Climate Change: The Move to Action

1. Climate Change: The Move to Action(AOSS 480 // NRE 480) Richard B. Rood Cell: 301-526-8572 2525 Space Research Building (North Campus) rbrood@umich.edu http://aoss.engin.umich.edu/people/rbrood Winter 2012 March 15, 2012

2. Class News • Ctools site: AOSS_SNRE_480_001_W12 • 2008 and 2010 Class On Line: • http://climateknowledge.org/classes/index.php/Climate_Change:_The_Move_to_Action • Projects: • In Class Review 22 March 2012: Each group should prepare about a 15 minute 5 – 10 viewgraphs of status of project. Projects will be in different stages, but should have a good idea of the scope and where you are going. This will be a time get some input and refine and focus. • This need not be polished, but should represent vision, structure, and some essential elements of knowledge.

3. Projects • Think about some linkages • Regional focus on Great Lakes • City focus on Houghton • University: Get Michigan Tech Role in the mix? • Interview Guy Meadows?

4. The Current Climate (Released Monthly) • Climate Monitoring at National Climatic Data Center. • http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html • State of the Climate: Global

5. Wedges on the Web • Carbon Mitigation Initiative @ Princeton University

6. Today • Policy Interface 2 • Global Mitigation • Policy Interface 3 • State and Local • Wedges: A pragmatic approach?

7. The Official Policy is: • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change • Framework Convention on Climate Change

8. Framework Convention on Climate Change(US in part of this.) • UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992, non-binding, voluntary, 192 signers) • Reduce CO2 Emissions in 2000 to 1990 levels • Inventories of greenhouse gas emissions • Mitigate Climate Change • Mid-1990’s • No reduction in emissions • Evidence of warming and impacts

9. Framework Convention on ClimateChange

10. Development of International Approach to Climate Change 2009 1988 1992 1995 1997 2001 2007 IPCC established Framework Convention(UNFCCC) Kyoto Protocol CopenhagenAccord Scientific assessment Non-binding aim Binding emissions target Keep warming less than 2 C

11. Dangerous climate change? • What is dangerous?

12. Stern Report: Influential: Useful for thinking about problem • Draws on recent science which points to ‘significant risks of temperature increases above 5°C under business-as-usual by the early part of the next century’ — other studies typically have focused on increases of 2–3°C. • Treats aversion to risk explicitly. • Adopts low pure time discount rates to give future generations equal weight. • Takes account of the disproportionate impacts on poor regions.

13. Dangerous climate change? Stern, 2006

14. Stern Report • Considered a radical revision of climate change economics. • If we don’t act now it will cost between 5% and 20% of gross domestic product (an aggregate measure of economy.) • Stands in contrast to many studies that usually come to numbers of closer to 1% • The idea that initiation of a policy with a slow growth rate will have little impact on the economy or environment in the beginning, but will ultimately become important when the nature of expenditures is more clear.

15. Emissions / Cap Interface between Science and Policy • Determine what is a tolerable ceiling for carbon dioxide. • Gives cap for a cap and trade system. • Tolerable ceilings have been posed as between 450 and 550 ppm. • Ice sheet melting and sea level? • Oceanic circulation / The Gulf Stream? • Ocean acidification? • Determine a tolerable measure of increased temperature • Copenhagen Accord (2009)  2o C

16. Dangerous climate change? Stern, 2006

17. All Parties agree to: 4.1.b. Mitigate emissions and enhance sinks 4.1.c. Promote technology development and transfer 4.1.e. Cooperate on research and observation Developed Countries’ aim to return emissions to 1990 levels by the end of the century 1992 Convention Commitments

18. Assessment • Mid-1990’s • No reduction in emissions • Evidence of warming and impacts • 2001 • No reduction in emissions • Evidence of warming and impacts • 2007 • No reduction in emissions • Evidence of warming and impacts

19. Increase of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) “This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through…a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.” --Lyndon Johnson Special Message to Congress, 1965 Link to speech Data and more information

20. Kyoto Protocol followed 1995 assessments • Is the Kyoto Protocol still relevant?

21. Kyoto Protocol • Kyoto Protocol (December, 1997, binding limits on or reduction of emissions) • Must be signed (155 signers (?186)) and ratified • At least 55 countries • That represent 55 % or more of emissions • Open for signatures on March 16, 1998 • Went into effect on February 16, 2005 • After Russia signed and ratified

22. Kyoto Protocol Requirements • Developed nations reduce their emissions 5.2% below 1990 emissions • Reduction (increases) vary across countries • Relaxed a little over the years to attract signers • (Treaty: U.S. 7% reduction: Actual: 12% higher in 2004, 30% by 2012) • Addresses “six” greenhouse gases (CO2, Methane CH4, Nitrous Oxide N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride) • Commitment period 2008-2012 • Set of other activities • Improve “local emission factors” • Inventories of emissions and sinks • Mitigation and adaptation plans • Environmentally sound technology diffusion to developing nations

23. Beyond 2012 • Conference of Parties, Copenhagen 2009 • Copenhagen Accord • Canada withdrew this year. • Nuclear disaster in Japan trumped all of the Japanese CO2 reduction.

