What’s causing climate change and how can it be fixed?

Dr David Knight Winchester Action on Climate Change

May 2014

Caveat: The views expressed in this talk are my own and should not be taken to represent those of the organisation I work for.

1. What are the physical causes of climate change? 2. How much must emissions be cut?

3. What are the socioeconomic causes?

4. How to fix climate change?

1,2, and 3 help us answer 4.

My thesis1. Climate change is probably H. sapiens’ greatest, most urgent and difficult to solve problem.

2. The Science tells us what urgently needs doing. However getting leaders to act vigorously is immensely challenging but necessary.

1

3. To do this we must counter the lobbies for the fossil fuel industries, economic growth, neo-liberal economics and consumerism.

4. Renewables and energy efficiency can’t fix the climate on their own. Rapid cuts in consumption of both fossil fuels and goods and services are also needed.

First some definitions

Gross domestic product ( GDP) is the monetary value of all goods and services consumed within a specified region excluding imports to that region.

It’s a good measure of consumption but not of the quality of life or progress towards a sustainable economy!

Population momentum isthe continuation of population growth despite falling global fertility rates .

Population growth is like a loaded oil tanker. It can’t be stopped quickly.

Demographic transition is the process by which socioeconomic improvements have lead to an initial decline in mortality followed by a decline in fertility, and to negative population growth in some countries.

Mitigation seeks to tackle the root causes of climate change. Adaptation, like palliative care, doesn’t tackle root causes; it only seeks to moderate negative impacts .

It is difficult to see how H. sapiens can adapt to an eventual 40 m sea level rise or a 12-15°C temperature rise so let’s get on and tackle the causes.

1. What are the physical causes of climate change?

Diagram of the greenhouse effect

* What are the principal GHG’s? *

CO2

Black carbon MethaneNitrous oxide N2OHalocarbon gasesTropospheric ozone not the stratospheric stuff Gas phase water

Gas/pollutant

% share of heating effect of rise in concentration

1990-2005Carbon dioxide 68.04b

Methane 4.30 b

Nitrous oxide 6.17b

Halocarbons 8.22b

Tropospheric ozone 0.00c

Black carbon 13.27d e

* What are the implications for mitigation of these differences in heating effect? *

CH4 ↑ after 2005

b from NOAA data; c No net change in this component over the period but warming effect since pre-industrial times about 0.04 W m-2 ; d IPCC AR4 / AR5 valuee ? underestimate as excludes open biomass burning

Relative importance of main GHG’s

CO2 has had the largest effect of any GHG.

Some non- CO2 emissions also need cutting.

GDP growth contributes all of these GHG increases.

Immediate health and cost benefits for reducing black carbon and tropospheric ozone.

Next section on CO2 sources, sinks, its rate of removal from the biosphere, and its atmospheric levels

*Rank the current size of the principal CO2 sources*

Oil burningGas burningGas flaringCoal burningLand useCement manufacture

*Rank the current size of the principal CO2 sources*

Oil burning 2Gas burning 3Gas flaring 6Coal burning 1Land use 4Cement manufacture 5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emissions.svg

What’s a sink and what are the major ones for CO2 ?

Both bath and atmosphere have sources, sinks, and a finite volume

Sources add CO2 to the atmosphere

Sinks take itOut-where ? How fast?

CO2 level determined by flow rates of sinks and sources and the fixed volume of the atmosphere .

Sources- taps.

Sinks- plughole,overflow pipe,bathroom floor!

The flow rates of sources and sinks and physical dimensions of bath determine the level of water

Sources: Burning of fossil fuels 8.6 Land use 1.0 Cement production 0.9Total sources 10.5

Sinks: Sea 2.5 *Causing what?* Land 2.6Total sinks 5.1

Balance in atmosphere per year 10.5- 5.1 = 5.4 (roughly half anthropogenic emissions).

2012 global carbon balance sheet (BtC year –1 )

The final removal of CO2 from the biosphere (air, land and water) depends on geologically slow processes.

e.g. sedimentation of calcium carbonate shells.

