1. Chatham house quiz

2. If Paris delivers a genuine global commitment …  Is it realistic to reduce emissions in line with a “likely” chance of <2°C?  What’s the earliest date non-Annex 1 nations could peak emissions?  What’s the earliest date global emissions could peak?  What is the maximum annual reduction in carbon intensity i.e. the reduction in carbon emissions per unit of GDP?

3. Numerical context …  IPCC “likely” 2°C budget range is 630-1180GtCO 2 for 2011-2100  Emissions from 2011 to the end of 2014 will be ~144GtCO 2  Total CO 2 from deforestation (with optimistic policy) ~ 130-200GtCO 2  Emission growth 2000-2012 was just over 3% p.a. including an economic slowdown only second to the Great Depression  Paris 2015 mitigation focus is on post 2020 at best  By end of 2020, remaining 2°C budget range will be ~100 to 600GtCO 2 That is ~ 2 to 12 years at 2020 emission levels

4. … and with even weak equity criteria, the implications for Annex 1 nations will be much more challenging still

5. University of Manchester Sept 2014 Kevin Anderson web: kevinanderson.info twitter: @KevinClimate The Ostrich or the Phoenix?... cognitive dissonance or creativity in a changing climate

6. My headline conclusion: Avoiding “dangerous climate change” (stabilisation at 2°C) remains a feasible goal of the international community just … with economic (oikonimia), but not financial (chrematisitc), benefits

7. Fredag in Stockholm: IPCC science report released  Offered neither surprise nor solace to our fossil-fuel hungry world  The science message for policy-makers, business leaders and civil society has changed very little during the last twenty years  Small adjustments and refinements have occurred – but this is a mature science

8. So what has changed?  An additional 200 billion tonnes of CO 2 pumped into the atmosphere since last report (AR4 2007)  Annual emissions ~65% higher than at time of the first report in 1990  Atmospheric CO 2 levels higher than during past 800 thousand years

9. Yet we repeatedly recommit to: … make our fair contribution to… “To hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity” Copenhagen Accord, 2009

10. … to meet this objective, we need radical and immediate reductions in energy demand But surely… we can deliver 2°C mitigation through low-carbon energy supply? … in 2014, it’s all about timing!  reduction targets for 2050 dangerously misguide policy makers  temperature is about cumulative emissions / carbon budgets for Annex 1 nations  there is insufficient carbon space for gas as a transition fuel  CCS emissions are too high (LCA levels of >80gCO 2 /kWh)

11. Thinking about this ‘graphically’

12. UN Climate change panel established

13. RIO Earth Summit

14. UN Climate change panel established RIO Earth Summit Royal Commission (60% by 2050)

15. UN Climate change panel established RIO Earth Summit Royal Commission (60% by 2050) Copenhagen Accord

16. UN Climate change panel established RIO Earth Summit Royal Commission (60% by 2050) Copenhagen Accord Rio + 20 … despite economic downturn, emissions continue to rise 5% in 2010; 2-3% p.a. since.

17. UN Climate change panel established RIO Earth Summit Royal Commission (60% by 2050) Copenhagen Accord Rio + 20 … so what of future emissions?

18. Energy system design lives (lock-in)  Power stations  Large scale infrastructures  Built environment  Aircraft & ships 30-100 years

19. Extrapolation of 3.5%, 3, 2, 1% … (i.e. globalisation + unconventional fossil fuel & late transition to low carbon energy)

21. c.f. highest IPCC’s emission scenarios RCP8.5 is 2% p.a. growth from 2020 (i.e. 1.5% below pre-recession rate)

22. consider the UK (a leading nation on CC?)  Tax breaks for shale gas development  Chancellor proposes 30+ new gas powerstations  Highest investment ever in North Sea oil  Reopening of Scottish coal mines  Expanding aviation & more ports  Emission standards for cars watered down  Supporting Arctic exploration for hydrocarbons  Opened a consulate in Alberta (tar sands) … but are such rising emissions realistic?

23. i.e. we’re set to emit … between 2000 to 2050 >2500GtCO 2 and for 2000 to 2100 ~5000+GtCO 2

24. i.e. 4°C to 6°C by 2070-2100

25. Yet for a “likely” chance of <2°C we can emit only ~600 to 1200GtCO 2 (AR5)

26. i.e. no emissions after ~2030 at the latest

27. and possibly as early as ~2022

28. So recent history supports the IEA view … that the CO 2 trend “is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius, which would have devastating consequences for the planet.” Fatih Birol - IEA chief economist

29. … but what about 2°C?

