• Save
Professor Kevin Anderson - Climate Change: Going Beyond Dangerous
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Professor Kevin Anderson - Climate Change: Going Beyond Dangerous

on

  • 37,462 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
37,462
Views on SlideShare
26,171
Embed Views
11,291

Actions

Likes
16
Downloads
0
Comments
8

128 Embeds 11,291

http://www.climatecodered.org 1971
http://www.dfid.gov.uk 1312
http://www.tyndall.manchester.ac.uk 996
http://climatecodered.blogspot.com 776
http://www.rebee.clara.net 744
http://www.campaigncc.org 690
http://andrewfrank.ca 624
http://www.globalwarmingsparks.com 449
http://takvera.blogspot.com 363
http://duggyvans.blogspot.com 338
http://takvera.blogspot.com.au 296
http://www.climatecodered.blogspot.com 277
http://klimaat.hyves.nl 265
http://ingienous.com 240
http://ecoeverywhere.ca 228
http://www.transitiondeal.blogspot.com 162
http://vanityfea.blogspot.com.es 126
http://world.350.org 118
http://www.ecoeverywhere.ca 101
http://transitiondeal.blogspot.com 97
http://www.unizar.es 65
http://laperouse.info 54
http://worldsworstemissionstradingscheme.blogspot.co.nz 47
http://accessibility_checker.siteimprove.com 46
http://94.126.106.9 45
http://lamoleskinedirossi.blogspot.it 42
http://takvera.blogspot.co.uk 39
http://worldsworstemissionstradingscheme.blogspot.com 37
http://bcag.mybrockville.com 36
http://joeblakey.com 35
https://twitter.com 34
http://lamoleskinedirossi.blogspot.com 34
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk 33
http://stopkillingourworld.tumblr.com 29
http://rwmjohnson.blogspot.com 25
http://rwmjohnson.blogspot.co.nz 22
http://climatechangejustice.net 20
http://a0.twimg.com 20
http://feeds.feedburner.com 20
http://app4.websitetonight.com 19
http://vanityfea.blogspot.com 18
http://www.carbonvirgin.com 18
http://climateemergencyinstitute.com 17
http://takvera.blogspot.ca 17
http://takvera.blogspot.in 14
http://transitiondeal.blogspot.co.uk 14
http://www.climatecodered.blogspot.com.au 14
http://rwmjohnson.blogspot.com.au 13
http://duggyvans.blogspot.com.au 13
http://worldsworstemissionstradingscheme.blogspot.co.uk 13
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Kevin Anderson clearly demonstrates what needs to be done to get anywhere near the 2 degrees centigrade target, then shows us how the British government is ignoring every piece of evidence-based advice. We might not be stuffed, but our children are. Horrifying.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • I like the bicycle option instead of cars, too - but this is easy for me...
    My concern is the 80:20 rule being applied two more times: my calculation tells me that 0.8% (call it 1% if you prefer) need to drop their emissions by 99% (80% +16% + 3%). But maths is not my strong point...
    This means I need to ride my bike, grow my own veggies and stop playing about on the internet... AND STOP SKIING!! Catastrophe!
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • @RickyWard I don't believe he was talking about efficient cars just for the 1%. What I understood was that the 1% were responsible for most of the emissions and that if they used more efficient cars it would help. He was using cars as an example of the reduction that the reductions that the 1% could make.
    Bicycles are not realistic for a lot of our transportation given different climates. Also there is not sufficient public transit in many countries,
    I think his message was that we could reduce our emissions quickly given existing technology as long as we have the will to do so. Unfortunately that does not appear to be the case.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • One of the best presentations I've seen on the topic. Well done.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • I would love to have the text to read as I am rather confused.
    Kevin's chats about making ( lots of emissions here ) and then driving lower CO2 emitting cars by the 1%. This seems to be so easy as not to be part of what he is saying is a very difficult and sharp drop in emissions. I would have thought bicycles to be the essential change in transport technology and remember Cuba did just that in the early 1990's when cheap Soviet oil stopped flowing.
    That was with done in stagnant i.e. not growing socialist economy, where austerity was the order of the day. I agree with your comment that a prolonged period of austerity for the 1st and new development path for 3rd World is imperative but the talk about more efficient cars for the 1% SEEMS ODDLY IRELLEVANT.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • 2 to 2 °C
  • “ scientists” to “scientists’ ”
  • Quotation marks added to first quote for consistency
  • Added space between bullets and text, slightly enlarged purple text
  • “ Bow’s” to “Bows’ ”, added commas

