Climate Change Mitigation Possibilities in the Energy Sector: an Arctic Perspective Maria Pettersson Luleå University of Technology Department of Social Science Law Division

Purpose “Analyse” the interrelation between:  Climate Change, the Climate Regime, Energy and The Arctic Questions…  The role of energy/renewable energy in the climate regime?  National mitigation policies in a regional and international context: what are the joint mitigation possibilities in the energy sector?

Energy Sector Mitigation Possibilities Changes in energy demand? Reduce consumption Changes in energy supply: Changes in the traditional energy mix Efficiency measures Introduction of carbon-free energy technology Remove and sequestrate carbon dioxide

Renewable Energy Support in the Climate Regime? UNFCCC No explicit reference to renewable energy Renewable energy technology presumably comprised by the concept ”environmentally sound technology” Kyoto Protocol No clear duties with reference to renewable energy Gentle steering (Art. 2) Possibilities for far-reaching energy conservation provided However, the extent to which renewables will be promoted by the climate regime will depend on the size of the cap…

Arctic Energy Resources & Policies I: Fossil fuels – OIL Large recoverable resources (e.g., in Alaska, Russia, Norway) Increased accessibility (CC) Increased environmental pressure (CC) Non-reasonable mitigation option Technological development? The Kyoto cap? Canada, Norway and the USA: CC&S programmes

Arctic Energy Resources & Policies II: Fossil fuels – GAS Large reserves (Russia, Alaska, Greenland, Norway) Increased accessibility (CC) Infrastructural damages (CC) Favourable mitigation option: Costs, environmental advantages, convenience, JI+CDM Policy instrument in force for e.g.,: CHP (General) Improved gas turbine technology (Canada) Leakage decrease (Russia)

Arctic Energy Resources & Policies III: Carbon-Free Energy ”If history is any guide, resources do not deplete; they are displaced by new technology that typically leaves much of the old resource in the ground” Denny Ellerman, MIT The development and diffusion of carbon-free energy technologies requires appropriate economic and regulatory instruments that significantly lower the costs associated with them

Arctic Energy Resources & Policies IV: WIND Large resources Infrastructural damage (CC) Favourable carbon-free option: Decreasing costs, JI+CDM, remote applications Constraints: Location, Grid-connection Policies & Measures: Wind power programmes (not Russia & Iceland) IEA Wind Cooperative Agreement (not Russia & Iceland)

Arctic Energy Resources & Policies V: WATER Great resource potential; Extensively built-out Constraints: Significant environmental impacts, high capital costs, institutional restrictions, public opposition Viable mitigation option? Small scale hydro Efficiency measures Policies & Measures: Canada, Norway, Finland, Sweden, USA parties to the IEA Implementing Agreement on Hydropower

Arctic Energy Resources & Policies VI: Renewables for the Future? The Ocean and the Sun: Wave- and tidal power Photovoltaic systems Current obstacles to diffusion: High capital costs & extensive construction time (tidal) Low potential (wave) Narrow application (photovoltaic) Policies & Measures: IEA Implementing Agreement on Ocean Energy Systems Support, R&D programmes etc. (Denmark, Norway, USA)

Conclusions  Further exploitation of Arctic energy resources a possible outcome of: Climate change The climate regime National energy policies  Quantified emission reduction targets imply: Increased costs for fossil fuels Improved economic potential for carbon-free options  Considerable energy related mitigation possibilities

Conclusions cont. In rough outline the energy related mitigation strategies are virtually similar: Energy efficiency Fuel switching Increased proportion of renewables etc. On closer inspection however… Social and resource prerequisites imply very different approaches  in perfect keeping with the idea behind the climate regime…  Joint mitigation possibilities?

”Joint Arctic Forces against climate change: an energy sector approach”? In addition to collaboration on the basis of administrative borders (e.g., EU ETS) WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO LAUNCH COOPERATION ASSOCIATIONS ON THE BASIS OF E.G., CLIMATE ZONES OR ”ENVIRONMENTAL BORDERS”? Could it be done in the Arctic?