Cumulative carbon and the ethical case for mandatory CCS

Myles Allen Environmental Change Institute &

Oxford Martin Programme on Resource Stewardship School of Geography and the Environment & Department of Physics

University of Oxford myles.allen@ouce.ox.ac.uk

“Rational,” “robust” & “anti-fragile” climate policies

“Rational” policies aim to minimise net probability-weighted harm due to impacts and mitigation. – Nordhaus, Tol etc.

“Robust” policies aim to minimise probability of unacceptable outcomes (dangerous climate change). – Stern, Weitzman etc.

Both depend critically on controversial estimates of the “fat high tail” of responses & damages.

“Anti-fragile” policies aim to exploit uncertainty rather than simply being proofed against it.

Why we need anti-fragile climate policy

Uncertainty is not going away.

We need climate policies that are helped by uncertainty, not just robust to uncertainty.

Why we need anti-fragile climate policy

Uncertainty is not going away.

We need climate policies that are helped by uncertainty, not just robust to uncertainty.

Aims of this talk

Why current climate policies are fragile, placing unbearable pressures on climate science.

What we are looking for in anti-fragile climate policy. An anti-fragile policy that won’t work: an adaptive

carbon tax. Why carbon taxes, adaptive or not, don’t promote the

measures required to prevent DAIC. An anti-fragile policy that could work: mandatory

sequestration.

McKitrick’s proposal: a carbon tax tied to global tropospheric temperature

Neat idea, but how do you set the coefficient? McKitrick’s latest: $30 per degree of warming + $10?

Under IPCC projected warming “the tax could reach $200 per tonne of CO2 by 2100.”

So at 2oC above pre-industrial, tax would be c. $40? Even $200/tCO2 is not enough to discourage all uses

of fossil fuels.

Begin with “the most important finding” of the 2013 IPCC WG1 Scientific Assessment

Total anthropogenic warming

CO2-induced warming

Cumulative emissions determine peak warming

Focus of climate policy

What actually matters

Cumulative emissions determine peak warming Not the rate of emissions in 2020

Initial reaction: cumulative carbon budgets “will play no part” in UNFCCC negotiations

Who is in charge here?

The reason cumulative budgets are “unhelpful”: Cumulative fossil carbon emissions 1751-2006

© CarbonQuilt www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEMse22h8c8

Unconventional reserves

Cumulative emissions & fossil carbon reserves

Past emissions, fossil and land-use change Estimated conventional reserves

Must be sequestered or recaptured to meet 2oC goal

Cumulative emissions & fossil carbon reserves

The real goal of climate policy: to get from A to B

A

B

Climate Mitigation with No New Taxes: SAFE carbon

Sequestered Adequate Fraction of Extracted (SAFE) carbon: carbon from a supply that ensures we never exceed the atmospheric capacity.

So, what is an “Adequate Fraction”? S = Net carbon sequestered / carbon extracted C(t) = Cumulative emissions since policy is adopted C0 = Atmospheric capacity at the time policy is adopted

If all carbon sources were SAFE, we would never exceed the atmospheric capacity.

The real goal of climate policy: to get from A to B

A

B

Suppose the fossil fuel industry decides to defend its share of world energy supply

But paying for all that sequestration implies a carbon price, passed on to consumers

So they might consume less, making the carbon price lower – but without compromising policy

Comparing SAFE carbon with a carbon-price-driven scenario: IEA “BLUE Map”

S=40% in 2050 under IEA BLUE Map scenario

The best that can happen if you rely on a carbon price: very rapid deployment of CCS post-2040

Shell “Mountains” scenario

!

Comparing SAFE carbon with Shell’s “New Lens” scenarios

1 TtC

SAFE carbon could start aiming for an optimistic (high) total budget without sacrificing credibility

Who might introduce mandatory sequestration? A consumer-nation-led scenario

“Europe” recognises – The need for CCS – The fact that a carbon price won’t deliver it – The political unsustainability of tax- or rate-payer-funded

CCS projects in times of high fossil fuel margins. “Europe” mandates all fossil fuel suppliers to

sequester a steadily increasing fraction of the carbon they supply = “SAFE carbon”.

“Europe” demands all imported goods are certified manufactured with SAFE carbon.

Problem: Europe really has to care about climate change (“pure” climate policy: no co-benefits).

Who might introduce mandatory sequestration? A producer-nation-led scenario

The rebranded “Organisation for the Protection of the Environment and Climate” recognises – The shale gas revolution is depressing oil and coal prices – A successful UNFCCC will depress fossil energy demand – Carbon taxes and ETS’s are eroding their rents

Agree that all fossil carbon production above a safe limit must be offset with sequestration.

Costs of sequestration are nominally borne by producers, justifying fierce sanctions against non-participants.

Short-term impact: increased fossil energy prices.

Who owns the “unemittable” carbon?

Who might introduce mandatory sequestration? A consumer-industry-led scenario

The global airline industry recognises – Environmental levies are depressing profit margins – Levies can only get higher if their goal is to reduce demand – Long-term future requires CCS (no space for bio-fuels)

Agrees that jet fuel should be made with SAFE carbon: a steadily increasing fraction of its carbon content is offset with sequestration.

Demands exemption from all climate levies, ETS etc. Demands competing industries follow suit. Could SAFE carbon be ICAO’s “Market-Based

Mechanism”?

Unexpected climate champions?

Thank you

And thanks to David Frame, Niel Bowerman, Bob Hahn, Alex Lorenz, Jon

Gibbins & many, many others