Transcript Climatic Change - The Sustainability Society

NZSSES
26th October, 2007
Carbon Trading for Every Season
Peter Read
Massey University Centre for Energy Research
The Kyoto Protocol (Art 4.2(d)) is the end
product of a long drawn out process that
began with the Berlin Mandate agreed at
COP1 in 1995.
At that time climate change was regarded as a
very long term gradual process shrouded in
uncertainty
The bad news
Climate Change science has overtaken it
The good news
As someone said
“There’s got to be a better way”
But for sure, whatever we need to do, carbon
trading will make it easier
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)
So: 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 ??]
“The processes that give rise to nonlinear ice sheet response (almost universal
retreat of ice shelves buttressing the West Antarctic ice sheetand portions
of Greenland, increased surface melt and basal lubrication, speed-up
of the flux of icebergs from ice streams to the ocean, ice sheet thinning and thus
lowering of its surface in the critical coastal regions, and an increase in the
number of ‘icequakes’ that signify lurching motions by portions of the ice sheets)
are observed to be increasing.
“Part of the explanation for the inconsistency between palaeoclimate data and
IPCC projections lies in the fact that existing ice sheet models are missing
realistic (if any) representation of the physics of ice streams and icequakes,
In the absence
of realistic models, it is better to rely on information from the Earth’s history.
That history reveals large changes of sea level on century and shorter timescales.
We infer that it would be not only dangerous, but also foolhardy to follow a
BAU path for future GHG emissions.” [Hansen, et al, op cit]
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
This and
following
slides from
W. Ruddiman,
op cit (PR)
→
Ca. 6000 year deglaciations followed by slower glaciating phases in the
last ~half million years. * indicates the insolation peaks ending the
warming phases. Note → the increase of CO2 levels since the last (St1)
insolation peak, attributed to anthropogenic emissions related to forest fire
deforestation in the course of land clearance for agricultural expansion (PR)
Depopulation due to plagues caused abandonment of agricultural land and forest
regrowth, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and leading to cool climatic phases –
the ‘little ice age’ after the Black Death and the ‘dark ages’ after the plagues that
occurred with the collapse of the Roman empire (PR)
Methane in atmosphere trended upwards (anomalously compared with
earlier glaciating phases) coinciding with the commencement of paddy
field rice cultivation about 5000 years ago (PR)
“But what we have been hearing over the past weeks and
months is that the scale and urgency of the challenge we face is
worse than we had feared.
It is now clear that tackling climate change is an imperative not
a choice, a problem for today not tomorrow.”
British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, Berlin, 24.x.06
Conclusion: Earth’s climate is extremely 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
But doing nothing is a silly response
We (posterity and NZ Inc.) need a precautionary policy
The good news
CARBON REMOVALS
1. extract more CO2 from the atmosphere
2. stock it somewhere safer
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
F
550
[CO2]
500
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
As regards 1, there is only one way
It involves large scale land improvement to raise its
productivity and yield all we need in food/fibre co-produced
with fuel
(call it “Global Gardening” – if we look after Mother Nature
there’s some chance she will look after us )
It should be good news for farmers and landowners: instead of
difficult emissions reductions, the energy sector invests in
low cost land based activities to secure a strategic (biomass)
raw material supply and provide a hedge against high cost oil
As regards 2
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
standing forest
Biochar soil improvement + bio-oils
BECS (Bio-Energy with CCS)
More wooden houses and other structures
As regards A [low cost actions first]
1.
Invest in forest plantations to stock carbon and act as a
strategic reserve of biomass raw material
(quite useful as timber if the climate change panic goes away)
2.
Invest in a vehicle fleet that is compatible with biofuels
(a useful hedge against ‘peak oil’ – the dear oil age
3.
•
•
•
•
Invest in biofuel supply systems
maybe 2nd generation cellulosic ethanol
maybe gasification and Fischer Tropsche liquids
most likely pyrolysis with biochar for soil improvement
maybe on-farm gasification linked to ‘herd-homes’ and riparian
tree plantations to prevent pollution of our rivers
An investment should not be treated as a cost
As regards B [if we get desperate]
Be ready to retrofit CCS onto all large
stationary furnaces
CCS is a pure cost
Before that, how to make A happen?
Stern Report
“The first essential element of climate change policy is carbon
pricing…. Putting an appropriate price on carbon…. means that
people pay the full social cost [???] of their actions….
Fortunately an emissions cap is not just a price signal – it involves
a quantity constraint.
… “But the presence of a wide range of other market failures and
barriers mean that carbon pricing alone is not sufficient.
Technology policy… is vital to bring forward the range of lowcarbon and high efficiency technologies that will be needed to
make deep emissions cuts” (p308, introducing Part IV on Policy
Responses for Mitigation).
tradable obligations that increase over time are the
preferred policy instrument.
For example, a tradable requirement on transport fuel
sellers to include a rising proportion of sustainably
produced biofuel in their product sales, and a tradable
requirement on sellers of fuel for other uses, and on
agricultural and other emitters of methane (CH4) and
nitrous oxide (N2O) to offset a rising proportion of their
emissions through carbon storage.
“Tradable” means that the obligation could be
discharged by contracting it to a third party – Shell could
contract its obligation to BP, Solid Energy to Meridian, or
both to Weyerhaeuser Inc. – there will still be a market.
So, a today solution to the today problem
• Mandate a rising proportion of biofuels
• Mandate a large proportion of flexifuel
cars in the new car import mix
• Mandate importers of 2nd hand cars to
adapt them to 10 per cent ethanol
• Mandate investment by stationary
emitters [both energy, and land based] in
a rising area of new plantations
Do not rely on price signals – today’s price is
a weak driver for investment decisions
HOW? : global implementation
Calculations illustrates impact of carbon removals
Do NOT illustrate how it could be implemented
NOT a thousand plantations each 1 million Ha (3 in NZ) BUT
• a million plantations each 1 thousand Ha (3000 in NZ) – and
many other types of carbon removals 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 series 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 – Fiji one day soon we may hope).
HOW ? – 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
Identified Land Areas
·<1000m
·<15o slope
· none < 1ha
·no DOC
·no diary or hort
·incl grazing and
forestry
·<1000m
·<15o slope
· none < 1ha
·no DOC
·no diary or hort
·incl grazing and
forestry
· returns <$350/ha/yr
·<1000m
·<15o slope
· none < 1ha
·no DOC
·no diary or hort
·incl grazing
·returns <$350/ha/yr
·EXCL FORESTRY
NI
4,060,000 Ha
1,442,000 Ha
587,500 Ha
SI
4,356,000 Ha
2,629,000 Ha
2,525,000 Ha
So New Zealand has the land
But don’t do it all in New Zealand
Any solution to today’s problem must involve developing countries
On a global scale that’s where the land is
And their emissions will outstrip developed countries very soon
unless they are enabled to develop sustainable energy systems
So grow the tress and develop ethanol and other biofuel systems in
the Islands and elsewhere that NZ has good links
Not as aid but as DFI by energy firms mandated to invest in CSM
Thank you