Addressing Climate Change in the
World and in the Grinnell College
2012 Policy Studies Seminar
Alumni 50th Reunion Faculty Lecture
Wayne Moyer
May 31, 2014
New Information on Climate Change
• Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(2013-2014)
• National Climate Assessment (May, 2014)
Anthropogenic Perturbation of the Global Carbon Cycle
Perturbation of the global carbon cycle caused by anthropogenic activities,
averaged globally for the decade 2002–2011 (PgC/yr)
Source: Le Quéré et al. 2012; Global Carbon Project 2012
Fate of Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions (2002-2011 average)
8.3±0.4 PgC/yr
90%
4.3±0.1 PgC/yr
46%
1.0±0.5 PgC/yr
10%
+
2.6±0.8 PgC/yr
28%
Calculated as the residual
of all other flux components
26%
2.5±0.5 PgC/yr
Source: Le Quéré et al. 2012; Global Carbon Project 2012
CO2 in Atmosphere/Ocean and Ocean Acidification
From the 2007 IPCC “Climate Change 2007, Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy Makers
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
Global Temperature and Carbon Dioxide
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
From the 2007 IPCC “Climate Change 2007, Synthesis Report, Summary for Policy Makers
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Arctic Sea Ice
From the 2007 IPCC “Climate Change 2007, Synthesis Report, Summary for Policy Makers
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
From the 2007 IPCC “Climate Change 2007, Synthesis Report, Summary for Policy Makers
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Observed U.S. Precipitation Change
Modeled Climate Change Predictions
From the 2007 IPCC “Climate Change 2007, Synthesis Report, Summary for Policy Makers
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Fossil and Cement Emissions
Global fossil and cement emissions: 9.5±0.5PgC in 2011, 54% over 1990
Projection for 2012: 9.7±0.5PgC, 58% over 1990
Uncertainty is ±5% for one standard deviation (IPCC “likely” range)
Source: Peters et al. 2012a; Le Quéré et al. 2012; CDIAC Data; Global Carbon Project 2012
Total Global Emissions
Total global emissions: 10.4±0.7PgC in 2011, 37% over 1990
Percentage land-use change: 36% in 1960, 18% in 1990, 9% in 2011
Land-use change black line: Includes management-climate interactions
Source: Le Quéré et al. 2012; Global Carbon Project 2012
Emissions from coal, oil, gas, cement
Emissions growth 2000-2011: coal (4.9%/yr), oil (1.1%/yr), gas (2.7%/yr),
cement (6.9%/yr), flaring (4.3%/yr, not shown)
Share of global
emissions in 2011
Source: CDIAC Data; Le Quéré et al. 2012; Global Carbon Project 2012
Observed Emissions and Emission Scenarios
Emissions are heading to a 4.0-6.1ºC “likely” increase in temperature
Large and sustained mitigation is required to keep below 2ºC
Linear interpolation is used between individual datapoints
Source: Peters et al. 2012a; Global Carbon Project 2012;
Challenges to keep below 2ºC
An emission pathway with a “likely chance” to keep the temperature increase
below 2ºC has significant challenges
Short-term
• Reverse emission trajectory
• Emissions peak by 2020
Medium-term
• Sustain emission trajectory
• Around 3%/yr reductions globally
Long-term
• Net negative emissions
• Unproven technologies
Source: Peters et al. 2012a; Global Carbon Project 2012
Previous CO2 emission reductions
Without climate policies, some countries have reduced emissions at 1-5%/yr
Repeating with modern low-carbon technologies can “kick-start” mitigation
Belgium
Increased Nuclear
Reduced Oil
France
Increased Nuclear
Reduced Oil & Coal
Sweden
Increased Nuclear
Reduced Oil
United Kingdom
Coal to gas
Reduced Oil
Increased Nuclear
Grey areas are: World War I, Great Depression, World War II, oil shocks
Source: Peters et al. 2012a; CDIAC Data; Global Carbon Project 2012
The recent shift from coal to gas in the USA
The recent shift from coal to gas in the US could “kick start” mitigation
To keep below 2ºC requires a shift to technologies with lower emissions
Grey areas are: World War I, Great Depression, World War II, oil shocks
Source: Peters et al. 2012a; CDIAC Data; Global Carbon Project 2012
Top Fossil Fuel Emitters (Absolute)
Top four emitters in 2011 covered 62% of global emissions
China (28%), United States (16%), EU27 (11%), India (7%)
The growing gap between EU27 and USA is due to emission decreases in Germany (45% of the
