Transcript Document

MFAT stakeholders meeting
16th August, 2007
The threat of accelerating,
abrupt or rapid climate change:
implications for LULUCF
Peter Read
Massey University Centre for Energy Research
[email protected]
based on IPS Seminar
3rd August, 2007
Policy near the tipping point:
how carbon neutral NewZealand
can lead a carbon negative world.
Visit:
ht tp://www.vuw.ac.nz/sog/events/downloads/Peter%20Read%20Seminar%203Aug%2007.ppt
Peter Read
Massey University Centre for Energy Research
UNFCCC – Art 3.3
• The Parties should take precautionary
measures….
• Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage , lack of full scientific
certainty should not be used as reason for
postponing such measures …[which] …
should be cost effective so as to ensure
global benefits
Is there a threat ?
Some controversial climate science
(But note that the IPCC 4th Assessment Report [the best scientific information ?] is
sanitized in its references to climatic instability – visit
http://www.meridian.org.uk/Resources/Global%20Dynamics/IPCC/contents.htm )
http://w ww.meridian.org.uk/Resources/Global%20Dynamics/IPCC/contents.htm)
And vide
Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell D.W. Lea and M. Siddall, 2007.
“Climate change and trace gases”, Phil Trans Roy Soc (A), 365, 1925-54.
Ruddiman, W., 2003. “The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era Began Thousands
of Years Ago”, Climatic Change, 61, 261-293.
Controversial ? They disagree with each other ! [that can’t be good science, surely ??]
Surface Melt on Greenland
Melt descending
into a moulin, a
vertical shaft
carrying water to
ice sheet base
Quite a
bit of
basal
lubrication
here ! (PR)
Source: Roger Braithwaite, University of Manchester
Conclusion:
Earth’s climate is very sensitive to anthropogenic forcing
“Most critically, researchers know relatively little about feedback effects
that might enhance – or weaken – the pace and effects of climate
change.”.
“Key sticking points include the inability of global climate models to
[re]produce the amount of sea level rise observed over the past couple of
decades and whether ice flows at the bases of glaciers is accelerating or
not. How volatile the Antarctic and Greenland glaciers might become in
a warmer world is therefore pretty much guesswork”
Nature, pp280-281, 8.Feb, 2007
So yes, the science is uncertain
OK
We (posterity and NZ Inc.) need a precautionary policy
Noah built the Ark before the rain started
WHAT ARK? – CARBON REMOVALS
Biosphere Carbon Stock Management
[maybe enough – but maybe need albedo enhancement also]
Read P., Lermit J., 2005.
“Bio-energy with carbon storage (BECS): A sequential decision
approach to the threat of abrupt climate change”, Energy. 30: 2654-2671.
Read, P. and A. Parshotam, 2007.
“Holistic Greenhouse Gas Management Strategy (with Reviewers’
Comments and author rejoinders)”. Institute of Policy Studies
Working Paper 07/1, VUW //ips.ac.nz/publications/publications/list/7
Read, P., 2008
“Biosphere Management of Carbon Stocks.:Addressing the threat
of abrupt climate change in the next few decades.”
Forthcoming Editorial Essay in Climatic Change
Biosphere Carbon Stock Management
1. extract more CO2 from the atmosphere
2. stock it somewhere safer
(e.g. grow a lot of trees)
As a precautionary strategy
A Do low cost enabling things first (be prepared)
B Do costly things later if need be (enabled by A)
Comparison of carbon removals (F) with emission reductions
(Z) in mitigating the level of CO2 (in ppm) in the atmosphere
600
A
Z
550
[CO2]
500
F
450
400
350
300
250
200
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
Year
A
Z
F
SRES-A2
SRES-A2 with a transition to zero emissions technologies between 2011 and 2035
SRES-A2 with a transition to land improvement carbon removal technologies over the
same period, with land use change complete by 2035 and technological progress to 2060
So:
carbon removals is far more powerful than emissions reductions
Why a leading role for NZ ?
Because:
NZ economy is more exposed to accelerating climate change
impacts than any other Annex 1 country and needs an
effective post-2012 regime
NZ economy has comparative advantage in the land based
activities that are central to BCSM, and consultancy
expertise for relevant technology transfer
And because BCSM serves multiple objectives in the
Millennium Development Goals and Multilateral
Environmental Agreements that New Zealand supports
Global implementation
NOT a thousand plantations worldwide each 1 million Ha (3 in NZ)
BUT
• a million plantations worldwide each 1000 Ha (3000 in NZ) –
and many other types of BCSM project – each serving local
needs and providing sustainable rural development paths
• Capacity building programme to train ~100,000 grassroots
entrepreneurs with skills to engage commitment of farmers,
communities, villages, etc., to initiate country-driven projects
funded by energy consumers seeking sustainable best practice
bio-fuel supplies
• A framework of bi-lateral bio-energy partnerships in which South
partners agree to objective sustainability criteria in exchange for
investment, technology transfer and a shared hedge against peak
oil, shared with North partner (e.g. NZ and selected Pacific
Island partners).
