Transcript Understanding and influencing global politics towards

”Understanding and influencing
global politics towards Copenhagen
and beyond”
Comments by Anders Wijkman at
Ny-Ålesund Symposium 2009.
Several parallel crises:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Financial crisis
Climate crisis
Ecosystem/Natural resources crisis
Peak oil
•
All these crises have the same roots, unsustainable use of
resources – in the economic system and in Nature.
2/3 of major ecosystems used beyond capacity
Climate change and resource constraints will affect our
economies negatively, will aggravate poverty in many
developing countries and may lead to serious conflicts
•
•
•Just as a few lonely economists
warned us we were living
beyond our financial means and
overdrawing our financial
assets, scientists are warning us
that we’re living beyond our
ecological means and
overdrawing our natural assets,”
argues Glenn Prickett, senior
vice president at Conservation
International. But, he cautioned,
as environmentalists have
pointed out: “Mother Nature
doesn’t do bailouts.”
Thomas Friedman in New
York Times, march 2009.
•We created a way of raising
standards of living that we can’t
possibly pass on to our
children,” said Joe Romm, a
physicist and climate expert
who writes the indispensable
blog climateprogress.org
<http://climateprogress.org/> .
We have been getting rich by
depleting all our natural stocks
— water, hydrocarbons, forests,
rivers, fish and arable land —
and not by generating
renewable flows
Thomas Friedman in New
York Times, march 2009
”The Quadruple
Squeeze”
Human growth
20/80 dilemma
Ecosystems
Climate
60 % loss dilemma
550/450/350
dilemma
Surprise
99/1 dilemma
The Planetary Response
CO2, N2O, CH4 concentrations
The Planetary
Overfishingto global
Response
change
drivers
Land degradation
(Steffen et al., 2004)
Loss of Biodiversity
Water Depletion
Unsustainable consumption
…..
1900
1950
2000
From: Steffen et al. 2004
Climate Change
325 ppm CO2 < 1W m2
(300 – 350 ppm CO2 ;
1-1.5 W m2))
Ozone depletion
< 5 % of Pre-Industrial 290 DU
(0 - 10%)
Atmospheric
Aerosol Loading
To be determined
Biogeochemical
loading: Global N
& P Cycles
Limit industrial fixation
of N2 to 35 Tg N yr-1
P < 20 % inflow to
Oceans
Planetary
Boundaries
Ocean acidification
Aragonite saturation ratio
< 20 % below preindustrial levels
Biodiversity Loss
< 10 E/MSY
Land System
Change
≤15 % of land
under crops
Global Freshwater Use
<4000 km3/yr
(4000 – 6000 km3/yr)
Chemical Pollution
Plastics, Endocrine Desruptors, Nuclear
Waste Emitted globally
To be determined
Rethink economic policy
framework
• Financial Crisis and Environmental Crisis have same roots unsustainable use of resources
• Externalities overwhelm us; there are boundary conditions for
human development we have to respect
• Beyond GDP – Stiglitz Commission an opportunity, but
research needed
• Take Nature into account – loss of tropical forests = 2-5 trillion
US p a
• Implement PPP
• Discountingof future values critical issue
• In the EU: Merge Lisbon and SDS strategies
• Reform business models
Global 2ºC pathways and their risks
Challenges for Copenhagen:
• Mitigation – minimum 40-50 % GHG reductions for Annex 1
countries to 2020; significantly lower GHG pathways than
BAU for non-Annex 1
• Emissions reduction target for 2050 – 70-80% reduction
needed to meet 2° target
• Special problem: how to promote forest protection?
• Adaptation – 20-50 billion US p a from 2013; kick-start by
funding NAPA:s now
• Technology cooperation – in addition to CDM, JI etc
• Include ecosystems protection
• Funding? – most natural would be PPP, e g auctioning
revenues, tax on bunker fuels, aviation etc
EU energy/climate package
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
20% GHG reduction to 2020 – unilateral
20% Renewables, binding
20% Energy Efficiency improvement
Reformed ETS
Stricter CO2 standards for vehicles (120 g/km)
CCS – 12 demo-plants
Buildings directive
Eco-design directive
Global Climate Change Alliance, but limited funding
Readiness to move to 30% reduction in the event of
international deal in Copenhagen
Negotiations not encouraging so
far
• Proposals on the table far away from what is
needed – will result in 3-4° warming
• Perception seems to be that incremental
change will do
• North/South distrust
• Financial issues so far no progress
• Negotiators don´t discuss what stabilisation
requires – rather what is politically possible
• EU has provided leadership so far – but that is
put into question now?
Put a price on Carbon
•
•
•
•
”Cap and Trade” or CO2 tax
In theory, ”Cap and Trade” the most effective
In reality, CO2 tax easier to implement
Many good experiences w CO2 tax, such as
Sweden, where CO2 tax in 1991 lead to phasing
out of fossil fuels in heating of buildings
• A lot of prestige invested in ”Cap and Trade”
• Is a CO2 tax at all possible in the US?
• One problematic issue is how to incentivise
investments over the long-term?
Experience w ETS
• Lots of problems during starting phase
- overallocation
- permits allocated for free; windfall profits
- what to include? – transport missing
• Reform issues:
- cap must be signif lowered
- permits to be auctioned – but EU decision december 2008
disapp!
- flanking measures to give technology push
- Environment Performance Standards as parallel measure
- Should forest credits be included?
- How link to other ”cap and trade” regimes?
- The degree of flexibility? – how much CDM?
Non-ETS activities – regulation a
must!
•
•
•
•
•
Energy efficiency,
Renewables
Land-use
R&D
Strengthen ecosystems in general
Efficiency:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Buildings
White certificates
Cars
Tyres, eco-driving etc
Electric equipment/Eco-design
Manufacturing
Resource efficiency
Global standards
Power supply yet to be built
Future global power generation
capacity
GW
7%
*
Source: IEA; McKinsey analysis
*
*
*
*
2030 capacity
yet to be built
Existin
g
23% capacit
y
*
Renewables:
• EU objective: 20% of energy mix in 2020 (8,5%
today) – binding target
• Trade between MS
• Green certificates or feed-in tariffs
Land-use
• Agriculture, incl meat production, low tillage
etc
• Forests – avoided deforestation, reforestation
• Bio-fuels – Obs sustainability criteria
• Bio-char
Energy R&D
• Long neglected
• Share of public funding for Energy R&D has gone down
significantly since 1980 – must be multiplied
• Many promising areas, like solar cells and solar
thermal, off-shore wind, wave, sea currents, fuel cells,
electric cars, 2nd generation biofuels, biogas, lowenergy housing etc
• CCS special issue – needed but too much used as alibi
to continue BAU
• How to guarantee investments? – floor price on oil
• Who is investing in alternatives?
Public Energy R&D in IEA Countries
Private-sector R&D is increasingly focused on projects with short-term payoffs.
Source: IEA Databases, Doornbosch, et al., 2008
History of US Federal Government R&D
Homeland Security
Reagan “Star
Wars” Program
JFK Apollo
Program
Carter Energy
Program
Optimism the only possible
attitude
• Distrust must be addressed – requires commitments both on
mitigation and adaptation; start adaptation NOW
• 2/3 of power generation and buildings in 2030 still to be built
• Mitigation saves money
• Already huge opportunities to use energy more efficiently
• Financial Crisis an opportunity; Rethink economic growth
• Contraction and convergence OK as principle but China
already beyond per capita GHG target for 2050
• Most important is to put a price on Carbon
• Land use issues critical
• Develop mechanisms for technology cooperation
• Long term: Science – Policy Gap must be bridged