Climate Change: The Move to Action (AOSS 480 // NRE 480) Richard B. Rood Space Research Building (North Campus) Winter 2010 March 30, 2010

Class News Ctools site: AOSS W10AOSS W10 On Line: 2008 Class2008 Class –Reference list from courseReference list from course Rood Blog Data Base

Projects Final presentation discussion; –April 20 last day of class Summary lecture discussion –How to talk science? –Climate intertwined with everything? After class meetings –3/30: Transportation –4/1: Efficiency, New York Utility –4/6: Near-term solutions –4/8: Michigan’s response

Events Jim Hansen Global Climate Change What Must We Do Now? –April 6, 2010 –Blau Auditorium, Ross School of Business, –Time: 4:00 - 5:30, Reception following

Readings on Local Servers –Assigned Stern Report: Executive Summary –Foundational Stern Review: Primary Web Page –Recommended Nordhaus: Criticism of Stern Report Tol and Yohe: Deconstruction of Stern Report

From Last Time Introduced a set of “big” issues –Energy summary –Atmospheric stabilization –Role of efficiency –Divide between oil consumers and oil producers –Divide between rich and poor –Motivation to respond Policy response Scientific uncertainty and policy Policy Catalysts

Science, Mitigation, Adaptation Framework Mitigation is controlling the amount of CO 2 we put in the atmosphere. Adaptation is responding to changes that might occur from added CO 2 It’s not an either / or argument.

Some definitions Mitigation: The notion of limiting or controlling emissions of greenhouse gases so that the total accumulation is limited. Adaptation: The notion of making changes in the way we do things to adapt to changes in climate. Resilience: The ability to adapt. Geo-engineering: The notion that we can manage the balance of total energy of the atmosphere, ocean, ice, and land to yield a stable climate in the presence of changing greenhouse gases.

Thinking about ADAPTATION Adaptation: What people might do to reduce harm of climate change, or make themselves best able to take advantage of climate change. –Autonomous that people do by themselves –Can be encouraged by public policy Command and control tell you to do it Incentives Subsidies –Can be anticipatory or reactive Adaptation is local; it is self help. Adaptation has short time constants - at least compared to mitigation  Hence people see the need to pay for it. Some amount of autonomous-reactive adaptation will take place. –Moving villages in AlaskaMoving villages in Alaska

Thinking about MITIGATION Mitigation: Things we do to reduce greenhouse gases –Reduce emissions –Increase sinks Mitigation is for the global good Mitigation has slow time constants Mitigation is anticipatory policy This is the “second” environmental problem we have faced with a global flavor. –Ozone is the first one. Is this a good model?

Some Mitigation-Adaptation considerations Those who are rich and technologically advanced generally favor adaptation; they feel they can handle it –Plus, technology will continue to make fossil fuel cheap, but with great(er) release of CO 2 Those who are poor and less technologically advanced generally advocate mitigation and sharing of adaptation technology Emission scenarios “don’t matter” for the next years. There are a lot of arguments, based on economics, that lead towards adaptation –Mitigation always looks expensive, perhaps economically risky, on the time scale of 50 years. Adaptation looks easier because we will know more This will remain true as long as the consequences seem incremental and modest –The Innovators Dilemma, evolution vs revolution?The Innovators Dilemma

Responses to the Climate Change Problem Autonomous/ Individual Policy/ Societal Reactive Anticipatory Adaptation Mitigation

The previous viewgraphs have introduced “granularity” This is a classic short-term versus long-term problem. –Ethics –Economics –Reaction versus anticipation Similarly, regional versus global Rich and poor Competing approaches –Mitigation versus adaptation –Transportation versus Electrical Generation –This versus that

Granularity No matter how we cut through this problem we come to the conclusion that there is a lot of granularity within the problem. This granularity represents complexity, which must be used to develop a portfolio of solutions rather than to classify the problem as intractable.