Implementation in New Zealand
Royal Soc says 3m Ha low return land in NZ
Plant 150,000 Ha p.a. for 20 yrs from 2011 to establish a 20yr rotation “normal” forest
(better get busy propagating seedlings next year ! )
Assume zero growth for 4 years and 10 tons C per Ha p.a. for 20 yrs
=~ 37 t CO2 captured per Ha p.a. from 4th year
Then 37 x 150,000 = 1.5 Mt CO2 in 2015,
3 Mt CO2 in 2016,
4.5 Mt CO2 in 2015 etc…
)
)
)
……till
and
)
)
22.5 Mt CO2 in 2029
24 Mt CO2 in 2030
see handout
for details
This gives ~900Mt CO2 permanently stocked in the normal plantation forest by 2030
NZ Business As Usual emissions 2010-2030 average ~42Mt p.a. 2012-2030
20 yrs x 42 Mt p.a. = 840mt CO2 BINGO – carbon neutral NZ !! (by 2022)
Carbon negative if all those other emissions reductions policies work OK
From 2033 there is an annual crop of 320 tons / Ha x 150,000 Ha = 48m tons p.a.
Say 24 m tons timber for more wooden houses, etc
And ~ 24m.t. x 16GJ/ton = ~400PJ bioenergy raw material p.a. for ever
(around half NZ demand for primary energy)
A problem
Forestry is the most powerful technique available for near term carbon removals
Yet the previous Minister has totally stuffed up Government dealings with the forestry
sector
Carbon Removal Vouchers (see below) puts the job in the hands of firms at the point
of policy obligation – energy firms and other emitters (livestock farmers, Fontera,
meat processing firms?)
It’s an investment not a cost
And they can go overseas if NZ land is too valuable in food production
Resulting low domestic carbon price eases impacts on competitivity-at-risk sectors and
low income households
Avoids pork-barrel politics of grandfathering and/or stealth tax by auctioning
Another problem
Most carbon removals systems involve land use change with a large margin of error in
determining how much C has been removed (OK, you can measure how much
biochar goes into the soil, but what about claimed methane and nitrous oxide
emissions reductions, and increased soil organic matter and increased crop yield…..?
But an emissions cap generates a need for rigorous accounting
History of difficulty in negotiating land use change offsets in Kyoto (Art 3.3,
forestation) leads to complex rules and high transactions costs. Hence only 2 LUC
projects under the CDM, neither forestry.
A small but beautifully formed teaspoon is not much use for bailing CO2 out of the S.S.
Earth’s Atmosphere : if the ship is sinking a leaky bucket is much more use
So aim to drive policy-desirable BCSM projects on a large scale with minimal
transactions costs
Initially through Bilateral Bio-energy Partnerships avoiding the need for COP
agreement: ensure the global trend to biofuels is managed sustainably.
(Eventually, learning from experience, converging on a second and complementary
[Wellington?] protocol hanging from Art 3.3).
Then the psychology is quite different: instead of a punitive zero sum emissions cap
game, such a project oriented approach releases entrepreneurial energy to get ahead
with securing market share and competitive edge with the new policy oriented
technologies
Policy for getting action in New Zealand
Given that the carbon price is already serving the emissions reduction
commitment, we need a second tool to drive the BCSM programme
Make use of the policy tool that is wasted in the pork-barrel politics of
grandfathering versus auctioning of the initial issue of emissions permits
Give the permits away* [up to the level of the ‘cap’] on condition that
recipients surrender Carbon Removals Vouchers certified independantly
(e.g. by Veritas) in a proportion to the permit issue that increases over time.
Equivalent to Renewable Portfolio Standards used in the USA (e.g.
California, and proposed in Bills before the Federal Congress). Also
equivalent to recycling auction revenues but keeps government agencies out
of the front line.
*Initially grandfathered to incumbent firms but with an increasing proportion for new entrants
Diplomacy for getting action overseas
Draw attention of Conference of Parties to the threat of ACC
and responsibilities under Art 3.3 . “NZ is doing this – what
are you doing?”
Seek partners for Bilateral Bioenergy Partnerships
Network other industrialized countries to initiate their own BBP’s
Work through the G8 Global Bioenergy Partnership towards
consensus on sustainability criteria and eventual convergence
on a second Protocol, complementary to Kyoto
Negotiate emissions reductions commitments that reflect carbon
removals activity without the nausea of detailed accounting or
demonstrating additionality (i.e. sustainable best practice is sufficient).