2525 Space Research Building (North Campus) Climate Change: An Inter-disciplinary Approach to Problem Solving (CLIMATE 480 // NRE 480) Richard B. Rood Cell: 301-526-8572 2525 Space Research Building (North Campus) rbrood@umich.edu http://clasp.engin.umich.edu/people/rbrood Winter 2016 March 10, 2016 International Policy Response: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: dangerous, stabilization, language of international response; Policy evolution Kyoto to Paris to 2020; National responses to international efforts. Paris Agreement

Class Information and News Ctools site: CLIMATE_480_001_W16 Record of course Rood’s Class MediaWiki Site http://climateknowledge.org/classes/index.php/Climate_Change:_The_Move_to_Action A tumbler site to help me remember http://openclimate.tumblr.com/ http://openclimate.tumblr.com/tagged/COP-Paris

Resources and Recommended Reading Reading to understand relation of science to policy Jasanoff: The Fifth Branch (Chapter 1) Foundational References UNFCCC: Text of Convention Kyoto Protocol: Text Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Web Portal International Policy Response: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: dangerous, stabilization, language of international response; Policy evolution Kyoto to Paris to 2020; National responses to international efforts

Crisis in Middle East and Climate Change Event at the Ford School Friday, March 11, 2016 1:00-5:30 PM Annenberg Auditorium, Weill Hall

Resources and Recommended Reading Socolow and Pacala, “Stabilization Wedges,” Scientific American, 2006 (link) Other versions, additional reading Pacala and Socolow, “Stabilization Wedges,” Science, 2004 (link) Socolow, “Wedges Reaffirmed,” Climate Central, 2011 (link) Blog at climateprogress (link)

Wedges on the Web Carbon Mitigation Initiative @ Princeton University

Global Mitigation Policy Conference of the Parties Assessment Outline: Class 13, Winter 2016 Why Policy? Global Mitigation Policy Conference of the Parties Assessment Kyoto Protocol International Policy Response: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: dangerous, stabilization, language of international response; Policy evolution Kyoto to Paris to 2020; National responses to international efforts

A global perspective on energy and climate To achieve stabilization at a 2°C warming, we would need to install ~900 ± 500 MW [mega-watts] of carbon emissions-free power generating capacity each day over the next 50 years. This is roughly the equivalent of a large carbon emissions-free power plant becoming functional somewhere in the world every day. In many scenarios, this pace accelerates after mid-century. . . even stabilization at a 4°C warming would require installation of 410 MW of carbon emissions-free energy capacity each day. Caldeira et al. 2003

Policy What do we look to policy to accomplish? Some common, relevant purposes of policy Stimulate technology: Provide incentives or disincentives for behavior. (Often through financial or market forces.) Set regulations: Put bounds on some type of behavior, with penalties if the bounds are exceeded. Make internal some sort of procedure or behavior or cost that is currently external. A more abstract point of view Represents collective values of society: what is acceptable and what is not. Interface with the law? Provides the constraints and limits, the checks and balances in which we run our economy.

Policy-climate science interface (1) It is sensible to look at governance and policy to address climate change It’s a “greater good” problem It relates to natural resources and waste from the use of natural resources It matters to economic and national security There is precedence (Ozone and Acid Rain) Given the relation to energy and wealth it is natural to expect there will not to be a “one size fits all solution” for climate change. One size fits all is one of the most common traps that “managers” and “leaders” fall into. Feeds polarization and rhetoric Guided to one size by political interests

Policy A natural reaction to greenhouse gas emissions is to look to government, to the development of policy to address the problems that we are faced with. Originally policy focus was mitigation, reduce emissions, keep dangerous global warming from happening. Often when people talk policy, they mean mitigation

Global Mitigation Policy

Managing Climate Complexity WEALTH SPATIAL LOCAL GLOBAL TEMPORAL NEAR-TERM LONG-TERM

Managing Climate Complexity WEALTH SPATIAL LOCAL GLOBAL TEMPORAL NEAR-TERM LONG-TERM Being Global, Long Term, Wealth connected, degree of difficulty is high

Development of International Approach to Climate Change 2009 2015 1988 1992 1995 1997 2001 2007 2013 IPCC established Framework Convention(UNFCCC) Kyoto Protocol Paris Agreement The climate change issue has emerged quite quickly. When the issue first emerged in the late 1980s, the first response was to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, to study the problem. The IPCC's assessment that there was a problem led to the negotiation of the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. And within a matter of a few years, countries decided the Framework Convention was inadequate, and decided to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted in 1997. In just 10 years, we see a progression in the policy responses, from scientific assessment, to a non-binding aim in the Framework Convention, to binding emissions targets in the Kyoto Protocol. CopenhagenAccord Scientific assessment Non-binding aim Binding emissions target Keep warming less than 2 C Keep warming substantially less than 2 C < 1.5C

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

Framework Convention on Climate Change (US in part of this.) UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992, non-binding, voluntary, 192 signers) Reduce CO2 Emissions in 2000 to 1990 levels Inventories of greenhouse gas emissions Mitigate Climate Change

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

Framework Convention on Climate Change

Dangerous climate change? What is dangerous?

