Transcript AOSS_480_L16_Science_Policy_20080306.ppt

Climate Change: The Move to Action
(AOSS 480 // NRE 501)
Richard B. Rood
734-647-3530
2525 Space Research Building (North Campus)
[email protected]
http://aoss.engin.umich.edu./people/rbrood
Winter 2008
March 6, 2008
Class News
• A ctools site for all
– AOSS 480 001 W08
• This is the official repository for lectures
• Email [email protected]
• Class Web Site and Wiki
–Climate Change: The Move to
Action
–Winter 2008 Term
Readings on Local Servers
• Assigned
– Jasanoff: The Fifth Branch (Chapter 1)
– Pew: State-based Initiatives (2006)
– Pew: State-based Initiatives (Update, 2007)
• Of Interest
– Rabe: Congressional Testimony (2007)
– Pew: Beyond Kyoto
• Foundational References
– UNFCCC: Text of Convention
– Kyoto Protocol: Text
– Kyoto Protocol: Introduction and Summary
A useful reference (not on server)
• Barry Rabe: Statehouse and Greenhouse
Lectures coming up
• http://www.snre.umich.edu/events
Outline of Lecture
•
•
•
•
Summary of Energy-Climate Relation
Need for “carbon policy”
IPCC: Formal science-policy interface
Global policy of mitigation
– UN Framework Convention for Climate Change
• “Dangerous” climate change
– Kyoto protocol
• Market mechanisms
• Regional, State and Local Policy
Energy and Climate Change
SURFACE WARMING
POPULATION
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
GREEN HOUSE GAS INCREASE
Energy and Climate Change
GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES
SURFACE WARMING
POPULATION
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
LOCAL DECISIONS
GREEN HOUSE GAS INCREASE
Another view of U.S. Energy
TWO
MAJOR
SOURCES
TWO
MAJOR
USES
Oil Consumption - Production
CONSUMPTION
PRODUCTION
Energy Information Administration
ENERGY VERSUS HUNGER
RICH VERSUS POOR
HUNGER
ENERGY
Thanks to Maria Carmen Lemos
Amigos de la Tierra Int. y
Acción Ecológica 2002.
THE POINT
• Energy
– Consumption and Production
– Rich and Poor
• These are sources of tension; they connect
international community to national security and
economic success.
• The problems of energy security, national
security, and economic success demand more
urgent attention than climate change.
These are not academic problems
U.S. Oil Imports
Energy Information Admistration
Again: Short-term versus long-term
• This is a classic short-term versus long-term
problem.
–
–
–
–
Ethics
Economics
Reaction versus anticipation
Adaptation versus mitigation
• A way to provide rationality to the problem is to
look at the near term, the long term, and how to
get from now to next to where we need to be.
Policy
• A natural reaction to this situation is to look
to government, to the development of
policy to address the problems that we are
faced with.
Policy
• What do we look to policy to accomplish?
– From class discussion
• Stimulate technology: Provide incentives or dis-incentives for
behavior. (Often through financial or market forces.)
• Set regulations: Put bounds on some type of behavior, with
penalties is 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.
Complexity
• Need for energy policy
– Energy security
– Economic stability
• de facto growth!
– Localized solutions?
• Need for climate policy
– Mitigation: global
– Adaptation: local
NEED CARBON POLICY
• We need a carbon policy which is integrated with
energy policy.
– Some alternative energy sources don’t do a whole
much for reducing carbon dioxide in atmosphere.
– Coal is our easy energy security
• Without sequestration (carbon removal), coal makes the
problem worse.
• Concern: Quest for energy security-national
security, demand for cheap energy will reduce
priority we give to reduction of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere.
Policy: Global and Local
GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES
LOCAL POLICY
(ADAPTATION)
SURFACE WARMING
GLOBAL POLICY
(MITIGATION)
GREEN HOUSE GAS INCREASE
Carbon Policy
• Carbon policy is viewed by many as an
economic threat.
– Justified position?
Science-Policy Interface
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(The assessment process: A formal interface)
How is this
information
evaluated,
integrated and
transmitted to
policymakers?