24. Today • Policy Interface 2 • Global Mitigation • Policy Interface 3 • State and Local • Wedges: A pragmatic approach?

25. Scales: Time scale and “spatial” scale GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES LOCAL POLICY (ADAPTATION) SURFACE WARMING GLOBAL POLICY (MITIGATION) GREEN HOUSE GAS INCREASE

26. Scale • What is the best scale to measure vulnerability and adaptive capacity? • National: • inform states on needed policy response; allow for better decision making; allows for comparison of differential vulnerability • Regional • Impacts are likely not to be defined by national borders • Local • Ground truth • Allows for the understanding of the local factors that mediate sensitivity and resilience Thanks to Maria Carmen Lemos

27. Regional based Initiatives • Changing very rapidly

28. Scales of Policy: U.S. • Pew: State-based Initiatives (Update, 2007) • Pew: State and Region Climate Action

29. States with Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets (October 31, 2011) Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: Interactive Map

30. States with Climate Action Plans(October 31, 2011) Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: Interactive Map

31. Motivations for State Activity • Economics • States (and cities) are very aggressive at promoting policy that they perceive as offering economic advantage. • Branding: To attract, for instance, the “creative class” • Belief and Culture • Reflection of political constituencies

32. States can be viewed as:(from Rabe (2006)) What has changed? • Hostile to climate change policy • Michigan (Auto industry, manufacturing) • Colorado (coal and energy) • Stealth interest? • Texas (aggressive renewable portfolio) • Nebraska (sequestration site) • Out in front • California (Water, water, water?) • Northeast alliance

33. Policy: Regional and State and Local • California Climate Change • Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative • United Conference of Mayors • U.S. Mayors: Climate Protection Agreement • Map of US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement • Cool Cities

34. Policy: Regional and State and Local • Local Governments for Sustainability • International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) • ICLEI’s CO2 Reduction / Climate • National Governors Association (NGA) • NGA Transportation and Land Use • NGA Environmental Best Practices

35. Today • Policy Interface 2 • Global Mitigation • Policy Interface 3 • State and Local • Wedges: A pragmatic approach?

36. Pielke Jr. argues • The need for technology to make solutions possible. • Inequity of wealth, access to basic resources, desire for economic growth makes energy use an imperative • Must go • From, we use too much energy, fossil fuels are cheap • To, we need more energy, fossil fuels are expensive

37. What tools do we have to reduce emissions? Factor Lever Approach to Policy P GDP/P TE/GDP C/TE Population management Limit generation of wealth Do same or more with less energy Generate energy with less emissions Population GDP per capita Energy intensity Carbon intensity Less people Smaller economy Increase efficiency Switch energy sources Carbon emissions = C = P * GDP * TE * C ------ ---- ---- P GDP TE GDP Technology From R. Pielke Jr. The Climate Fix

38. A global perspective on energy and climate To achieve stabilization at a 2°C warming, we would need to install ~900 ± 500 MW [mega-watts] of carbon emissions-free power generating capacity each day over the next 50 years. This is roughly the equivalent of a large carbon emissions-free power plant becoming functional somewhere in the world every day. In many scenarios, this pace accelerates after mid-century. . . even stabilization at a 4°C warming would require installation of 410 MW of carbon emissions-free energy capacity each day. Caldeira et al. 2003

39. Practical Response Space

40. Past Emissions Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative

41. The Stabilization Triangle Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative

42. The Wedge Concept Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative

44. Stabilization (2006) Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative

45. CO2 stabilization trajectory (2006) • Stabilize at < 550 ppm. Pre-industrial: 275 ppm, current: 385 ppm. • Need 7 ‘wedges’ of prevented CO2 emissions.

46. Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative

47. McKinsey 2007

48. Projects

49. Use of climate information • Research on the use of climate knowledge states that for successful projects, for example: • Co-development / Co-generation • Trust • Narratives • Scale • Spatial • Temporal Lemos and Morehouse, 2005

50. Projects • Broad subjects and teams defined • Meeting 1 with Rood • Now to early March: Project vision and goals • Meeting 2 with Rood • Mid to late March: Progress report, refinement of goals if needed • Class review • Short, informal presentation, external review and possible coordination • Oral Presentation: April 10 and 12 • Final written report: April 25