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 – 32 page document. Dec. 2015

Paris Agreement – An important diplomatic triumph

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

Nature Geoscience (doi:10.1038/ngeo2559)

Mon. 12th Oct 2015

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

Returning to 2°C … is it still a viable goal?

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!

TECHNOLOGY

Efficient petrol/diesel cars

A++ refrigerators

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 …

Thank you

University of ManchesterMarch 2016

Kevin Anderson

twitter: @KevinClimate