Published in refereed
literature
IPCC CLIMATE
REPORTS
2001
2007
What we know + uncertainty
U.S. Climate Change Study
Program
U.S. National Assessment
National Academy of Sciences
Review by
government officials
// Final language //
All agree
Scientist-authors are
nominated by
governments to
assess the state of
the science
Draft documents are
reviewed by experts
who did NOT write
the draft. // Open
review as well
Draft revised
Global Policy: Mitigation
Development of International Climate Change Regime
1988
1992
1995
1997
2001
IPCC
established
Framework
Convention
(UNFCCC)
Kyoto
Protocol
Scientific
assessment
Non-binding
aim
Binding
emissions
target
2007
?????
Framework Convention on Climate Change
(US in part of this.)
• UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
(1992, non-binding, voluntary, 190 signers)
– Reduce CO2 Emissions in 2000 to 1990 levels
– Inventories of greenhouse gas emissions
– Mitigate Climate Change
• Mid-1990’s
– No reduction in emissions
– Evidence of warming and impacts
Framework Convention on Climate Change
Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum
Dangerous climate change?
Stern, 2006
Dangerous
Climate Change?
Adapted from IPCC, 2001
Some carry away messages
• Determine what is a tolerable ceiling for carbon
dioxide.
- Gives cap for a cap and trade system.
- Tolerable ceilings have been posed as between 450
and 550 ppm.
- Ice sheet melting and sea level?
- Oceanic circulation / The Gulf Stream?
- Ocean acidification?
- Determine a tolerable measure of increased
temperature
- British policy  2o C
Basic constraint on carbon policy
Basic constraint on carbon policy
Stabilizing concentrations
Means Action Now …
Ceiling (ppmv)
350
450
550
650
750
Start Date
Too
late
2007
2013
2018
2023
Max Emission
6.0
8.0
9.7
11.4
12.5
2005
2011
2033
2049
2062
Max Year
1950 – 1.8 tons // 1990 – 5.8 tons // 2000 – 6.5 tons
Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum
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
Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum
Assessment
• Mid-1990’s
– No reduction in emissions
– Evidence of warming and impacts
• 2001
– No reduction in emissions
– Evidence of warming and impacts
• 2007
– No reduction in emissions
– Evidence of warming and impacts
Kyoto Protocol followed 1995 assessments
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
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 2008-2012
• Set of other activities
–
–
–
–
Improve “local emission factors”
Inventories of emissions and sinks
Mitigation and adaptation plans
Environmentally sound technology diffusion to developing nations
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
Kyoto Protocol: Important Add ons
• Market-based mechanisms
– Emissions trading
– Joint implementation
– Clean development mechanisms
• “Common but differentiated
responsibilities”
Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum
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
Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum
Kyoto Mechanisms:
• Bubbles (Art. 4)
– Any group of Annex I countries may pool
emissions targets
German Target
Greek
Target
Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum
Kyoto Mechanisms:
• Emissions trading (Art. 17)
– Developed countries and firms can
trade parts of their “assigned amounts”
of emissions
– Successfully used in US in sulfur dioxide
program
US
AAU
Norway
Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum
Kyoto Mechanisms:
• Joint implementation (JI) (Art. 6)
– One Annex I country undertakes a project
in another country to reduce emissions or
enhance sinks
– The project generates an “emission
reduction unit,” which can be transferred
– ERUs subtracted from transferor’s
assigned amount and added to
transferee’s assigned amount
Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum
Kyoto Mechanisms:
• Joint Implementation (Art. 6)
US
ERU
Norway
Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum
Kyoto Mechanisms:
• Clean Development Mechanism (Art.
12)
– Annex I party can undertake mitigation project
in developing country
– Win-win approaches
• Developing countries get climate-friendly technology
• Projects generate “certified emission reductions”
(CERs), which developed countries can use to meet
emission targets
US
CER
India
Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum
Kyoto Protocol:
Issues with Market-based Mechanisms
• Trading with countries who do not have
emission limits / non-ratifying countries
• Integrity in the trading market
– “false” credits
– Reporting
– Measurements
– Verifying
“Flaws” in Kyoto Protocol
• Participation of Developing Countries
– Large populations, large projected growth
• Participation of the United States
– 25 % of greenhouse gas emissions
• Other “flaws”
– Does not go far enough: Emission goals don’t
adequately mitigate dangerous climate
change
– 2008-2012 commitment period – then what?
