Climate Policy Imperatives Dr John Broderick EPSRC Knowledge Transfer Fellow Tyndall Manchester

Overview About the Tyndall Centre Taking responsibility as a region » Allocation methodologies » Novel approach for the regional scale Cumulative emissions accounting » Credible climate framework » Current climate policy and uncomfortable conclusions » Aviation and tourism within this framing Acknowledgements » Work by Ruth Wood, Alex Joyce, Alice Bows, Kevin Anderson » Funded by Tyndall Centre, EPSRC and Joule Centre grants

Tyndall Manchester Interdisciplinary research centre started in 2000, with 7 partners Social, economic and engineering climate change research Tyndall Manchester focussed on energy, emissions and stakeholders Agenda setting research on emissions budgets, aviation and shipping High policy relevance and profile, for instance Hansard citations 2008 – UoM: 43 – Tyndall Manchester: 100 EPSRC Knowledge Transfer role allows for further outreach and policy work

Taking Responsibility View aviation as a complex system, where responsibility may be allocated amongst actors in a variety of ways. No objectively right answer. Status quo: no allocation, » Aviation excluded from national and international emissions control regimes, but soon to enter EU ETS To producers, bottom-up on the basis of fuel sold » E.g. Nation states To producers on the basis of emissions calculated » E.g. Airlines To consumers (end-users) of the service » Passengers, as individuals » Aggregating or disagregating across spatial or administrative scale: State – Region – Local Authority To other influential actors or beneficiaries within aviation system » Airports » (Regional) Planning authorities » Air traffic control Issues » Purpose of accounting – reflective of interventions? » Availability of data » Consistent with existing UNFCCC inventories

What contribution does aviation in the North West make to the regions total CO 2 emissions? International Accounting UNFCCC: Bunker Fuels National Accounting No Standard

Joule Centre research, part funded by NWDA Stakeholder workshops, including future scenarios Develop regional apportionment methodology Reflects local influences: » Over LTO » Of residents flying practices & tourists attracted Reflects local economic benefits: » From hosting an airport (direct benefit) » From services to residents, businesses and tourism (indirect) What contribution does aviation in the North West make to the regions total CO 2 emissions?

LTO : Apportioned to the airports region Cruise emissions: apportioned according to the region from which the passengers start their journey Diagram from Corinair/EMEP EEA 2009

What contribution does aviation in the North West make to the regions total CO 2 emissions? Emissions calculated under hybrid apportionment Reproduced from Wood et al (2010)

Current MethodNew Method What contribution does aviation in the North West make to the regions total CO 2 emissions?

Reproduced from Wood et al (2010)

Sub-regional apportionment based on passenger survey data and 20 major emitter flights from Manchester and Liverpool airports Highly uneven spatial distribution What contribution does aviation in the North West make to the regions total CO 2 emissions? Reproduced from Joyce (2011)

Conclusions from apportionment work Reasonable and possible to apportion aviation emissions sub nationally. Methodology applicable elsewhere. Continued growth of aviation impacts other sectors of the economy under constrained emissions budgets » CCC estimates of 0.8% to 1.5% p.a. seat-km efficiency improvements, ACARE target at upper end. Substantial unevenness, spatially and considering destinations, raises questions of governance and appropriate policy interventions

Cumulative Emissions Accounting

Annual CO 2 e emissions Illustrative pathway for a carbon budget Emissions already released

Annual CO 2 e emissions Illustrative pathway for a carbon budget Emissions already released A B A=B for same climate impact 2050 target shifts Trajectory becomes steeper

Growth 3.5% p.a Peak 2025 Reduction 7% p.a. (2x Stern!) Anderson-Bows: 2°C budget, CO 2 only Budget premised on 37% chance of exceeding 2°C GMT rise

Anderson-Bows: 2°C budget, CO 2 only Budget premised on 37% chance of exceeding 2°C GMT rise

Peak ~2010 Reduction % p.a. Anderson-Bows: 2°C budget, CO 2 only Budget premised on 37% chance of exceeding 2°C GMT rise

Current climate policy Broadening the analysis beyond the previous slides If... IPCCs link between cumulative emissions & temperature rise is broadly correct »Non-Annex 1 nations peak emissions by 2025 »There are rapid reductions in deforestation emissions »Food emissions per capita halve from todays values by 2050 »No discontinuities (tipping points) occur And... Stern, CCC, IEAs maximum feasible reductions of 3-4% in Annex 1 p.a. is achieved Then... 2°C stabilisation is virtually impossible »UKs budgets premised on 63% chance of exceeding 2°C and 4°C by 2070 looks likely (on the way to 6°C …?)

Greater impacts at lower temperatures From Smith et al (2009) Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the IPCC)reasons for concern

Summary Final (2050) targets are unrelated to avoiding dangerous climate change. It is cumulative emissions that matter. Fundamentally rewrites the chronology of climate change. Every delay makes the problem worse. Stop thinking of long term gradual reductions and consider urgent and radical reductions.

Conclusions Timeframe of climate change problem is extremely challenging for all but especially for the aviation industry. Technological & infrastructure lock-in suggest aviations emissions will grow considerably as a proportion of tolerable EU and UK emissions budgets (Bows 2010). Emissions trading will not be viable in the medium-term if 2ºC remains the target. Accelerating R&D, plus demand management and destination shifts will be essential. Challenge to Air Tourism