Professor Kevin Anderson - Climate Change: Going Beyond Dangerous Professor Kevin Anderson - Climate Change: Going Beyond Dangerous Presentation Transcript

  • Kevin Anderson Tyndall Centre University of Manchester July 2011 Climate Change: going beyond dangerous … brutal numbers & tenuous hope or cognitive dissonance?
  • … explore the void between rhetoric and reality on climate change mitigation
  • Before thinking of responses to climate change what ’s the question?
  • INTERNATIONAL ‘ 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)
  • ‘… must ensure global average temperature increases do not exceed preindustrial levels by more than 2°C ’ EU
  • UK “ average global temperatures must rise no more than 2°C ” Low Carbon Transition Plan (2009)
  • So the question is clear: how do we ensure a good chance of staying below 2 °C?
  • … but why 2 °C ?
  • 2001 2°C ‘Guardrail ’ Dangerous Acceptable
  • 2001 2009
  • 2001 2009
  • Is 2°C – dangerous or extremely dangerous? Is 1°C the new 2°C?
  • … what mitigation is necessary to stay at or below 2 °C … how do we split the global carbon budget between Annex 1 (OECD) & non-Annex 1 (non-OECD)? … sticking with 2 ° C
  • Emission-reduction targets
    • UK, EU & Global - long term reduction targets
    • UK ’s 80% reduction in CO 2 e by 2050
    • EU 60%-80% “ 2050
    • Bali 50% “ 2050
    • CO 2 stays in atmosphere for 100+ years,
    • 2050 reduction unrelated to avoiding dangerous climate change (2° C)
    • cumulative emissions that matter (i.e. carbon budget)
    • this fundamentally rewrites the chronology of climate change
    • - from long term gradual reductions
    • - to urgent & radical reductions
    … so
  • How does this scientifically-credible approach change the challenge we face?
  • the latest emissions data factor in… what is the scale of the global ‘problem’ we now face?
  • ~ 2.7% p.a. last 100yrs ~ 3.5% p.a. 2000-2007 ~ 5.6% p.a. 2009-2010 Things are getting worse! Global CO 2 emission trends?
    • What does:
      • this failure to reduce emissions
      • &
      • the latest science on cumulative emissions
      • Say about a 2 °C emissions reduction pathway?
  • early emissions peak = lower emissions reduction/year
  • 2015 peak 2020 peak 2025 peak (Anderson & Bows. 2008 Philosophical Transactions A of the Royal Society. 366. pp.3863-3882) Total greenhouse gas emission pathways
  • 50:50 chance of Dangerous Climate Change (Global) Unprecedented reductions (~ 10% pa from 2020) (Anderson & Bows. 2008 Philosophical Transactions A of the Royal Society. 366. pp.3863-3882)
  • Even then total decarbonisation by ~2035-45 necessary … and for energy emissions? (with 2020 peak) 13 of 18 scenarios ‘ impossible’ 10-20% annual reductions – even for a high probability of exceeding 2°C
    • Annual reductions of greater than 1% p.a. have only
    • “ been associated with economic recession or upheaval”
    • Stern 2006
    • UK gas & French 40x nuclear ~1% p.a. reductions
    • (ex. aviation & shipping)
    • Collapse Soviet Union economy ~5% p.a. reductions
    What are the precedents for such reductions?
    • Growth rate to peak emissions (1-2% CCC etc, real 3, 4% or higher)
    • Peak year assumptions (2010-2016; Stern 2015, CCC 2016)
          • (China & India peak ~2017)
    • Rate of emission reduction order of magnitude more challenging
    • Technology (esp. supply) very limited to deliver in time for Annex 1
    • Socolow ’s Wedges are wrong way round (need early action)
    • ‘ Net ’ Costs meaningless (non-marginal mitigation & adaptation)
    Why does this differ from ‘standard’ analyses?
  • If this all looks too difficult … what about a 4°C future?
  • For 4 °C & emissions peaking by 2020 a ~ 3.5% p.a. reduction in CO 2 from energy is necessary ... & such a reduction rate is achievable so is aiming for 4°C more realistic?
  • For 4 °C global mean surface temperature 5 °C - 6°C global land mean … & increase °C on the hottest days of: 6 °C - 8°C in China 8 °C - 10°C in Central Europe 10 °C -12°C in New York In low latitudes 4 °C gives up to 40% reduction in maize & rice as population heads towards 9 billion by 2050
  • There is a widespread view that a 4 °C future is incompatible with an organised global community, is likely to be beyond ‘ adaptation ’ , is devastating to the majority of eco-systems & has a high probability of not being stable (i.e. 4 ° C would be an interim temperature on the way to a much higher equilibrium level). Consequently … 4°C should be avoided at ‘ all ’ costs