1990-2011 cumulative difference), UK (19%), Romania (13%), Czech Republic (8%), and Poland (5%)
Source: CDIAC Data; Le Quéré et al. 2012; Global Carbon Project 2012
Top Fossil Fuel Emitters (Per Capita)
World average per capita emissions in 2011 were 1.4tC/p
China (1.8tC/p), United States (4.7tC/p), EU27 (2.0tC/p), India (0.5tC/p)
Chinese per capita emissions are almost equal to the EU27, and 36% higher than the global average
Source: CDIAC Data; Le Quéré et al. 2012; Global Carbon Project 2012
Main Points to Take Away
• The world is dumping 9.3 Billion metric tons Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into
the atmosphere each year; over 40% comes from the U.S. and China
• 4.3 Billion metric tonnes of CO2 stays in the atmosphere, with the
remainder removed by the ocean or land sinks
• There is scientific certainty of the atmospheric greenhouse effect – that
as CO2 levels increase, more heat from the sun’s radiation is absorbed.
•
If the world continues producing greenhouse gases as it is doing now
we can expect average temperature increases by 2100 to increase
somewhere between 4 to 6 degrees Celsius. This would have
catastrophic effects on water, ecosystems, food, coasts and health.
• There is uncertainty about the climate effects in particular localities. But,
it appears that the most dramatic effects will be felt in the poorest areas
of the world, with the least ability to adapt. These are not the regions
that are producing the largest quantities of greenhouse gases
• Global CO2 emissions continue to increase rapidly, particularly in China
and to a lesser extent in India. The principal source of new emissions in
coal used in power plants. Coal is responsible for 40 percent of global
CO2 emissions.
• There is international consensus that we should prevent global
temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. To do
so, emissions would probably have to peak by 2020 and decline by 3.5
percent annually
• We are not close to achieving this goal. Emissions in the United States
and Europe are already declining, but at less than half the rate required
for the world to keep the global temperature increase within 2 degrees
Celsius.
• The underlying international policy issue is the division of responsibility
for emissions cuts. The developing nations argue that most of the
burden should be on the industrial nations who have produced most of
the emissions. The industrial nations argue that all nations must take
significant action if climate is to be stabilized
Approaches to International Action to
Limit Climate Change
• All international agreements depend on state
consent (sovereignty). No enforcement
mechanisms
– Top-down approaches – define particular policies
and measures that parties must undertake
– Bottom-up approaches – allow parties to define
their own contributions
Framework Convention on Climate Change
•
•
•
•
•
Signed 1992; Entered into force 1994
191 countries and European Union are parties
Stabilization of Greenhouse Gases in Atmosphere
Common but differentiated responsibilities
Parties develop and report on current and projected
measures to combat climate change (bottom-up)
• Parties undertake to limit emissions
• Industrial countries aim to return emissions to 1990
levels by 2000 (top-down)
Kyoto Protocol
• Signed 1997; entered into force 2005
• 190 countries and European Union are parties
• Emissions Reduction targets for industrial countries
2008-2012 average 5%; U.S. 7% (top-down)
• Flexibility Mechanisms
– Emissions trading
– Joint Implementation
– Clean Development Mechanism
• Measures to increase carbon uptake from forests and
other sinks
• Adaptation Fund
December 2009 Copenhagen Climate
Conference
• Shift from emission targets to pledge and review (bottom-up)
• Aspirational goal to limit global warming to +2 degrees Celsius
• Developed countries implement economy-wide emission targets by 2020;
developing countries implement mitigating action; least developed
countries take voluntary action
• Reporting, measurement and verification of country actions
• Developed countries commit $30 Billion in “new and additional” funding
2010-2012 to help developing countries reduce emissions, preserve
forests and adapt to climate change
• Ad Hoc Working Group to work toward fuller agreement in Mexico Dec.