30. 4°C to 6°C “likely” chance of 2°C Optimistically using the higher of the IPCC’s budget range …

31. Too early for new low carbon supply & demand Reduce Demand Supply

32. & demand Reduce Demand Supply

33. & demand Reduce Demand Supply “To hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity ”

34. Assuming poorer (non-Annex 1) nations: 1. Collectively peak their emissions by 2025 2. Reduce thereafter at 6-8% p.a.

35. … then, for 2°C, wealthy (Annex 1) nations require: At least 10% reduction in emissions year on year, i.e. 40% reduction by ~2018 (c.f. 1990) 70%~2024 90+%~2030 i.e. RADICAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS

36. Why does orthodox analysis give such different results?  Probability of exceeding 2°C is much higher (60-80%) – i.e. bigger carbon budgets (~2x)  Inequitable apportionment of global emissions to Annex 1  Machiavellian peaks (2010-2016, & before 2020 for China)  Emission reduction rate universally dictated by economists  Geoengineering is widespread in low carbon scenarios

37. EU Why aren’t scientists whistle-blowing these fudges 1.We are collectively applying Thomas Moore’s maxim "Qui tacet consentiret": Silence gives consent 2. We are culpable as a research community of a ‘conspiracy of silence’,– we don’t agree with what’s going on but don’t want to bite the hand that feeds us 3. We are ignorant of some of the fundamental underpinnings for our research 4. We don’t care – and anyway flagging up these concerns would likely raise difficult questions about our own lifestyles

38. … what about a 4°C future?  (i.e. a larger carbon budget and lower rates of mitigation) If 2°C looks too difficult

39. What are potential 4°C impacts?

40. Global impacts: 4°C +8°C Europe +6°C China +10-12°C N. America Hottest days … add to heat-wave temps’

41. Global impacts: 4°C Sea level rise 80cm rise, higher in low latitudes

42. Global impacts: 4°C Food crops … up to 40% reduction in maize, wheat & rice yields in low latitudes.

43. There is a widespread view that 4°C is…  Incompatible with an organised global community  Beyond ‘adaptation’  Devastating to eco-systems  Unlikely to be stable (‘tipping points) … consequently … 4°C should be avoided at ‘all’ costs

44. Returning to 2°C… is it still a viable goal?

45. Hypothesis : yes Equity a small group to make radical & early reductions Technologydemand side can deliver early & large reductions Growththere are alternative measures of a good life … just

46. Equity: Pareto’s 80:20 rule 80% of something relates to … 20% of those involved ~80% of emissions from ~20% of population run this 3 times ~50% of emissions from ~1% of population Or more realistically: ~40% to 60% from ~1% to 5%

47. who are the high-emitters?  Climate scientists  OECD (& other) academics (GPs … etc?)  Anyone who takes an annual flight or two … 2°C mitigation is principally a short-term challenge; i.e. really now to 2025 - so is mostly about the few not the many … it is a consumption and not a population issue!

48. Technology  A++ rated fridge uses ~85% less energy than an A rated  Efficient IC cars 85-100gCO 2 /km; UK fleet 168gCO 2 /km (i.e. efficient petrol/diesel car uses 50% less fuel than the average)  Appliances typically have under 8 year replacement cycles

49. Growth : a misguided proxy?  Stern, CCC & others: ‘Mitigation of over 4% p.a. incompatible with economic growth’  but the economist’s economy has stalled!  self-regulated markets have failed to self regulate  £350 billion of QE has been squandered (c.f. retrofit) We have an unprecedented opportunity to think differently

50.  Welfare (health, life expectancy)  Employment/income  Equity  Literacy rates  Safety (low crime) Growth makes the heterogeneous homogeneous in itself it has no meaningful value Growth subsumes real social goods, including:

51. … low carbon energy supply can’t be built in time for 2°C, but…  Radical reductions in energy demand/emissions in a decade are possible  Extending the window for transitioning to low carbon energy supply A Radical Plan for 2°C

52. A Radical Plan – 2 phases 1.Radical reductions in energy demand from now to ~2030 2.Marshall plan build programme of low-carbon energy supply … with 100% penetration by 2030-40

53. We must escape the shackles of a twentieth century mind- set if we are ever to resolve twenty-first century challenges This will demand leadership, courage, innovative thinking, engaged teams & difficult choices Ultimately …

54. “at every level the greatest obstacle to transforming the world is that we lack the clarity and imagination to conceive that it could be different.” Robert Unger and a message of hope to finish …

55. Thank you University of Manchester Sept 2014 Kevin Anderson web: kevinanderson.info twitter: @KevinClimate