What is short-term and long-term? 25 years 50 years75 years100 years0 years ENERGY SECURITY ECONOMY CLIMATE CHANGE Pose that time scales for addressing climate change as a society are best defined by human dimensions. Length of infrastructure investment, accumulation of wealth over a lifetime,... LONG SHORT There are short-term issues important to climate change. Election time scales

We arrive at levels of granularity TEMPORAL NEAR-TERMLONG-TERM SPATIAL LOCAL GLOBAL WEALTH Small scales inform large scales. Large scales inform small scales. Need to introduce spatial scales as well Sandvik: Wealth and Climate Change

Knowledge Generation Reduction Disciplinary Problem Solving Unification Integration Complexity challenges disciplinary intuition The details of the problem often de-correlate pieces of the problem. This challenges the intuition of disciplined-based experts, and the ability to generalize. – For example --- Detroit is like Chicago. The consideration of the system as a whole causes tensions – trade offs - optimization

Policy A natural reaction to this situation is to look to government, to the development of policy to address the problems that we are faced with.

A Premise Climate change problem cannot be solved in isolation. Requires integration with all elements of society. –Requires identification of reasons to motivate us to take action Apparent benefit Excess Risk

Climate Science-Policy Relation CLIMATE SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE UNCERTAINTY POLICY PROMOTES / CONVERGENCE OPPOSES / DIVERGENCE

The need for “management”

Return to the Energy-Climate Problem We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide, while at the same time maintaining energy production and economic stability.

NEED CARBON POLICY We need a “carbon policy” which is integrated with energy policy. –Some alternative energy sources don’t do much for reducing carbon dioxide in atmosphere. –Coal is our easy energy security Without sequestration (carbon removal), coal makes the problem worse. Concern: Quest for energy security-national security, economic stability, demand for cheap energy will reduce priority we give to reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Basic Management If there is a goal which you must meet, then you need to manage towards than goal. –If the goal is critical to success, –If the goal must be met on some schedule,

Some Basic Management Tenets DESIRED RESULT WHERE WE ARE NOW WHERE WE ARE GOING WE WILL GET DESIRED RESULT AS A BENEFIT OF WHERE WE ARE GOING. THIS APPROACH INCREASES RISK OF NOT GETTING THE DESIRED RESULT, BECAUSE THE “COST” OF DESIRED RESULT IS NEVER INTEGRATED INTO THE PROCESS

TRYING TO BE CLEAR CARBON REDUCTION WHERE WE ARE NOW ENERGY SECURITY WE WILL GET REDUCED CARBON FROM QUEST FOR ENERGY SECURITY – ENERGY POLICY. CARBON REDUCTION DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY FOLLOW FROM SOLVING THE ENERGY PROBLEM. CARBON REDUCTION ALSO NEEDS TO BE A REQUIREMENT  NEED CARBON POLICY

Carbon Policy Or perhaps we need “climate policy” and “climate management.” –We need to consciously take responsibility for our energy waste.

A Management Idea This axis is ability to target cost, quality, time The first and largest improvements come from a plan, an approach to the problem, and identifying mistakes early

Policy: Global and Local GREEN HOUSE GAS INCREASE SURFACE WARMING GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES GLOBAL POLICY (MITIGATION) LOCAL POLICY (ADAPTATION)

Some basics of policy response An important part of the policy response is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (The assessment process: A formal interface) How is this information evaluated, integrated and transmitted to policymakers? U.S. Climate Change Study Program U.S. National Assessment National Academy of Sciences Published in refereed literature Scientist-authors are nominated by governments to assess the state of the science Draft documents are reviewed by experts who did NOT write the draft. // Open review as well Draft revised Review by government officials // Final language // All agree IPCC CLIMATE REPORTS What we know + uncertainty

The Official Policy is: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change –Framework Convention on Climate ChangeFramework Convention on Climate Change

What is COP? COP is the Conference of Parties –Parties are those countries who have signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. There are 192 signatories.Framework Convention on Climate Change Essential Background UNFCCC