Elements of “U.S. Position”
• Will not be ratified unless developing countries
are included in emission limits
• Continuing concerns
– Impact on economic growth and gross national
product
• CO2, currently, directly related to enterprise, economy …
– Robustness of scientific justification and observations
– Winners outweigh losers
• Policy defines winners and losers in a different way.
Issues of implementation
• Rules that govern compliance
• The rules of development and transfer of
cleaner, low emission, technologies
• The role of carbon sinks: trees, removal
technology, ….
• The reward/punishment for those who take
the initiative to address their emissions
unilaterally
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
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
Constituencies in the community
• Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGO)
–
–
–
–
Accept climate change science
Differ on acceptance of market-based mechanisms
Differ on role of businesses in tackling climate problem
Differ on role of geo-engineering
• Business and Industry Non-Governmental Organizations (BINGO)
– “Green” companies: Accept science and see business advantage or
necessity
– Middle ground: Accept science and cautious approach to mitigation
– “Gray” companies: Mostly U.S. fossil-fuel based industries: Question
science and impact, Cost of mitigation outweighs benefits
• Global Climate Coalition
• Climate Council
– Relationship with OPEC?
Beyond 2012
• Pew: International Climate Efforts Beyond
2012: Report of the Climate Dialogue at
Pocantico
– This is a report published by Pew of a
collection of experts on climate change
– It is very soft in its recommendations
• Like keep the international community together
• Identification of what is important in any viable
treaty
• Important problem, keep international attention
Where we sit at a national level
SEC. 16__. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON CLIMATE CHANGE. (2005)
(a) Findings.—Congress finds that—
1) greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are causing average
temperatures to rise at a rate outside the range of natural variability and are
posing a substantial risk of rising sea-levels, altered patterns of atmospheric
and oceanic circulation, and increased frequency and severity of floods and
droughts;
2) there is a growing scientific consensus that human activity is a substantial
cause of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere; and
3) mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse
gas emissions into the atmosphere.
(b) Sense of the Senate.—It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should
enact a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory,
market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that
slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions at a rate and in a
manner that—
1) will not significantly harm the United States economy; and
2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading
partners and key contributors to global emissions.
Scales: Time scale and “spatial” scale
GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES
LOCAL POLICY
(ADAPTATION)
SURFACE WARMING
GLOBAL POLICY
(MITIGATION)
GREEN HOUSE GAS INCREASE
Scale
• What is the best scale to measure vulnerability
and adaptive capacity?
– National:
• inform states on needed policy response; allow for better
decision making; allows for comparison of differential
vulnerability
– Regional
• Impacts are likely not to be defined by national borders
– Local
• Ground truth
• Allows for the understanding of the local factors that mediate
sensitivity and resilience
Thanks to Maria Carmen Lemos
Regional based Initiatives
• Changing very rapidly
• Prone to a bubble burst?
Scales of Policy: U.S.
–Pew: State-based Initiatives (Update, 2007)
Basic constraint on carbon policy
1990 by 2020
Motivations for State Activity
• Economics
– States (and cities) are very aggressive at
promoting policy that they perceive as offering
economic advantage.
– Branding: To attract, for instance, the “creative
class”
• Belief and Culture
– Reflection of political constituencies
States can be viewed as:
(from Rabe (2006))
• Hostile to climate change policy
– Michigan (Auto industry, manufacturing)
– Colorado (coal and energy)
• Stealth interest?
– Texas (aggressive renewable portfolio)
– Nebraska (sequestration site)
• Out in front
– California (Water, water, water?)
– Northeast alliance
Policy: Regional and State and Local
• California Climate Change
• Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
• United Conference of Mayors
– U.S. Mayors: Climate Protection Agreement
• Map of US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
• Cool Cities
What does this mean?