Next , three consequences of this slowness

First CO2 behaves as a cumulative poison for our planet (See the Keeling curve in next slide).

Mount Pinatubo, June 1991

Is the rate of increase accelerating?How did Mount Pinatubo produce the only dent in the curve?

Second. Zero growth in annual emissions rate would still leave atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing rapidly from the currently damaging 400 ppm as emissions still >10 BtC a year.

Third. The carbon budget is extremely small. (Definition in next slide)

Definition .

The global carbon budget for 2013- 2100 is the limit to the cumulative weight of carbon in BtC that can be discharged to the atmosphere as CO2 over that period while still retaining 2 chances in 3 of avoiding 2oC of warming. Would you play Russian roulette with these odds? Is 2°C safe?

I use the figure from the 2013 report from the UN intergovernmental panel for climate change . This is in line with other eminent climate scientists’ calculations.

• IPCC AR5 Carbon Budget for 2013 -2100 only 270 BtC. • The 87 year budget exhausted in Ω 20 years B.A.U.• Burning all the global reserves 1 would discharge 800 BtC. • That’s 3 x IPCC carbon budget and about 2-3°C warming.• Global recoverable resources 2 would discharge >12,700

BtC. • That’s > 50x the carbon budget and at least 12-15°C

warming.• Much of the surface of the planet would be lethal to

mammals.

1 profitable at current prices . 2 assuming advanced recovery techniques/ higher prices

The Tight Carbon budget

*How do you react to the tight carbon budget?*

• IPCC AR5 Carbon Budget for 2013 -2100 only 270 BtC. • The 87 year budget exhausted in Ω 20 years B.A.U.• Burning all the global reserves 1 would discharge 800 BtC. • That’s 3 x IPCC carbon budget and about 2-3°C warming.• Global recoverable resources 2 would discharge >12,700

BtC. • That’s > 50x the carbon budget and at least 12-15°C

warming.• Much of the surface of the planet would be lethal to

mammals

1 profitable at current prices . 2 assuming advanced recovery techniques/ higher prices

The Tight Carbon budget

There’s enough fossil fuel in the ground to fry the planet

Much of the world’s fossil fuels must remain in the ground

The fossil fuel companies are grossly overvalued as much of their reserves are unburnable

Advanced recovery techniques (Underground coal gasification, fracking, coal bed methane) must be stopped.

Take the fossil fuel companies to Court for planning to produce more fossil fuel than is safe to burn.

Changes 1971- 2009 (IEA data)

Emissions ↑105% GDP p.c.↑106% Population↑79% Energy intensity ↓ 40% Carbon Intensity ↓ 6% recently ↑; *Why?*

Combining percentages a Energy intensity and Carbon Intensity ↓ 44% GDP p.c. and Population ↑269%

Massive imbalance- a massive mountain to climb

a Formula ((1+a/100)(1+b/100)-1) x 100 where a and b are the percentages to be combined.

Changes 2000-2010

GDP per capita increased 26%Population increased 12%

The combined effect of growth of red factors outstripped improvements in green ones by a factor of 6.

To reach zero emissions growth requires 6x improvement in carbon intensity of the economy just to keep pace with the combined effects of increase in GDP per capita and population growth.

But zero growth in emissions is not enough . Emissions must decrease somewhere between 6-15% per annum to reach the safe 350 ppm CO2

GHG emissions rise with growth in GDP and population; long-standing improvement trend in decarbonisation of energy reversed.

Source IPCC 2014 “Mitigation” report presentation

GDP p.c. 2x pop

What’s happened to energy intensity and carbon intensity?

_

What needs to be done?

A. Tackle fossil fuel CO2 emissions (sources)

B. Tackle land use change (turning sources to sinks)

C. Tackle non-CO2 emissions.

How to do it?