  • A fair deal for non-OECD (non-Annex 1) … what ’s left for us (OECD/Annex 1) ?
  • Anderson-Bows: (CO 2 only) (Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions – Jan 2011 ~40% chance of exceeding 2°C)
  • Growth 3.5% p.a Peak 2025 Reduction 7% p.a. (2x Stern!) Anderson-Bows: (CO 2 only) (Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions – Jan 2011 ~40% chance of exceeding 2°C)
  • Anderson-Bows: (CO 2 only) (Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions – Jan 2011 ~40% chance of exceeding 2°C)
  • Peak ~2010 Reduction ∞ % p.a. Anderson-Bows: (CO 2 only) (Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions – Jan 2011 ~40% chance of exceeding 2°C)
  • But even this non-Annex 1 pathway is too optimistic? … focus on China (& India)
  • China emissions (CO2 only 2010) 7.5GtCO2 (25% global) GDP growth p.a. (ten year trend) 10.5% p.a. India emissions (CO2 only 2010) 1.65GtCO2 (6% global) GDP growth p.a. (ten year trend) 7.4% p.a. China & India emissions & growth
  • Can this continue…
    • Shanghai & Beijing GDP/capita ~As OECD
    • ~200M Chinese <$1.25/day
    • ~350M Chinese $10-20/day
    • China GDP/capita (MER) ~5% OECD
    • India GDP/capita (MER) ~2% OECD
    • India GDP/capita is ⅓ that of China GDP/capita (PPP)
    • … so lots of scope for growth in mean income
    • & low wage industrialisation
  • Absolute emissions
    • If China meets 12 th Five Year Plan trends & promises, then:
    • 2020 emissions 2 x 2010 ~15GtCO2 (i.e. 50% world 2010 figure)
    • 2030 4 x 2010 ~30GtCO2 (i.e. same as world in 2010)
  • Are these numbers reasonable?
    • – polled views of Chinese Energy & Climate Change expert community
    • Emissions expected to peak 2030 (then plateau?)
    • Minimum growth to peak ~7% (outlier -5% p.a.)
    • Maximum reduction post peak 3.5% – 5% p.a.
    • So are these absolute numbers reasonable?
    • … the ‘Chinese’ think so
    • … most ‘western’ modelers & scenario builders ‘imply’ not
  • … add in India
  • India in 2020 & 2030? Maria Sharmina 13 Sept 2010, Manchester Supervisors: Alice Bows Kevin Anderson Scientific advisor: Carly Mclachlan
    • Assume India:
    • ~ matches China’s Carbon Intensity of GDP by 2020 (currently 34% lower)
    • Its GDP trend continues
    • India 2020 emissions ~3.4GtCO2
    • (2030 ~6.8 GtCO2 )
    • Are these numbers reasonable
    • … the ‘Indian’s’ think so (peak estimate – post 2030)
    • … most ‘western’ modelers & scenario builders ‘imply’ not
  • Σ China & India … Maria Sharmina 13 Sept 2010, Manchester Supervisors: Alice Bows Kevin Anderson Scientific advisor: Carly Mclachlan
    • Emission in 2020 18-19GtCO2 (~⅔ global 2010)
    • Peak ~2030
    • Population ~40% of global figure
    • GDP/capita < 5% OECD in 2010
    • GDP growth ~9% p.a.
  • Does all this matter? Currently no (?) global modeling & scenarios take serious note of China & India (ccc analysis & UK budgets premised on China & India peak ~2017) (~all low-carbon IAMs scenarios have 2005 –2016 peaks, & growth 1-2% p.a.) … first impressions are that the numbers outlined here, or anything approaching them, have fundamental implications for mitigation/adaptation analysis & policy, globally and for all nations
  • 2°C … a political & scientific creed ?
  • “ It is possible to restrict warming to 2°C or less ..with at least a 50% probability .” AVOID (2009) For ~2°C it is necessary “ … the UK cut emissions by at least 80% ... by 2050 . The good news is that reductions of that size are possible without sacrificing the benefits of economic growth and rising prosperity . ” CCC p.xiii & 7 (2009) “… a low stabilisation target of 400ppm CO2e can be achieved at moderate cost … with … a high likelihood of achieving this goal.” ADAM p.19 (2009) Orthodox view
  • “ … it is difficult to envisage anything other than a planned economic recession being compatible with stabilisation at or below 650ppmv CO 2 e.” Anderson & Bows 2008 “ … the 2015-16 global peaking date (CCC, Stern & ADAM) implies … a period of prolonged austerity for Annex 1 nations and a rapid transition away from existing development patterns within non-Annex 1 nations. ” Anderson & Bows 2011 An Alternative take from the same science
  • How do two such fundamentally different interpretations of the challenge arise from the same science?
