1. 2525 Space Research Building (North Campus)
Climate Change: An Inter-disciplinary Approach to Problem Solving (CLIMATE 480 // NRE 480)
Richard B. Rood
Cell:
2525 Space Research Building (North Campus)
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

2. Class Information and News
Ctools site: CLIMATE_480_001_W16
Record of course
Rood’s Class MediaWiki Site
A tumbler site to help me remember

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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)

6. Wedges on the Web
Carbon Mitigation Princeton University

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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

12. Global Mitigation Policy

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

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

15. 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

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

17. 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

18. 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

19. Framework Convention on Climate Change

20. Dangerous climate change?
What is dangerous?

21. Dangerous climate change?
Stern, 2006

22. World 4 Degrees Warmer
Stern, 2006

23. Conference of the Parties

24. 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

25. 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

26. Assessment

27. 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

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

29. 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

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

31. Trillion Tons: Carbon Visuals

32. Kyoto Protocol

33. 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?

34. 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
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.

35. 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.

36. 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?

37. 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

38. 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

39. “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
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.)

40. 2015: Paris Agreement
Link to Paris Agreement
White House Fact Sheet on Paris Agreement

41. 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

42. 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.

43. E3G: Table 1

44. E3G: Table 2

45. E3G: Table 3

46. E3G: Table 4

47. 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

48. 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

49. Appendix
United Nations: How Nations Organize

50. 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

51. 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

52. 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.