Michigan Observer Status Framework Convention Parties and ObserversParties and Observers –Parties are signatories of Framework Convention –Observers are invited to the meeting for participation, transparency, and accountability United Nations Representatives Intergovernmental Organizations Non-governmental Organizations –Virtual ParticipationVirtual Participation

Framework Convention on Climate Change (US in part of this.) UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992, non-binding, voluntary, 192 signers) –Reduce CO 2 Emissions in 2000 to 1990 levels –Inventories of greenhouse gas emissions –Mitigate Climate Change Mid-1990’s –No reduction in emissions –Evidence of warming and impacts

Framework Convention on Climate Change

Development of International Approach to Climate Change IPCC established Kyoto Protocol ?????Framework Convention (UNFCCC) Scientific assessment Non-binding aim Binding emissions target

Dangerous climate change? What is dangerous?

Stern Report Draws on recent science which points to ‘significant risks of temperature increases above 5°C under business-as-usual by the early part of the next century’ — other studies typically have focused on increases of 2–3°C. Treats aversion to risk explicitly. Adopts low pure time discount rates to give future generations equal weight. Takes account of the disproportionate impacts on poor regions.

Dangerous climate change? Stern, 2006

Stern Report Considered a radical revision of climate change economics. –If we don’t act now it will cost between 5% and 20% of gross domestic product (an aggregate measure of economy.) Stands in contrast to many studies that usually come to numbers of closer to 1% –The idea that initiation of a policy with a slow growth rate will have little impact on the economy or environment in the beginning, but will ultimately become important when the nature of expenditures is more clear.

Dangerous climate change? Stern, 2006

Some carry away messages Determine what is a tolerable ceiling for carbon dioxide. -Gives cap for a cap and trade system. -Tolerable ceilings have been posed as between 450 and 550 ppm. -Ice sheet melting and sea level? -Oceanic circulation / The Gulf Stream? -Ocean acidification? -Determine a tolerable measure of increased temperature -Copenhagen Accord (2009)  2 o C

Dangerous climate change? Stern, 2006

Back to Stabilization

Basic constraint on carbon policy 350.org

Basic constraint on carbon policy Stabilizing concentrations Means Action Now … Max Year Max Emission Start Date Ceiling (ppmv) Too late – 1.8 tons // 1990 – 5.8 tons // 2000 – 6.5 tons Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum

1992 Convention Commitments All Parties agree to: 4.1.b. Mitigate emissions and enhance sinks 4.1.c. Promote technology development and transfer 4.1.e. Cooperate on research and observation Developed Countries’ aim to return emissions to 1990 levels by the end of the century

Assessment Mid-1990’s –No reduction in emissions –Evidence of warming and impacts 2001 –No reduction in emissions –Evidence of warming and impacts 2007 –No reduction in emissions –Evidence of warming and impacts

Increase of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) Data and more information “ This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through … a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. ” --Lyndon Johnson Special Message to Congress, 1965

Kyoto Protocol followed 1995 assessments Why is the Kyoto Protocol still relevant?

Kyoto Protocol Kyoto Protocol (December, 1997, binding limits on or reduction of emissions) –Must be signed (155 signers (?186)) and ratified At least 55 countries That represent 55 % or more of emissions –Open for signatures on March 16, 1998 –Went into effect on February 16, 2005 After Russia signed and ratified

Kyoto Protocol Requirements Developed nations reduce their emissions 5.2% below 1990 emissions –Reduction (increases) vary across countries –Relaxed a little over the years to attract signers –(Treaty: U.S. 7% reduction: Actual: 12% higher in 2004, 30% by 2012) Addresses “six” greenhouse gases (CO 2, Methane CH 4, Nitrous Oxide N 2 O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride) Commitment period Set of other activities –Improve “local emission factors” –Inventories of emissions and sinks –Mitigation and adaptation plans –Environmentally sound technology diffusion to developing nations

Kyoto Protocol Issues Amount and distribution for limits and reductions What greenhouse gases to include Developing countries in or out of emission requirements Trading, market-based mechanisms Role of removing greenhouse gases

