Transcript research by Professor Kevin Anderson

Reframing climate change: from longterm targets to emission pathways
Professor Kevin Anderson
Director of the Tyndall’s Centre’s Energy Programme
Reframing Climate Change:
From long-term targets to
emission pathways
Based
on research
by
Kevin
Anderson
Kevin AndersonResearch
& Alice director
Bows
Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering
Tyndall
Centre’s energy programme
University of Manchester
17th June 2008
Talk outline
1) What is dangerous climate change?
2) Reframing the debate - cumulative emissions
3) “It’s energy demand stupid”
4) The critical role of aviation & shipping
5) Responding to the challenge
… the UK’s climate change bill?
6) Revisiting the global context
What is dangerous climate change?

UK & EU define this as 2C

Links to total quantity of CO2 in atmosphere
- measured in parts-per-million by volume (ppmv)

Currently 380ppmv & increasing 2-3ppmv each year
- 280ppmv before industrial revolution

Still feasible to keep below 450ppmv CO2
- i.e. 70% chance of exceeding 2C
50% chance of exceeding 3C
What are the ‘correct’
emission targets for 2C ?

UK & EU have long term reduction targets
- e.g. UK’s 60% reduction in CO2 by 2050

But CO2 stays in atmosphere for approx. 100years

Hence, today’s emissions add to yesterdays &
will be added to by tomorrows

So, focus on long-term targets is very misleading
Put bluntly …
the final % reduction in carbon has little
relevance to avoiding dangerous climate change
(e.g. 2C)
What is important are the
cumulative emissions of carbon
How does this scientifically-credible way of
thinking, alter the challenge we face?
A bank-account analogy
We know:
.. how much money we have in the bank
between 2000-2050 (the carbon budget)
For a 30% chance of
“avoiding dangerous climate change”
the UK’s budget is
~ 4.8 billion tonnes of carbon
between 2000-2050
From this two questions arise
1. What are the emissions between 2000 & today?
2. What emissions are we locked into in the
immediate future?
Answer 1
… emissions between 2000-2006 were
~ 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon
… i.e. we’ve used ¼ of our permitted
emissions for 50 years in around 6 years!
Answer 2
Looking at this graphically …
Carbon trajectories
200
s curve from 2012
180
Carbon emissions (MtC)
160
140
Plot data from 2000 to 2006
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
2040
2050
Carbon trajectories
200
s curve from 2012
180
Carbon emissions (MtC)
160
140
Dip
September
11th
Plot due
datatofrom
2000 to 2006
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
2040
2050
Carbon trajectories
200
s curve from 2012
180
Carbon emissions (MtC)
160
140
120
What about the next 6 years …
with more aviation & shipping
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
2040
2050
Carbon trajectories
200
s curve from 2012
180
Carbon emissions (MtC)
160
140
… emissions are likely to rise
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
2040
2050
Carbon trajectories
200
s curve from 2012
180
Carbon emissions (MtC)
160
140
120
100
80
But we
only have
4.8
billion
tonnes
Carbon
60
40
in the
bank
20
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
2040
2050
Carbon trajectories
200
… locking
the2012
UK into dramatic
s curve from
annual carbon reductions from
around 2012-2032
180
Carbon emissions (MtC)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
2040
2050
Carbon trajectories
200
s curve from 2012
180
Carbon emissions (MtC)
160
~ 9% p.a.
reduction
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
2040
2050
Carbon trajectories
200
… seven
550ppmv
pathway has
curve a
from
2012
an emission reduction of ~ 6% p.a
from 2015 for 2 decades
180
Carbon emissions (MtC)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
2040
2050
What
does
this
emission policies ?
pathway
say
about
Carbon trajectories
200
s curve from 2012
180
140
120
100
80
2006
Carbon emissions (MtC)
160
60
40
20
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
2040
2050
Carbon trajectories
200
s curve from 2012
180
140
demand
120
100
80
2006
Carbon emissions (MtC)
160
60
supply
&
demand
40
20
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
2040
2050
… how does aviation fit into this?
Carbon trajectories
200
s curve from 2012
180
Carbon emissions (MtC)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
Aviation is currently 7% of UK emissions
(over ½ of that from cars)
2006
11 MtC
20
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
2040
2050
Carbon trajectories
200
s curve from
2012at 7% until 2012
• if emissions
grow
180
(historical mean)
Carbon emissions (MtC)
160
• reducing to 3% from 2012-2050
140
120
100
80
60
40
Aviation is currently 7% of UK emissions
(over ½ of that from cars)
2006
11 MtC
20
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
2040
2050
Carbon trajectories
200
s curve from 2012
180
Carbon emissions (MtC)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
2012
17MtC
20
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
2040
2050
Carbon trajectories
200
s curve from 2012
180
Carbon emissions (MtC)
160
140
120
100
80
2030
28MtC
60
40
2012
17MtC
20
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
2040
2050
Carbon trajectories
200
s curve from 2012
180
Carbon emissions (MtC)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
2030
28MtC
~ 70% of UK emissions
2012
17MtC
20
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
2040
2050
… and a similar situation exists for shipping
What emissions pathway is implied by
the climate change bill
UK Domestic Carbon Emissions - Government targets
180
160
Emissions (MtC)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
Year
2030
2040
2050
UK Domestic Carbon Emissions - Government targets
180
160
Emissions (MtC)
140
Domestic emissions already released
