Climate Change and Development: where do we want the world to be in 2100? ADAM BUMPUS - University of Oxford British Council IYSC “Call for Action on Climate

Climate Change and Development: where do we want the world to be in 2100?ADAM BUMPUS - University of Oxford

British Council IYSC “Call for Action on Climate Change” – 30 June 2009

‘Call for Action on Climate Change’ Adam Bumpus 30 June 2009

Outline:• Climate and development: severity, equity, poverty• How do we bring carbon reductions and development

together?– Some current actions: carbon offsets– Reform and what do we need to consider for our ‘common’ future?

• Conclusions: where do we want to be in 2100?– Need to make choices now– Developing countries must be part of picture– Current technology transfer / emissions trading not enough– A call to action on climate change and development for Copenhagen


Two BIG issues…1. Global climate change by

2100• IPCC FAR (2007): High scenario:

4.0°C (range 2.4°C – 6.4°C) / Low scenario: 1.8°C (range 1.1°C – 2.9°C)Climate Congress, Copenhagen, March 2009: “the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised… There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts”

2. North-South, development, poverty, inequity• Developing nations will bear brunt• Climate Congress, Copenhagen, March 2009:

“societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk.”

Climate strategies need to incorporate understanding of development trajectories and impacts in developing countries


Climate problem: warming severity

Source: IPCC FAR 2007

Warming is unequivocal and highly likely (95%) to be anthropogenic (IPCC FAR 2007)

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Fo

ssil F

uel E

missio

n (G

tC

/y)

CDIACIEAall

A1B(Av)A1FI(Av)A1T(Av)A2(Av)

B1(Av)B2(Av)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

Fo

ssil F

uel E

missio

n (G

tC

/y)

CDIACIEAall

A1B(Av)A1FI(Av)A1T(Av)A2(Av)

B1(Av)B2(Av)

Raupach et al 2007, PNAS (updated)

BUT, Current emissions are tracking above the most intense fossil fuel scenario established by the IPCC SRES (2000), and moving away from stabilization scenarios of 450 ppm and 650 ppm (Global Carbon Project 2007)

Source: Stainforth et al., Nature, 2005


Climate problem: impact• The IPCC projects a number of likely, very likely, or virtually

certain changes in extreme events and associated effects between now and 2100 (IPCC 2007; US EPA 2009)

• Increased frequency and intensity of extreme temperatures, drought, tropical storms, floods, other events

• Development as adaptation

European heatwave 2003; Oxfordshire floods 2006

Source: Frame 2006

– Impacts will be both North and South, but adaptive capacity and resilience to impacts uneven

– Poverty and equity issues

Source: IPCC FAR 2007


Climate problem: emissions profiles #1Pe

rcen

tage

of G

loba

l Ann

ual E

miss

ions

KyotoReference Year

FCCC

KyotoProtocolAdopted

KyotoProtocolEnter intoForce

Current

62%

57%

49.7%

47%38%

43%50.3%

53%

Source: Global Carbon Project, 2007

Richer nations

Poorer nations

Development as economic growth:Emissions from developing countries now higher

than developed countries, and growing


Climate problem: emissions profiles #2

Source: Global Carbon Project, 2007

– Developing countries increasing emissions, China leading– Movement of manufacturing to developing world– Emissions increase = poverty alleviation? Not necessarily: difficult link between

emissions and poverty alleviation, must consider per capita emissions– Challenging trade-offs: Severity, equity, poverty


Some current policy and action• The link between North and South is crucial for a

climate treaty to work: ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ (UNFCCC 1992)

• ‘Normal’ development: fossil fuels• Kyoto’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)• Emissions trading, carbon credits, regulation and

development

Money

Carbon Credits

Developing countries

Developed countries

• Carbon trade our way out of climate change?

• Benefits for climate and development?

• Or just benefiting $ ?