  • EU In summary
    • Recent historical emissions sometimes ‘mistaken’ or ‘massaged’
    • Short-term emission growth seriously down played
    • Peak year choice ‘Machiavellian’ & dangerously misleading
    • Reduction rate universally dictated by economists
    • Emissions floors poorly accounted for or understood
    • Geoengineering widespread in low carbon scenarios
    • Annex 1/non-Annex 1 emissions split neglected or hidden
    • Assumptions about ‘Big’ technology naively optimistic
    • We have a magician’s view of time & a linear view of problems ??
  • Have we got the agency to achieve the unprecedented reductions rates linked to an outside chance of 2 ° C ? Before despairing …
    • 10% reduction in emissions year on year
          • 40% reduction by 2015
          • 70% 2020
          • 90+% 2030
    To put some numbers on this non-marginal challenge for energy Impossible ? … is living with a 4 ° C global temperature rise by 2050-70 less impossible?
    • AGENCY
    • Equity – a message of hope – perhaps?
    • Technology – how far, how fast & how soon?
  • Little chance of changing polices aimed at 6.85 billion … but how many people need to make the necessary changes?
  • Pareto ’ s 80:20 rule 80% of something relates to … 20% of those involved ~50% of emissions from ~1% of population run this 3 times ~80% of emissions from ~20% of population
  • - who ’ s in the 1%?
    • Climate scientists
    • Climate journalists & pontificators
    • OECD (& other) academics
    • Anyone who gets on a plane
    • For the UK anyone earning over £30k
  • Are we (principally Annex 1 ) sufficiently concerned to … make or have enforced substantial personal sacrifices/changes to our lifestyles NOW ?
  • Technical AGENCY – another message of hope
  • Fuel Production, Extraction &Transport Powerstation Transmission Electricity Consumption Light 10 50 54 120 133 The Electricity system Demand opportunities dwarf those from supply in short-term
  • Car efficiency (without rebound)
    • UK mean car emissions ~175g/km (new ~150g/km)
    • EU 2015 plan 130g/km (fleet mean with buy out)
    • 2010 BMW 3 series 160BHP diesel 109g/km
    • 2010 VW, SKODA etc 85-99g/km
    • 1998 Audi A2 3-litre ~ 75g/km
    • ~8 year penetration of new cars … ~90% of vehicle-km
    • ~50% CO 2 reduction by 2020 with no new technology
    • Reverse recent trends in occupancy ~70% by 2020
  • To conclude …
    • Link between cumulative emissions & temp ’ is broadly correct
    • Non-Annex 1 nations peak emissions by 2025/30
    • There are rapid reductions in deforestation emissions
    • Food emissions halve from today ’s values by 2050
    • No ‘discontinuities’ (tipping points) occur
    • & Stern/CCC/IEA ’s “feasible” reductions of 3-4% p.a. is achieved
    Uncomfortable implications of conservative assumptions
    • 2 °C stabilisation is virtually impossible
    • 4°C by 2050-2070 looks ‘ likely ’ (could be earlier & on the way to 6°C+)
    If …
  • EU So where does this leave us? Manchester Mandate mitigate for 2 °C, plan for 4°C mitigate for 4 °C, plan for 2°C Bows’ reflection … we’re heading for the worst of all worlds
  • But “… this is not a message of futility, but a wake-up call of where our rose-tinted spectacles have brought us. Real hope, if it is to arise at all, will do so from a bare assessment of the scale of the challenge we now face.” Anderson & Bows. Beyond ‘dangerous climate change Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Jan 2011
  • … a final message of hope .. “ at every level the greatest obstacle to transforming the world is that we lack the clarity and imagination to conceive that it could be different.” Roberto Unger
  • 1-person living in 3 bedroom houses patio heaters 10 halogen bulbs lighting the kitchen 2 tonne 4WD car to transport 70kg flesh 3miles driving children to school business tycoons with private jets
  • academics flying to climate change conferences musicians flying to climate change concerts celebrating the excesses of celebrities ‘ right’ to fly & drive when & to wherever we want year-round strawberries hen parties in Prague & birthdays in Barcelona double door refrigerators & home cinema second homes, 2 cars & 3 TVs
  • & all with up to 9 billion people living on our planet!
  • Kevin Anderson Tyndall Centre University of Manchester July 2011 Climate Change: going beyond dangerous … brutal numbers & tenuous hope or cognitive dissonance?