Transcript Policy goals and common metrics implications

Workshop on common metrics to calculate the CO2
equivalence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by
sources and removals by sinks
Policy Goals and
Common Metrics Implications
Bonn, 04 April 2012
Newton Paciornik
BRAZIL
Common Metrics and Policy Issues
• Why we need a common metric?
– Multiple greenhouse gases
– Need to provide an information about a non-CO2 ghg
in CO2eq
• Types of information
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Climate change influence -> contribution to damage
Scenarios and projections
Inventories of emissions and removals
Responsibility to climate change
Goals
Mitigation options (cost/benefit analysis)
Choice of gases to consider
• One metric fits all?
– Is it possible? Is it desirable?
Policy Issues and Policy Options
• UNFCCC definition
– Anthropogenic emissions and removals
– Greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal
Protocol
– Issue: influence of other GHG and non-anthropogenic
sources and sinks.
• UNFCCC objective and principles
– “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations at a
level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system”
– “on the basis of equity and in accordance with their
common but differentiated responsibilities and
respective capabilities.”
Dangerous anthropogenic interference
with the climate system
• Evaluating the dangerous interference
– Emissions -> Concentrations ->
Climate Change (global) -> Damage (regional or local)
• Limiting climate change (measure of
interference) options:
–
–
–
–
–
temperature increase (average)
rate of temperature increase
sea level rise
others
Basket of measures
• Secondary measures (proxys?)
– concentration
– cumulative radiative forcing
Dangerous anthropogenic interference
with the climate system
• Limiting global average temperature increase
– Most recent policy decision
– Durban Platform: “holding the increase in global
average temperature below 2 °C or 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels”
• Horizon
–
–
–
–
Forever below 2 °C
Trajectory
Overshooting allowed?
Intermediary goals (checkpoints) – trajectory
correction
• Secondary scenarios and goals
– Emissions and concentrations
– Individual gases or basket
Basket of Gases and GWP
• Original sin
– Kyoto Protocol basket approach
• Flexibility of mitigation options to Annex I Parties
– Option: Brazilian proposal
• Burden sharing among Annex I Parties based on contribution to
climate change (top-down approach)
– Average temperature
– Sea level rise
• Too innovative at that point in time
– Adoption of a bottom-up approach
– On the shelf option: GWP (not developed with a policy
objective in mind)
• Propagation effect
– Inventories: total GHG emissions
– Mitigation options: policies and projects
– Mitigation analysis: cost/benefit
GHG Inventories and GWP
• Estimation of annual anthropogenic emissions
and removals of individual Greenhouse gases
• Emissions in CO2 eq
–
–
–
–
Nice, easy and understandable (?) information
Annex I , mandatory (GWP SAR)
Non Annex I, (GWP SAR if reported)
Annex I from 2015 submission on (GWP from AR4)
(most recent science!)
• Time-series from 1990 on recalculated
• GWP from AR5 will be available at this point in time
• Fixed GWP along the time-series make sense?
• Keep the individual gases estimates in metric
units archived. It is the basic and useful
information (policies can change)
Mitigation Options and GWP
• Annex I Parties
– Quantified Emission Limitation and Reductions in
CO2eq under the Kyoto Protocol
– Flexibility of different gas reductions
– Market mechanisms
– Inappropriate metric can lead different contributions
to combat climate change
• Non-Annex I Parties
– Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the
Kyoto Protocol
– Inappropriate metric can lead to incorrect evaluation
of the project contribution
Revisiting the Basket Approach
• Is it time to revisit the basket approach option?
– Keep one overall basket
– Individual gases
– Multiple baskets
• Recent developments
– Proposal for dealing with F-gases in the Montreal
Protocol
– Papers questioning the basket approach and pointing
for the Montreal Protocol lessons (e.g. Daniel et al.
2012)
Translating Goals into Budgets
• Single gas
– From temperature to concentration to emissions
– How to compare trajectories?
– Discounting rate
• On temperature
• On cost
– How to assess the cost before sharing the
burden?
• Different countries different costs
• Market mechanisms work?
• Basket of gases
– CO2 equivalent trajectories
– Individual gases trajectories
Burden Sharing
• Options to share the burden
– Pledges (bottom-up approach)
– Top-down approach
• Responsibility
• Capability
• Equity
• Individual parties goals
– Second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol
• Bottom-Up approach
– Durban Platform
• Open discussion
Data: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
CO2, Energy and Cement
Brazil and UK
Data: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
CO2, Energy and Cement
Brazilian Emissions in 2005 < UK emissions in 1888
Responsibility
• Evaluation of responsibility
– Current annual emissions
– Emissions per capita
– Historical responsibility
• Contribution to Climate Change
– Cumulative emissions
– Contribution to global average temperature increase
Capability
• Evaluation of Capability
–
–
–
–
GDP
GDP per capita
Human Development Index
Others
• High correlation with responsibility
Equity
• Dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system should be prevented on the
basis of equity
• Basket of gases and basket of sectors
– Emissions from a gas have the same influence from
the atmosphere point of view regardless of the
anthropogenic source
– From the equity point of view, anthropogenic sources
may have different evaluation, e.g.
• emissions from fossil fuel combustion
• emissions from food production
Final Remarks
• From the policy side, there are still many
options open
• One specific metric not necessary will be
appropriate to all situations were a basket of
gases is used
–
–
–
–
–
Scenarios and projections
Selection of trajectory
Evaluation of responsibility
Burden sharing
Mitigation options
• Historical responsibility to climate change is key
in establishing budgets when sharing the
burden and a common metric has to reflect it