Does Shale Gas have a role in Annex 1 climate change commitments? Prof Kevin Anderson and Dr John Broderick Tyndall Manchester

Key Point Natural Gas (inc. shale gas) is not a low carbon fuel

Context  The international energy agency’s (IEA) view on climate change  on track for a 3.5°C rise by 2040 (i.e. 4.2°C relative to preindustrial)  “When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius, which would have devastating consequences for the planet.”  “we have 5 years to change the energy system – or have it changed” Fatih Birol - IEA chief economist

UNFCCC  “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” Article 2

What is dangerous?  ‘To hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity’ » Copenhagen Accord (2009/10), Cancun Agreement (2010/11)  ‘… must ensure global average temperature increases do not exceed preindustrial levels by more than 2°C’ » European Commission’s annual communication (2009)

What is mitigation challenge?  To hold cumulative emissions of CO 2 in the atmosphere at levels that provide a high probability (90%-99%) of staying below a 2°C rise in global surface temperature

What emissions pathways fits with 2°C?  In 2012 it is too late for a high probability of staying below 2°C i.e. already blown the budget for our existing commitments  So lets take an outside chance (<50:50) chance of ‘avoiding dangerous CC’  With significant reductions in deforestation & halving food-related emissions  What is left for emissions from energy? i.e. the pathway for 50:50 chance of avoiding dangerous climate change

Increasing probability of exceeding 2°C … for energy emissions? (with 2020 peak & a high probability of exceeding 2°C)

… and for energy emissions? (with 2020 peak & a high probability of exceeding 2°C) 10-20% annual reductions Globally: no emission space for coal, gas, or shale – even with CCS!

… and for Annex 1 nations (~OECD)?  40%reduction by 2015  70%reduction by 2020  90+%reduction by 2030

Why such different conclusions? Context  Take science-based view of 2°C (i.e. cumulative emissions not 2050 targets)  ‘Fair’ division of emissions between Annex 1 & non-Annex 1  Explicit account of global deforestation and food emissions NB: decarbonising power sector is not the same as “avoiding dangerous climate change” Impact  Timeframe of transition to low/zero carbon energy system significantly reduced  Gas not compatible with such a science-based timeframe  Gas with CCS only compatible with very high capture (over 95%) NB: research priorities should be genuinely low or zero carbon energy technologies

For unconventional gas Non-Annex 1 Part of rapid carbon intensity reduction if upstream emissions are managed … but must lock out other fossil fuel infrastructures & enable CCS Annex 1 Incompatible with even weak version of 2°C commitments - inc. with CCS » Rapid reduction in energy demand; and » increase in very low/zero energy supply necessary