Using offsets to bridge?• Possibilities:

– CDM (and voluntary offsets) worth approx US$7-8billion per year (total emissions trading market worth approx US$126 billion (World Bank 2009)

– Supposed to help ‘decarbonise’ developing countries: renewable energy, energy efficiency

– Assist sustainable development in poor countries• Problems:

– Clean ‘development’ went to industrial gas projects not new renewable energy (now changing)

– Controversial effect on the atmosphere – as much as two thirds of offsets no net benefit

– Just ‘same old development’– China dominates accounting for 84% of CDM market

share (SO: is it really decarbonising?)– Little help to poorest countries (Africa total 2%)– Markets can’t do everything

Source: World Bank 2009


Carbon trading doesn’t work in every context!

• A grown elk belches (both ends) out methane gas equivalent to 2100kg of carbon dioxide a year, scientists reveal

August 23rd, 2007, The Times

= 13,000km in a car

= two round trips by plane to Oslo to Santiago, Chile


Reform and policy options• Carbon trading will likely be part of post-Kyoto regime• What can be achieved just through the market, and what

needs to be regulated? Carbon trading prices drop, need domestic reductions

• Reform and movements forward?• Wider scope of offsets, including Reduced Emissions from Deforestation

and Degradation (REDD), funds for specific technologies that are ‘no-lose’• Sectoral inclusion, ‘programmes of activities’, simplification

• Tabled initiatives for COP15• EU policy:

• 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 if others join, including 15-30% below ‘business as usual’ emissions in developing countries; BUT IPCC says need 25-40% if to stabilise at 450ppm

• Increased technology transfer from public financing (Global Climate Financing Mechanism) and sectoral transformation in big developing countries (India, China, Brazil, Mexico etc)

• More carbon trading with other developed nations and up to one third extra investment to come from a reformed CDM from Least Developed Countries – pro-poor?


US positions“We’ve been talking about this issue for decades…

“Now is the time to act.”• Obama takes lead on climate issues• Economic downturn opportunity for ‘green-investment’ and jobs• Waxman and Markey US Clean Energy and Security Act• 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and 80% by 2050• National renewable energy / efficiency standards• National cap and trade, offsets:

• National• International from Developing Countries

• Clean technology transfer to developing countries that have taken some action on climate change


Conclusions:2100? Finding a position for Copenhagen• Severity of problem, equity among people, poverty• Climate change and international development must be seen

as inherently linked in context of historical responsibility• Carbon trading can help, but it must only be part of a much

broader approach to technology, funding, political will• Crucial point in climate change and negotiations:

– EU and US taking action– Mexico already taken reduction target of 50% below 2002 by

2020– North must lead, but the South must be realistic– Recession as opportunity?

We must understand climate change as a shift in paradigm, a societal movement and vision of the future, led by government,

supported by business and enacted by individuals


Thank you!

Carbon, development, CopenhagenWe need a call to action on

climate and international clean development if there is to be a long-term solution to

the climate change issue

[email protected] / [email protected]


Markets difficult?

• Price drops in carbon credits because of global recession• Less investment in offsets/carbon trading because actual emissions down!• Need to capitalise on opportunity


Overlap in development and carbonCheap carbon reduction projects, e.g. industrial gases

Development as poverty

alleviation, e.g. focus on

marginalised

Overlap where carbon and development as poverty alleviation find synergy, e.g.

cooking stoves


Creating a position for Copenhagen• Action:

- Leadership and political will: need to take leadership action on the big chunks (wedges) - Regulate heavy emitters and place funds into new technologies (possibly with their own IPR to incentivise them) - Public investment: Rayner paper on public investment for green tech - North must lead, but South must be realistic - Social justice approach to the problem: - Ethically, yes, but also: - Need to account for the repercussions if a social justice account is not taken - Emitters have to understand their position as a) global citizen and b) the repercussions for another person/family on the other side of the world

• Climate as a globalised problem


So where do we want to be in 2100?• We are in a problem, but solutions are possible• COP15 must see the world as we want to see it in 2100:

– More equitable, less poverty, mitigated and adapted– The opportunity is now!– Time of change globally (did the bankers do us all a favour?)– Lessons learned from carbon trading– Obama can’t save the planet, but perhaps the support he galvanizes can

• Equity and poverty: responsibility, globalisation and global citizenship– The actual climate, the actual forms of development, the actual type of globalised

and networked society that we want to live in

Documents

Climate Change and Development: where do we want the world to be in 2100? ADAM BUMPUS - University of Oxford British Council IYSC “Call for Action on Climate