Kyoto Protocol: Important Add ons Market-based mechanisms –Emissions trading –Joint implementation –Clean development mechanisms “Common but differentiated responsibilities” Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum

Flexibility in Achieving Targets “What” flexibility –Targets apply to CO 2 -equivalent emissions of basket of six GHGs –Can use carbon sinks (e.g. forests) as offsets “When” flexibility –Five-year commitment period –Banking “Where” flexibility –Market mechanisms: ET, JI, CDM Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum

Kyoto Mechanisms: Bubbles (Art. 4) –Any group of Annex I countries may pool emissions targets German Target Greek Target Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum

Kyoto Mechanisms: Emissions trading (Art. 17) –Developed countries and firms can trade parts of their “assigned amounts” of emissions –Successfully used in US in sulfur dioxide program US Norway AAU Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum

Kyoto Mechanisms: Joint implementation (JI) (Art. 6) –One Annex I country undertakes a project in another country to reduce emissions or enhance sinks –The project generates an “emission reduction unit,” which can be transferred –ERUs subtracted from transferor’s assigned amount and added to transferee’s assigned amount Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum

Kyoto Mechanisms: Joint Implementation (Art. 6) US Norway ERU Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum

Kyoto Mechanisms: Clean Development Mechanism (Art. 12) –Annex I party can undertake mitigation project in developing country –Win-win approaches Developing countries get climate-friendly technology Projects generate “certified emission reductions” (CERs), which developed countries can use to meet emission targets US IndiaCER Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum

Kyoto Protocol: Issues with Market-based Mechanisms Trading with countries who do not have emission limits / non-ratifying countries Integrity in the trading market –“false” credits –Reporting –Measurements –Verifying

“Flaws” in Kyoto Protocol Participation of Developing Countries –Large populations, large projected growth Participation of the United States –25 % of greenhouse gas emissions Other “flaws” –Does not go far enough: Emission goals don’t adequately mitigate dangerous climate change – commitment period – then what?

Elements of “U.S. Position” Will not be ratified unless developing countries are included in emission limits Continuing concerns –Impact on economic growth and gross national product CO 2, currently, directly related to enterprise, economy … –Robustness of scientific justification and observations –Winners outweigh losers Policy defines winners and losers in a different way.

Issues of implementation Rules that govern compliance The rules of development and transfer of cleaner, low emission, technologies The role of carbon sinks: trees, removal technology, …. The reward/punishment for those who take the initiative to address their emissions unilaterally

Constituencies in the community “G-77” and China: ~130 developing countries, work by consensus (generally represent The Africa Group) –Economic development and emission limits –Sell their potential carbon credits for profit The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) –Tightest control on global emissions Organization of Petroleum Export Countries (OPEC) –Protection of their economic well being

Constituencies in the community European Union (EU) –Coordinated position as environmental leader with very ambitious emission reduction goals Japan, U.S., Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Norway, New Zealand (JUSSCANNZ) –Non-EU developed countries –Cost of tackling the climate problem U.S., Canada, Australia: Low-efficiency energy use Japan, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand: High-efficiency energy use

Constituencies in the community Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGO) –Accept climate change science –Differ on acceptance of market-based mechanisms –Differ on role of businesses in tackling climate problem –Differ on role of geo-engineering Business and Industry Non-Governmental Organizations (BINGO) –“Green” companies: Accept science and see business advantage or necessity –Middle ground: Accept science and cautious approach to mitigation –“Gray” companies: Mostly U.S. fossil-fuel based industries: Question science and impact, Cost of mitigation outweighs benefits Global Climate Coalition Climate Council –Relationship with OPEC?

Beyond 2012 Pew: International Climate Efforts Beyond 2012: Report of the Climate Dialogue at Pocantico Pew: International Climate Efforts Beyond 2012: Report of the Climate Dialogue at Pocantico –This is a report published by Pew of a collection of experts on climate change –It is very soft in its recommendations Like keep the international community together Identification of what is important in any viable treaty Important problem, keep international attention

Beyond 2012 Conference of Parties, Copenhagen 2009 Copenhagen Accord