2010
• Goal of mobilizing $100 Billion a year by 2020 to address developing
country needs
• Mechanism to support efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and
forest degradation
• Establishment of Copenhagen Green Climate Fund
Recent FCCC Conferences
2010 - Cancun – integrated essential elements of the Copenhagen framework
into the Framework Convention on climate change; national pledges
2011 – Durban – established Green Climate Fund; steps toward a second Kyoto
commitment; decision to seek new covenant by 2015 to go into force in 2020
2012 – Doha – Authorized extension of Kyoto for eight years; made commitment
to provide future resources for Green Climate Fund; developed workstream for
2015 agreement; steps toward measurement, reporting and review
2113 – Warsaw – Nationally determined contributions presented in first quarter
of 2015 - but nothing on rules, scope and legal nature of contributions
Issues for a New Climate Agreement –
Paris 2015
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Legal form
Long-term goal
Nature of commitments
Transparency/Accountability
Equity/Differentiation
Adaptation
Support for developing countries
Land use
Obstacles to Progress in FCCC Negotiations
International GHG assessment
• High transactions costs to reach agreement – different
interests – poor incentives to keep agreement -weak
international institutions to enforce agreements – strong
incentives to free-ride
• Problem in measuring emissions and in ensuring compliance
• Divide between Industrial and Developing nations
• Unwillingness of the U.S. to accept emission caps and
timetables without emissions reduction commitments from
developing countries
• Unwillingness of developing countries to accept emissions
reductions commitments arguing that development should
come first
Policies to Deal with Climate Change
Market Policies
Carbon Tax
Cap and Trade
Command and Control (performance targets)
Fuel Efficiency standards
Renewable energy standards
Emissions standards
Impediments to Policy Development in
United States
• The negative effects of climate change are not
obvious to the majority of people.
• Climate change policies have immediate costs and
only long-term benefits.
• Climate change policies probably will lead to
increased cost for electricity and gasoline. These
costs are directly linked to economic growth and
jobs.
• Fossil fuel interests are well-organized and strong.
• Climate change policy has become highly partisan.
United States Policy
• National policies exclusively command and
control – not efficient, but benefits are clear
and costs to individuals are hidden
• Cap and Trade attempted in 2010, but failed in
Senate. Some of the reasons for failure
included: 1) fear that energy prices would rise;
2) the recession; 3) issue became partisan; 4)
lobbying by fossil fuel interests
President Obama’s June 25,2013
Climate Initiative
• Directive to Environmental Protection Agency to
limit amount of Carbon Dioxide that power plants
can produce
• Strengthen fuel efficiency standards for buses
and trucks
• $8 Billion in loan guarantees for deployment of
technologies that make fossil fuels less harmful
• Encourage wind farms and solar arrays on federal
lands
• Strengthen energy efficiency in federal buildings
State Policies
General Policies
Regulation: electricity, natural gas,
infrastructure and land use
Greenhouse Gas Targets: 20 states
Renewable Energy Standards: 29 states
Regional Initiatives
California:
Cap and Trade: Emissions to 1990 levels by 2020
Proposition 39: $2.5 Billion to Energy Conservation
Solar Power Subsidy
Strict Renewable Energy Standards
Toward More Effective Action in the
Future
United States:
Raise cost of carbon emissions: carbon tax or Cap and Trade
Tougher command and control measures
Government investment in new technologies and infrastructure
Need to mobilize public engagement
Internationally:
Negotiations in smaller forums than FCCC
Commitments contingent on action by others
Strengthen incentives for cooperation
Work to get firm commitments to cuts by the U.S. and China
Getting Emissions Commitments from
the U.S. and China
Why firm commitments are difficult even though leaders in
both countries understand the need for action
U.S. – fears loss of competitiveness if commitment not
reciprocated by China; strength of fossil fuel lobbies; fear
of consumer retribution if electricity prices rise
China – legitimacy of communist party depends on
growth; dependency on coal; distorted energy prices;
politically powerful industries;
Can an agreement be reached? The outlook will be more
positive if agreements can be reached to transfer U.S.
technologies while protecting intellectual property rights.