(ex. international aviation & shipping)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
Year
2030
2040
2050
UK Domestic
Carbon
Emissions
– Bill’s
UK Domestic
Carbon
Emissions
- Draft
Bill'stargets
targets&&pathways
pathways
Emissions (MtC)
180
160
Climate Bill’s implied trajectory
(though 26% by 2020)
140
(though 32% by 2020)
120
100
80
60% reduction
60
40
20
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
Year
2030
2040
2050
UK Domestic
Carbon Emissions
- Draft
Bill's targets
& pathways
UK Cumulative
budget
– implied
by the bill
180
Climate Bill’s implied trajectory
(though 26% by 2020)
160
Emissions (MtC)
140
120
100
80
Area = Cumulative carbon budget
60
40
20
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
Year
2030
2040
2050
UK Domestic
Carbon Emissions
- Draft
Bill's targets
& pathways
UK Cumulative
budget
– implied
by the bill
180
Climate Bill’s implied trajectory
(though 26% by 2020)
160
Emissions (MtC)
140
120
100
80
60
40
Bill equates to ~ 6.0GtC (2000-2050)
(ex. international aviation & shipping)
20
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
Year
2030
2040
2050
UK
Cumulative
budget-Aviation
–Draft
implied
the bill& pathways
… adding
&by
Shipping
UK Domestic
CarbonInternational
Emissions
Bill's
targets
180
Climate Bill’s implied trajectory
(though 26% by 2020)
160
Emissions (MtC)
140
120
100
80
60
40
Bill equates to ~ 6.0GtC (2000-2050)
(ex. international aviation & shipping)
20
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
Year
2030
2040
2050
Adding International Aviation & Shipping Emissions to the Bill
…aadding
International
& Shipping
(based on
significant
reductionAviation
in growth
of these sectors)
180
160
Emissions (MtC)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
Year
2030
2040
2050
Adding International Aviation & Shipping Emissions to the Bill
…aadding
International
& Shipping
(based on
significant
reductionAviation
in growth
of these sectors)
180
160
Emissions (MtC)
140
120
100
80
i.e.
60
With a low growth future for aviation & shipping
(2000-2050)
40
20
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
Year
2030
2040
2050
Consequently, the Bill implies:
180
160
Emissions (MtC)
140total cumulative 2000-2050 budget of ~ 7.5GtC
- a UK
120
- an atmospheric concentration of over 650ppmv CO2
100
- virtual
certainty of exceeding 2°C
80
60 chance of exceeding 4°C
- a 50%
40
20
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
Year
2030
2040
2050
… so what should a 2°C science-based
climate change bill contain
… the bill should :
• adopt cumulative emissions as basis for targets
• acknowledge 2°C is much more demanding than
previously thought (~6 to 9% carbon reduction p.a.)
• include aviation & shipping emissions
• recognise need for immediate action on demand
(acknowledge reliance on low-carbon supply is misguided)
Revisiting the global context
Tyndall’s
‘global emission scenarios (CO2e)’
 What are the latest CO2 emission trends?
 What are implications of factoring in:
- land-use & forestry?
- non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions?
 When will global CO2e emissions peak?
What are the latest global CO2 emission trends?
~ 2.7% p.a. last 100yrs
~ 3.3% p.a. in last 5 years
What are the latest global CO2e emission trends?
~ 2.8% p.a. since 2000
~ Stern assumed 0.96%
Land-use & forestry emissions
Tyndall analysis uses
 most ‘optimistic’ estimate from the literature
 Tyndall very low emission scenario
Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
Tyndall analysis uses
 Short-term EPA estimates
 Tyndall optimistic scenarios up to peak emissions
 Stabilisation at low-level by 2050
When will global CO2e emissions peak?
USA
-
2025
Stern
-
2015
Tyndall
-
2015, 2020, 2025
When will global CO2e emissions peak?
USA
-
2025
Stern
-
2015
Tyndall
-
2015, 2020, 2025
Emissions of greenhouse gases (GtCO2e)
What does all this imply for
a 450ppmvCO
e future?
450ppmv
cumulative emission2scenarios
peaking in 2020
80
Low A
Unprecedented
Low B
annual
Medium A
reductions
Medium B
A
(~10% High
pa globally)
60
High B
40
20
0
2000
2020
2040
2060
Year
2080
2100
For 550ppmv CO2e with emissions peaking by 2020:
 6% annual reductions in CO2e
 9% annual reductions in CO2 from energy
For 650ppmv CO2e with emissions peaking by 2020:
 3% annual reductions in CO2e
 3.5% annual reductions in CO2 from energy
What are the precedents for
such reductions?
annual reductions of greater than 1% p.a. have only
“been associated with economic recession or upheaval”
Stern 2006
 UK gas & French 40x nuclear ~1% p.a. reductions
(ex. aviation & shipping)
 Collapse Soviet Union economy ~5% p.a. reductions
So where does this leave us?
Even assuming:
… an unprecedented step change in mitigating emissions
… stabilising at 650ppmv CO2e appears increasingly to be
the best we can expect
i.e. human-induced climate change of ~4°C or more
To conclude
We need to urgently reframe the climate change debate:
 For mitigation
2°C should remain the driver of policy
 For adaptation
4°C should become the driver of policy
… ultimately ..
“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.”
Roberto Unger
academics
3 hen
tonne
musicians
4WD
1-person
10
driving
halogen
flying
flying
car
patio
to
living
to
children
transport
bulbs
climate
climate
heaters
in2
3lighting
to
bedroom
change
change
70kg
school
the
flesh
conferences
concerts
houses
kitchen
3miles
parties
business
in
Prague
tycoons
&
with
private
in
Barcelona
jets
second
homes,
cars
&
3celebrities
TVs
&double
allcelebrating
with
9
billion
people
living
on
our
planet!
door
refrigerators
&
home
cinema
‘right’
to
fly
&
drive
when
&birthdays
wherever
we
want
year-round
the
excesses
strawberries
of
Reframing Climate Change:
End
From long-term targets to
emission pathways
Kevin Anderson & Alice Bows
Tyndall Centre
University of Manchester