Reframing climate change: from long- term targets to emission pathways Professor Kevin Anderson Director of the Tyndall’s Centre’s Energy Programme

Kevin Anderson Research director Tyndall Centre’s energy programme University of Manchester 17 th June 2008 Reframing Climate Change: From long-term targets to emission pathways Based on research by Kevin Anderson & Alice Bows Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering

Talk outline 1) What is dangerous climate change? 2) Reframing the debate - cumulative emissions 3) “It’s energy demand stupid” 4) The critical role of aviation & shipping 5) Responding to the challenge … the UK’s climate change bill? 6) Revisiting the global context

What is dangerous climate change?  UK & EU define this as 2  C  Links to total quantity of CO 2 in atmosphere - measured in parts-per-million by volume (ppmv)  Currently 380ppmv & increasing 2-3ppmv each year - 280ppmv before industrial revolution  Still feasible to keep below 450ppmv CO 2 - i.e. 70% chance of exceeding 2  C 50% chance of exceeding 3  C

What are the ‘correct’ emission targets for 2  C ?  UK & EU have long term reduction targets - e.g. UK’s 60% reduction in CO 2 by 2050  But CO 2 stays in atmosphere for approx. 100years  Hence, today’s emissions add to yesterdays & will be added to by tomorrows  So, focus on long-term targets is very misleading

the final % reduction in carbon has little relevance to avoiding dangerous climate change (e.g. 2  C) Put bluntly … What is important are the cumulative emissions of carbon

How does this scientifically-credible way of thinking, alter the challenge we face?

A bank-account analogy We know:.. how much money we have in the bank between (the carbon budget)

~ 4.8 billion tonnes of carbon between the UK’s budget is For a 30% chance of “avoiding dangerous climate change”

1.What are the emissions between 2000 & today? 2.What emissions are we locked into in the immediate future? From this two questions arise

… emissions between were ~ 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon … i.e. we’ve used ¼ of our permitted emissions for 50 years in around 6 years! Answer 1

Looking at this graphically … Answer 2

Plot data from 2000 to 2006

Dip due to September 11th

What about the next 6 years … with more aviation & shipping

… emissions are likely to rise

4.8 billion tonnes Carbon in the bank But we only have

… locking the UK into dramatic annual carbon reductions from around

~ 9% p.a. reduction

… even a 550ppmv pathway has an emission reduction of ~ 6% p.a from 2015 for 2 decades

What does this pathway say about emission policies ?

most emissions are released in next 15 yrs 2006

demand supply & demand 2006

… how does aviation fit into this?

11 MtC 2006 Aviation is currently 7% of UK emissions (over ½ of that from cars)

11 MtC 2006 if emissions grow at 7% until 2012 (historical mean) reducing to 3% from Aviation is currently 7% of UK emissions (over ½ of that from cars)

17MtC 2012

17MtC MtC 2030

28MtC 2030 ~ 70% of UK emissions 17MtC 2012

… and a similar situation exists for shipping

What emissions pathway is implied by the climate change bill

Domestic emissions already released (ex. international aviation & shipping)

(though 32% by 2020) Climate Bill’s implied trajectory (though 26% by 2020) 60% reduction UK Domestic Carbon Emissions – Bill’s targets & pathways

Climate Bill’s implied trajectory (though 26% by 2020) Area = Cumulative carbon budget UK Cumulative budget – implied by the bill

Climate Bill’s implied trajectory (though 26% by 2020) Bill equates to ~ 6.0GtC ( ) (ex. international aviation & shipping) UK Cumulative budget – implied by the bill

Climate Bill’s implied trajectory (though 26% by 2020) UK Cumulative budget – implied by the bill Bill equates to ~ 6.0GtC ( ) (ex. international aviation & shipping) … adding International Aviation & Shipping

~1.5GtC … adding International Aviation & Shipping

i.e. With a low growth future for aviation & shipping ( ) ~1.5GtC … adding International Aviation & Shipping

Consequently, the Bill implies: - a UK total cumulative budget of ~ 7.5GtC - an atmospheric concentration of over 650ppmv CO 2 - virtual certainty of exceeding 2°C - a 50% chance of exceeding 4°C

… so what should a 2°C science-based climate change bill contain

adopt cumulative emissions as basis for targets acknowledge 2°C is much more demanding than previously thought (~6 to 9% carbon reduction p.a.) include aviation & shipping emissions recognise need for immediate action on demand (acknowledge reliance on low-carbon supply is misguided) … the bill should :

Revisiting the global context

 What are the latest CO 2 emission trends?  What are implications of factoring in: - land-use & forestry? - non-CO 2 greenhouse gas emissions?  When will global CO 2 e emissions peak? Tyndall’s ‘global emission scenarios (CO 2 e)’

~ 2.7% p.a. last 100yrs ~ 3.3% p.a. in last 5 years What are the latest global CO 2 emission trends?

What are the latest global CO 2 e emission trends? ~ 2.8% p.a. since 2000 ~ Stern assumed 0.96%

Land-use & forestry emissions Tyndall analysis uses  most ‘optimistic’ estimate from the literature  Tyndall very low emission scenario

Non-CO 2 greenhouse gas emissions Tyndall analysis uses  Short-term EPA estimates  Tyndall optimistic scenarios up to peak emissions  Stabilisation at low-level by 2050

USA-2025 Stern-2015 Tyndall-2015, 2020, 2025 When will global CO 2 e emissions peak?

USA-2025 Stern-2015 Tyndall-2015, 2020, 2025 When will global CO 2 e emissions peak?

Unprecedented annual reductions (~10% pa globally) What does all this imply for a 450ppmvCO 2 e future?

For 550ppmv CO 2 e with emissions peaking by 2020:  6% annual reductions in CO 2 e  9% annual reductions in CO 2 from energy For 650ppmv CO 2 e with emissions peaking by 2020:  3% annual reductions in CO 2 e  3.5% annual reductions in CO 2 from energy

annual reductions of greater than 1% p.a. have only “been associated with economic recession or upheaval” Stern 2006  UK gas & French 40x nuclear ~1% p.a. reductions (ex. aviation & shipping)  Collapse Soviet Union economy ~5% p.a. reductions What are the precedents for such reductions?

Even assuming: … an unprecedented step change in mitigating emissions … stabilising at 650ppmv CO 2 e appears increasingly to be the best we can expect i.e. human-induced climate change of ~4°C or more So where does this leave us?

We need to urgently reframe the climate change debate:  For mitigation 2°C should remain the driver of policy  For adaptation 4°C should become the driver of policy To conclude

… ultimately.. “at every level the greatest obstacle to transforming the world is that we lack the clarity and imagination to conceive that it could be different.” Roberto Unger

1-person living in 3 bedroom housespatio heaters10 halogen bulbs lighting the kitchen3 tonne 4WD car to transport 70kg flesh 3milesdriving children to school business tycoons with private jets academics flying to climate change conferencesmusicians flying to climate change concerts celebrating the excesses of celebrities ‘right’ to fly & drive when & to wherever we want year-round strawberries hen parties in Prague & birthdays in Barcelona double door refrigerators & home cinema second homes, 2 cars & 3 TVs & all with 9 billion people living on our planet!

From long-term targets to emission pathways End Reframing Climate Change: Kevin Anderson & Alice Bows Tyndall Centre University of Manchester