Climate Change: The Move to Action (AOSS 480 // NRE 480) Richard B. Rood Cell: Space Research Building (North Campus) Winter 2012 March 15, 2012

Class News Ctools site: AOSS_SNRE_480_001_W12AOSS_SNRE_480_001_W and 2010 Class On Line:2008 and 2010 Class – /Climate_Change:_The_Move_to_Actionhttp://climateknowledge.org/classes/index.php /Climate_Change:_The_Move_to_Action Projects: –In Class Review 22 March 2012: Each group should prepare about a 15 minute 5 – 10 viewgraphs of status of project. Projects will be in different stages, but should have a good idea of the scope and where you are going. This will be a time get some input and refine and focus. –This need not be polished, but should represent vision, structure, and some essential elements of knowledge.

Projects Think about some linkages –Regional focus on Great Lakes –City focus on Houghton –University: Get Michigan Tech Role in the mix? Interview Guy Meadows?

The Current Climate (Released Monthly) Climate Monitoring at National Climatic Data Center.Climate MonitoringNational Climatic Data Center – State of the Climate: Global

Wedges on the Web Carbon Mitigation Princeton UniversityCarbon Mitigation Initiative

Today Policy Interface 2 –Global Mitigation Policy Interface 3 –State and Local Wedges: A pragmatic approach?

The Official Policy is: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change –Framework Convention on Climate ChangeFramework 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 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 Copenhagen Accord Framework Convention (UNFCCC) Scientific assessment Non-binding aim Binding emissions target Keep warming less than 2 C

Dangerous climate change? What is dangerous?

Stern Report: Influential: Useful for thinking about problem 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.

Emissions / Cap Interface between Science and Policy 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

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 LinkLink to speech

Kyoto Protocol followed 1995 assessments 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

Beyond 2012 Conference of Parties, Copenhagen 2009 Copenhagen Accord Canada withdrew this year. Nuclear disaster in Japan trumped all of the Japanese CO 2 reduction.

Today Policy Interface 2 –Global Mitigation Policy Interface 3 –State and Local Wedges: A pragmatic approach?

Scales: Time scale and “spatial” scale GREEN HOUSE GAS INCREASE SURFACE WARMING GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES GLOBAL POLICY (MITIGATION) LOCAL POLICY (ADAPTATION)

Scale What is the best scale to measure vulnerability and adaptive capacity? –National: inform states on needed policy response; allow for better decision making; allows for comparison of differential vulnerability –Regional Impacts are likely not to be defined by national borders –Local Ground truth Allows for the understanding of the local factors that mediate sensitivity and resilience Thanks to Maria Carmen Lemos

Regional based Initiatives Changing very rapidly

Scales of Policy: U.S. –Pew: State-based Initiatives (Update, 2007)Pew: State-based Initiatives (Update, 2007) –Pew: State and Region Climate ActionPew: State and Region Climate Action

States with Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets (October 31, 2011) Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: Interactive Map

States with Climate Action Plans (October 31, 2011) Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: Interactive Map

Motivations for State Activity Economics –States (and cities) are very aggressive at promoting policy that they perceive as offering economic advantage. –Branding: To attract, for instance, the “creative class” Belief and Culture –Reflection of political constituencies

States can be viewed as: (from Rabe (2006)) What has changed? Hostile to climate change policy –Michigan (Auto industry, manufacturing) –Colorado (coal and energy) Stealth interest? –Texas (aggressive renewable portfolio) –Nebraska (sequestration site) Out in front –California (Water, water, water?) –Northeast alliance

Policy: Regional and State and Local California Climate Change Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative United Conference of Mayors –U.S. Mayors: Climate Protection AgreementU.S. Mayors: Climate Protection Agreement Map of US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement Cool Cities

Policy: Regional and State and Local Local Governments for Sustainability –International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) –ICLEI’s CO2 Reduction / ClimateICLEI’s CO2 Reduction / Climate National Governors Association (NGA) –NGA Transportation and Land UseNGA Transportation and Land Use –NGA Environmental Best PracticesNGA Environmental Best Practices

Today Policy Interface 2 –Global Mitigation Policy Interface 3 –State and Local Wedges: A pragmatic approach?

Pielke Jr. argues The need for technology to make solutions possible. Inequity of wealth, access to basic resources, desire for economic growth makes energy use an imperative Must go –From, we use too much energy, fossil fuels are cheap –To, we need more energy, fossil fuels are expensive

Less people Smaller economy Increase efficiency Switch energy sources Population management Limit generation of wealth Do same or more with less energy Generate energy with less emissions Carbon emissions = C = P * GDP * TE * C P GDP TE FactorLever Population GDP per capita Energy intensity Carbon intensity Approach to Policy GDPTechnology P GDP/P TE/GDP C/TE What tools do we have to reduce emissions? From R. Pielke Jr. The Climate FixR. Pielke Jr. The Climate Fix

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

Practical Response Space

Past Emissions Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative

The Stabilization Triangle Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative

The Wedge Concept Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative

Stabilization (2006) Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative

CO 2 stabilization trajectory (2006) Stabilize at < 550 ppm. Pre-industrial: 275 ppm, current: 385 ppm. Need 7 ‘wedges’ of prevented CO 2 emissions.

Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative

McKinsey 2007

Projects

Use of climate information Research on the use of climate knowledge states that for successful projects, for example: –Co-development / Co-generation –Trust –Narratives –Scale Spatial Temporal Lemos and Morehouse, 2005

Projects Broad subjects and teams defined Meeting 1 with Rood –Now to early March: Project vision and goals Meeting 2 with Rood –Mid to late March: Progress report, refinement of goals if needed Class review –Short, informal presentation, external review and possible coordination Oral Presentation: April 10 and 12 Final written report: April 25

Project Teams Education / Denial –Allison Caine –Nayiri Haroutunian –Elizabeth McBride –Michelle Reicher

Project Teams Regional –Emily Basham –Catherine Kent –Sarah Schwimmer –James Toth –Nicholas Fantin

Project Teams City –Jian Wei Ang –Erin Dagg –Caroline Kinstle –Heather Lucier

Project Teams University –Nathan Hamet –Adam Schneider –Jillian Talaski –Victor Vardan

glisaclimate.org Goal to facilitate problem solving –Based on class experience –Support narratives –Build templates for problem solving

Approach to Problem Solving

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.

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

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

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

Structure of Problem Solving ( )

Knowledge Generation Reduction Disciplinary Problem Solving Unification Integration Complexity challenges disciplinary intuition The details of the problem often de-correlate pieces of the problem. –What do I mean? Think about heat waves? 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