 1% of US emitters (~3.4 million people)
… have CO2 footprints
2500x higher than bottom 1% globally (~70 million)
who are the high-emitters?
Climate scientists
Civil servants, NGOs, etc.?
Anyone who annually takes a long-haul flight or two …
2°C mitigation is principally a short-term challenge;
i.e. really now to 2025 - so is mostly about the few not the many
… it is a consumption and not a population issue!
EU & US ~12-15% of emissions
~270 petrol/diesel models <100gCO2/km… at no price premium
2/3 of car travel is by vehicles 8yrs old or younger
Private road transport (Cars)
- With no additional capital cost
- Reduced operating cost
- Identical infrastructure
- Same employment & companies
50% to 70% reduction in ~10yrs
Max CO2 Standard & existing petrol/diesel cars
A++ refrigerator uses 80% less energy than an A rated
Phased replacement of all A-rated (& below) with A++
CO2 saving of ~50%+ in 10 years
Refrigeration
Fuelproduction,extraction
& transportPowerstationTransmissionElectricity
consumption‘A’ ratedRefrign
10 50 54 120 133
… and at an electricity system level
health & life expectancy
literacy rates & security
fairness & fun
time with family & friend’s
Growth converts the heterogeneous into the homogeneous (£,€, $)
In itself it has no meaningful value
GROWTH: but what really matters?
GROWTH: a misguided proxy?
the economist’s economy has stalled!
Faced with systemic issues
- neoclassical (‘free’ market) economics is in disarray
- incremental approaches to climate change have not delivered
We have an unprecedented opportunity to think differently
A Radical Plan for 2°C – two phases
1. Deep reductions in energy demand from now to ~2030
… by the high emitters
2. Massive build programme of zero carbon energy supply
… with 100% penetration by 2050
Retrofit 1.2 million homes €48b over 15yrs or €3b/yr (~1.3% GDP)
excellent for training & employment (~9% unemployment)
eliminate fuel poverty (200-300k households)
Max CO2 standard for all new cars/electrification
Stringent efficiency standards on electrical equipment
start with Govt procurement
40% to 70% reduction in energy demand in 15 years
Thoughts on Ireland & 2°C – Energy DEMAND
Major electrification programme (htg, transport, etc)
Role out smart grid/intelligent metering/community energy
Early phase out of 3 peat stations
Wealthy nation with huge renewable potential
Solar panels on all SW roofs (~1/3 current elec’ demand?)
Indigenous biomass/biogas for intermittency/base load
Hybrid ferries – consider wind-assist and/or biofuel
Thoughts on Ireland & 2°C – Energy SUPPLY
Progressive metering tariffs
Stringent energy efficiency & emission standards
Moratorium on all hydrocarbon developments
Moratorium on airport expansion
Personal carbon allowance ?
Thoughts on Ireland& 2°C – Energy POLICY
“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.”
Robert Unger
and a message of hope to finish …
Recommended