1 2 3 4 Emissions = Pop. x GDP p.c. x energy intensity x 5carbon intensity

How can fossil fuel CO2 emission be cut?

Kaya provides a useful check list of 5 intervention points

a. Progressively tightening cap on Emissions

(i) Radically reformed Cap & Trade. Got to be reformed EU ETS has so fair failed to cut a tonne! (regressive as penalises poor)

(ii) Other personal emissions trading/ allowance schemes have been suggested.

b. Carbon taxes They put up price to reduce demand for FF and favour low-carbon energy in the most cost-effective way . But :(i) price rise countered by $550 billion in fossil fuel subsidies p.a. worldwide; (ii) effect on demand unpredictable ; (iii) Regressive .

1. Directly cutting emissions

2.Cutting the population

We need the fastest possible demographic transition.

i. One child policy & compulsory abortion but unacceptable in a democracy.

ii. Universal low cost contraception . Yes important but targeted at those with lowest consumption, the poor in LDC’s is blaming the victims rather than the culprits and ineffective.

iii. Socioeconomic improvements also needed for fast transition. Adult female literacy and employment; Affordable child care; Abolition of child labour;↑child survival; Elderly care, independent of children.

But: Population momentum means population policies , though essential in long term, are too slow to achieve zero growth in emissions required now or the 80% reduction by 2050. (see next slide).

2050

2010 UN predictions to 2100

At best, 35 years too late to contribute significantly to needed fall in emissions !

4. Cut energy intensity

(i) Improve energy efficiency

No brainer. But limited by: rebound effects ( e.g. Jevon’s paradox- greater efficiency leads to greater use; sometimes 100% rebound ); 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; Law of Diminishing Returns).

(ii) More efficient materials use.

5. Cut carbon intensity - technologies.

No brainer, essential but…see below

(i) Renewables: including Hydro; Solar (PV; Distributed solar thermal & CSP); Wind (On/Off Shore); Wave & Tide; Heat pumps; Geothermal ; Some Biomass sources (not palm oil); Anaerobic digestion of waste (not grain or potatoes).

But additional rather than substitutive until price ↓ coal; low energy density ; intermittency; need for efficient storage; starting from a low base- 19% of global final energy use in 2011 excl. wood .

(ii) CHP(iii) Not natural/shale gas.(iv) Nuclear: FNB reactors (but N-Weapons proliferation; Huge cost; System

Doubling Time v. slow; waste management; life cycle analysis of carbon emissions?. Starting from v. low base -1 or 2 operating reactors)

Thermal reactors (As above + Peak Uranium? + only 12.3% of world's electricity production in 2012.)

(v) CC&S (Planned plant to 2020 would only capture 1% global emissions; no means of incentivising/financing; retention time in store; no retrofitting; increase coal consumption by approx 1/3rd; increase cost)

5. Continued : Cut carbon intensity- Non technological approaches

(i) A progressively constricting cap on fossil fuel use : Cap & Share, Cap & Dividend could in theory cut emissions at the rate dictated by the

Science. Progress towards adoption in Eire until financial collapse. Not dissimilar scheme proposed by IEA.

alternately Tradable Energy Quotas

(i) Legal approaches (i) Sue fossil fuel companies/ coal fired plant constructors for their actions and intentions

to produce more energy than is safe for the planet. A growing movement. Success in Poland against a proposed coal fired station.

(i) Sue governments for their failure to protect their citizens (Netherlands – flooding risk; US Our Childrens’ Trust Litigation in every state.

(iii) Disinvest from fossil fuel companies ( Growing movement in American universities).

Conclusion1. There is no magic bullet2. The best approach would be a comprehensive package

including: A tightening cap on fossil fuel use (or emissions) Transition to zero then negative economic growth Eventual transition to negative population growth Massive deployment of lowest carbon energy sources Increase in energy efficiency Improve sinks including massive reforestation Cutting methane, black carbon, N2O and halocarbons

3. Challenge the lobbies that maintain status quo.4. Use the courts and change the statutes