China-U.S. July 10, 2013 Agreement
• Five Part Plan to cut carbon emissions,
pledging to make heavy-duty vehicles more
efficient and to do more to limit the output
from coal-fired plants.
• Pledged to promote energy efficiency in
buildings, improve greenhouse data collection
and management and smart grids.
PST/POL 320- Applied Policy Analysis
Climate Change
• Course Objectives
– Understanding of climate change policy domestically and
internationally
– How government regulations and market incentives compare as
a vehicles for mitigating climate change
– What are the limits of domestic and international institutions in
addressing climate change?
– How can we bring science and conceptions of justice to bear in
influencing the policy process?
– What are the pros and cons of various strategies to address
climate change?
– Are top-down or bottom-up strategies more effective?
– How does the intergenerational character of climate change
affect policy development?
PST/POL 320 – Applied Policy Analysis
Climate Change
• Introduction- Books
– Mike Hulme, Why We Disagree About Climate Change
– David G. Victor, Global Warming Gridlock
• The Climate Change Challenge
–
–
–
–
The Discovery of Climate Change
Climate Change Science Overview
IPCC Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Report
National Research Council, “Climate Change:
Evidence, Impact and Choices
Policy Models and Climate Change
• Rational Decision Making Model: complete information about
problems and solutions allows all options to be weighted and the
best one chosen.
• Bounded Rationality Model: behave as rational as possible given
limited time and information
• Incremental Model: policy in small steps so that decision makers
can process results—an application of bounded rationale model
• Organizational Behavior (Bureaucratic) Model: huge organizations
as part of standard operating procedure have ways of making
decisions which lead to incremental change, grounded in bounded
rationality
• Governmental Politics: policy results from persuasion, competition,
bargaining (similarly to policy/politics stream of Kingdon).
•
Three Streams: Policy, Politics, Problem streams all need to intersect to
open a policy window
Obstacles to Action on Climate Change
• Uncertainty, risk, deniers
• Paper to persuade skeptic that climate change
is real
• Science, economics, politics, the power
industry
• Presentations: Country impacts of climate
change
• Why people disagree – values, beliefs and
fears
Paper to Convince a Skeptic
• Write a paper aimed at assigned skeptic
presenting the scientific arguments for why
that person/group should be concerned about
climate change.
• Skeptics included:
–
–
–
–
–
Midwest farmer
Coal Mine executive
United Auto Workers
Walmart Executive
Homemaker
- Chamber of Commerce
- Highway construction executive
- Banker
- Power company executive
- Rural County Board
Student Country Projects
Asia – Korea, Japan, China, India and Indonesia
Latin America – Mexico and Brazil
North America – United States and Canada
Europe – European Union and Russia
Australia
Small Island States
National and International Action on
Climate Change
• Action so far in the international context
– Framework Convention on Climate Change
– Kyoto Protocol
– Copenhagen and Post-Copenhagen agreements
• Action in the United States
– Executive regulations
– Congress
– State and local action
• Paper to convince a skeptical legislator to
readdress climate change
Paper to Convince a Skeptical
Legislator
• Write a short (3-5 pages) paper to persuade a
skeptical legislator of the merits of
readdressing climate change
• Some of the legislators were:
– Senator Chuck Grassley - Iowa
– Senator Pat Roberts - Kansas
– Senator John McCain - Arizona
– Senator John Cornyn -Texas
– Senator Lindsay Graham – South Carolina
Alternative Directions for the Future
•
•
•
•
The challenges of development and governance
Two-level bargaining games
Political institutions and international regimes
Dimensions of climate strategy – engaging the
enthusiastic and reluctant countries
• Promoting Technological Change
• Student paper on country actions to deal with
climate change
• Thinking Ahead
Finishing the Course
•
•
•
•
Technology poster presentations
Doha Conference simulation
Country poster presentations
Final Papers
Technological Solutions to Climate
Change - Posters
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Wind
Solar
Nuclear
Conservation
Carbon Storage
Geo-engineering
Fracking
Coal Carbon Capture and Storing
Nuclear Energy
Wind Power
Solar Power
Areas of Solar Power Potential
Fracking
Coal Carbon Capture and Storage
Geoengineering