Common Metrics Policy Goals and Frameworks An EU Perspective Frank McGovern, 4th April 2012, Bonn.

Download Report

Transcript Common Metrics Policy Goals and Frameworks An EU Perspective Frank McGovern, 4th April 2012, Bonn.

Common Metrics
Policy Goals and Frameworks
An EU Perspective
Frank McGovern,
4th April 2012, Bonn
Contents
• History of metrics and their use in the UNFCCC
• The benefits of the Basket approach
• What should a gas equivalent metrics do?
• General principles on the characteristics of metrics
• Dealing with problems in the design
• Implications of changing metric
• Conclusion
History of GWPs in the
UNFCCC
Article 2. Objective: stabilisation of
atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations at a level that would
prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system
• Long lived greenhouse gases are the
key challenge.
• Process must facilitate actions on
these gases.
History of GWPs in the
UNFCCC
• Develop, periodically update, publish and make available to the
Conference of national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources
and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the
Montreal Protocol, using comparable methodologies to be agreed upon by
the Conference of the Parties;
• Kyoto Protocol Article 3: Ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic
carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in
Annex A.
• Carbon dioxide (C02)
• Methane (CH4)
• Nitrous oxide (N20)
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
• Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
The benefits of the
basket approach
• Basket
•
•
•
•
•
Enables more policy options and flexibilities
Provides a economy wide signal
Targets the key gases
Avoids negotiations on targets for individual gases
Economically efficient overall
• Key Requirement
• An agreed common metric to aggregate emissions
What should a gas equivalent
metric do?
• Provide a robust scientific basis for quantifying and comparing the
potential climate impacts of the basket of GHGs
• Provide a common view of the relative importance of emissions
• Enable an agreed basis for target setting and tracking progress on
targets over defined periods.
• Allow fungible trading of gases.
• Avoids biases and perverse outcomes
• Provide a fair basis for assessing equivalent effort.
• Support achievement of global temperature goals
General principles on the
characteristics
• Use for well mixed and evenly distributed gases, i.e., long life GHG
• Unbiased over the basket of gases
• Easy to understand and links with responsibility
• Practical and stable
• Based on objective physical properties
• Facilitate cost-effective abatement
• Useable for achievement of the objectives and mechanisms of the
convention in an appropriate timeframe
• Acceptable to the Parties
Dealing with problems in
the design
IPCC recognised shortcomings of GWPs
• Integration period result in different values
• Revisions are required based on changes in atmospheric
concentrations
• Difficult to extend to short-lived radiative forcers
• Other metrics also have shortcomings
Implications of changing metric
Requires understanding of
• The differences between concepts and scientific basis
• The advantages/disadvantages, assumptions, limitations
and uncertainties involved
• The impacts on mitigation actions, targets and the markets
Also requires consideration of
• Time-scales for implementing changes of metrics
• E.g. The current metrics are used domestic legislation such as EU
ETS and require certainty over defined operational periods
• Reworking and re-evaluation of inventories
• Communications to key stakeholders and the public
Conclusions
 GWP has been adopted and reconfirmed by Parties to UNFCCC for
determination of GHG emissions
 GWP has proven to be a robust and practical metric
 Other metrics also have shortcomings and have not been subject to
test through use under the UNFCCC
 Changing metrics would require a major revision of assessment of
emissions and has implications for policies, markets, target setting
and monitoring progress
 The EU supports the continued use of GWPs under the UNFCCC
and looks forward to consideration of relevant material in the AR5
Acknowledgements
With thanks to: Myles Allen, Tina Christensen, Bill Collins,Jolene
Cook,Laila Gohar, Anke Herold, Nick Howarth, Phillip O’Brien, Alex
Lorenz , Malte Meinshausen, Keith Shine, Christiane Textor, David
Warrilow.