Dangerous climate change? Stern, 2006

World 4 Degrees Warmer Stern, 2006

Conference of the Parties

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

Michigan Observer Status Framework Convention Parties 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 Participation

Assessment

Climate Assessment Perhaps the most present accomplishment of international climate change policy is assessment Regular ~ 5 years assessment of the state of the knowledge Provides translation of the scientific literature for policy makers

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

Increase of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) “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 Data and more information

A trillion tons of carbon We get to emit a trillion tons of carbon to avoid “dangerous” climate change

Trillion Tons: Carbon Visuals

Kyoto Protocol

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 55 countries represent some sort of plurality of number of countries. 55% represents a bulk of the CO2. (This is little like the House and Senate, in terms of assuring representation of the people (House) and the Union (Senate)) Russia’s signing and ratification is a big deal. Why?

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 (CO2, Methane CH4, Nitrous Oxide N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride) Commitment period 2008-2012 Set of other activities Improve “local emission factors” Inventories of emissions and sinks Mitigation and adaptation plans Environmentally sound technology diffusion to developing nations Note: Kyoto goals and U.S. actual. Since CO2 is directly related to economy, not a fingerprint, to meet Kyoto would require massive changes in U.S. economy and energy use. The inclusion of six gases provides opportunity – there is granularity in how address mitigation. There is a possibility of technological controls or cap and trade systems.

Amount and distribution for limits and reductions 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 These issues were hammered out and refined in the definition of the Protocol and following years. Of critical importance is the role of developing countries. Many see this as the fatal flaw of the protocol.

Kyoto Protocol: Important Add ons Market-based mechanisms Emissions trading Joint implementation Clean development mechanisms These efforts are important to make the protocol work. They make cap and trade possible. What makes CO2 the same as, different from sulfur, etc.? Is a CO2 emissions trading well posed?

Flexibility in Achieving Targets “What” flexibility Targets apply to CO2-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

Kyoto Protocol followed 1995 assessments Is the Kyoto Protocol still relevant? It has officially expired It frames much of the language we use It sets a foundation for market-based approaches to climate change Some countries strive to adhere to the protocol

“Flaws” in Kyoto Protocol Participation of Developing Countries Large populations, large projected growth Participation of the United States Large portion of greenhouse gas emissions Other “flaws” Does not go far enough: Emission goals don’t adequately mitigate dangerous climate change 2008-2012 commitment period – then what? This issue of the developing countries without limitations, especially China, India, Brazil, etc. hangs over everything. The U.S. cites this as a no go for U.S. participation, but (Rood speculation) if this was met, the U.S. would still not ratify. Another real issue is what happens after the commitment period? Does everything go back to status quo? Was this all a waste? How do we commit in the long term, and build upon successes, and improve it all. (Parson, basic definition of protocol includes the idea that the specifics change as more is learned.)

2015: Paris Agreement Link to Paris Agreement White House Fact Sheet on Paris Agreement

Credibility of Paris Agreement Outcomes of Paris (C2ES) Set of References Credibility of Paris Agreement Outcomes of Paris (C2ES) Emissions and Paris Goals Emissions and Goals: Grantham (London School) IEA: Emissions for COP 21 UNEP: Emissions Gap

Summary of Paris Agreement From E3G “E3G are the independent experts on climate diplomacy and energy policy. Our senior leadership has a combined 75 years experience advising Government, business and NGOs and a wealth of insight into what climate change means for societies. E3G works to accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy. We build the broad based coalitions necessary to deliver a safe climate, we bring independence to an extremely polarised discussion, and we hold policy makers to account on their promises.  E3G works closely with like-minded partners in government, politics, civil society, science, the media, public interest foundations and elsewhere.

E3G: Table 1

E3G: Table 2

E3G: Table 3

E3G: Table 4

Global Mitigation Policy Conference of the Parties Assessment Summary: Class 13, Winter 2016 Why Policy? Global Mitigation Policy Conference of the Parties Assessment Kyoto Protocol International Policy Response: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: dangerous, stabilization, language of international response; Policy evolution Kyoto to Paris to 2020; National responses to international efforts

Global Mitigation Policy Conference of the Parties Assessment Outline: Class 13, Winter 2016 Why Policy? Global Mitigation Policy Conference of the Parties Assessment Kyoto Protocol International Policy Response: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: dangerous, stabilization, language of international response; Policy evolution Kyoto to Paris to 2020; National responses to international efforts

Appendix United Nations: How Nations Organize

Constituencies in the community OECD: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Annex 1: Developed Countries and Economies in Transition List of Annex 1 countries Annex 2: The OECD Countries Provide financial and technical support to Economies in Transition Annex B: Annex 1 parties with emission targets Least Developed Countries

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 These are the developed nations, and there is a big split between EU and JUSSCANNZ. Part of this is Europe vs U.S. culture, view of democracy. EU views global democracy and U.S. views a nation-state democracy with international agreements as negotiated contracts.