Climate change II. Impacts, climate change regime and mitigation/adaptation measures v Filip Cernoch cemoch@jnail.muni.cz CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES Climate change impacts • Melting ice • The vast majority of the world's glaciers are melting faster than are replenished. • 1/3 of North Pole's ice sheets melted since 90s. • Accelerated sea level rise, increase coastal flooding • 20 cm in the last century (40% thermal expansivity, 60% melting of the land ice). • Actual rate 3mm/y. • Problem for low-lying communities (i.e. Bangladesh). • Increase in extreme weather events • Climate change increases certain types of extreme weather events — heat waves, coastal flooding, extreme precipitation events, more sever droughts. CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES Climate change impacts • Increase in extreme weather events • Climate change increases certain types of extreme weather events — heat waves, coastal flooding, extreme precipitation events, more severe droughts. • Temperature — average kinetic energy of the molecules within a substance = the more radiation trapped in the atmosphere the higher temperature is. CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES Number of Climate-related Disasters Around the World (1980-2011) TrwutXM Honoro Or»'cr CHootiy K«u !Mxion button DJ» XU 0*1» WXB OdO»T. nns/w« UNFCCC. • Kyoto Protocol. • 1997, in force 2005. = Existence of a generally accepted consensus on the climate change as well as the contribution of human activities to this change. CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES Important Events in International Climate Change Negotiations Year, Location 1992, Rio de Janeiro 1995, Berlin 1997, Kyoto 2001, Bonn 2009, Copenhagen 2011, Durban 2015, Paris Outcome UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries agree to reduce emissions with "common but differentiated responsibilities." The first annual Conference of the Parties to the framework, known as a COP. U.S. agrees to exempt developing countries from binding obligations. At the third Conference of the Parties (COP-3) the Kyoto Protocol is approved, mandating developed countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions relative to baseline emissions by 2008-2012 period. (COP-6) reaches agreement on terms for compliance and financing. Bush administration rejects the Kyoto Protocol; U.S.is only an observer at the talks. COP-15 fails to produce a binding post-Kyoto agreement, but declares the importance of limiting warming to under 2°C. Developed countries pledge $100 billion in climate aid to developing countries. (COP-17) participating countries agreed to adopt a universal legal agreement on climate change as soon as possible, and no later than 2015, to take effect by 2020. COP-21 195 nations sign the Paris Agreement, providing for worldwide voluntary actions (INDC's) by individual countries. CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES Kyoto Protocol 4 GHG (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride) + hydrofluorocarbons and pefluorocarbons. Annex I. countries (37 industrialized countries + EU15), Non-annex I. parties. Reducing of GHG emissions by 5,2% for the first commitment period of 2008-2012. (4,2% after USA left). Base year 1990. Reduction of emissions from fossil fuel combustion; reduction emission in other sectors (land-use or direct industrial emissions); flexible mechanisms — Emission trading, CDM, JI. Common but differenciated responsibility. CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES CO2 emissions per capita, 1997 Average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per capita measured in tonnes per year OurWorld in Data ot 201 1001 No data 10 t 50 t 200 t Source: CDIAC C02 emissions per capita (tonnes per year) OurWorldlnData.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ • CC BY-SA Kyoto Protocol (KP) results In 2012, C02 emissions from fuel combustion across all Parties with KP targets were 14% below 1990 levels. Emissions in the EU-15 were 8% bellow 1990 levels. Some industrialised countries have seen significant increases (Australia +48%), New Zealand (+44%), Spain (+30%). Despite extensive participation of 192 countries the KP is limited in its potential — U.S. remains outside, developing countries do not have emission targets. The KP implies action on less than one-quarter of global C02 emissions. Through its flexibility mechanisms the KP has made C02 a tradable commodity, and has been a driver for the development of national emission trading schemes. CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES World Cd emissions from fuel combustion find Kyoto Protocol targets' mo 2012 It change Kyoto 1990 2012 %change Kyoto MtCO, MtCO, 90-12 Target MtCO, MtCO, 90-12 Target kyoto PARTES 7,157.0 -14.2ft ■4.S%W other COUNTRIES 12,014.7 23.437.4 95.6* wrm targets'" 3,154.5 2.906A -7.9* Wan-part dps ting Au-st-a 56.4 94.7 145% -13% .4nnex f Parfjea 5,550.3 i,Jil) 7.S% Belgium 107.B 104.6 -3.1% Belarus 124.E 71.1 43JK -£ = : 50.6 37/ J6.7% -21% Canada''' 42BJ 533.7 24.6% -6% Finland 64.4 -3.1% :== Malta : 3 :.ľ 10.4% ncne France'* 352.B 333.r -5.4% :== Turkey 126.B 302.4 1333% ncne :?err";ny S4B.7 7553 JDj5% -21% Unite States 4.88B.7 5J374.1 - :== -7% 70.1 Tib 1Dj5% +25% Iceland ■ i I.f -2j5% +10% Otfter Regjons 6,352.7 172.3% ncne teland 30.6 35.5 16.3% +13% Africa 545.D 1J332.4 39 4=-= ncne haly i=~A 3743 -5.7% -as* Mdofe East 548.B 1j647.1 Iii:== ncne Lujembcurg 1D.4 iCI -13% -zi--. N-OECD Eur. A Eurasia 630.D -15.1% ncne Nerherlancs 155.B 173.ž 11J5% -: = -. Latin AmericaH* B42.5 1.5333 37JS% ncne Norway 2B.3 352 27J9% +1% Asia (exl. China)(<1 1.507.5 4:291.4 134.7% ncne Portugal 3B.4 -= ; 16.4% +27% China 2.277.7 s;t:.£ 262 :== ncne Spain 205.2 255.6 2BJ9% +15% Sweden 52.B 40.4 JJ.4% +4% IHTL MARIE HJHKESS 3S3.2 »22 SS.Sft Smtaaland 41.6 41J -aja% -£ = = I MTU aviation BU*(f£RS 2 = e.i 47 73 United Kingdom 54B.3 457 í -16.7% -125% European Union - '5 3.032.7 2J827.1 -aj% -£ = = WORLD 20.973.9 31,7343 Asia Ocesnre Au-5 tália Japan NewZea and Í.339.5 260.5 1J056.7 22.3 f.Síf.7 3353 1.2233 32.1 22.6* 46.3% 15ja% 44J0% Economies jn Transrj'on J.645.6 2.603.0 ■32 1-. Bulgaria 74.fi 443 -4DJ9% -£ = = Croatia 21.5 JD.1% -: = = Caech F^ea.blic 14B.B n::.£ J7JS% ■£ = = Estc" 35.E 153 -54.3% -£ = = Hungary 66.4 43 j6 -34.4% -: = = Latia 1B.6 ?.: -62.4% ■£ = = Uthuania 33.1 133 -5Bja% -£ = = Poland 342.1 2933 -14.1% -: = = Romania 167.5 ľi.: -52J9% ■£ = = Russian Fece'ation 2.17B.B 1J959J0 -23J9% :== jlc.^k =.-=-i: "jh I : 56.7 31.í -435% Slovenia 13.3 \-.ž 9J5% ■£ = = Jkra-e 6B7.B 231.1 -5B.1% +5% GtCOi -6% 35 ?: 21 :: iľ Non-Annaxl Partlss Non-Pamclpating Anna* I Parties Kyoto tang et1- 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2CCÍ 2312 (1) On 15 December 2C 11, Canada withd rem ftorr :he Kyoto Protocol. This acdon became efecJve 'or Canada on 15 Decerr ber 2C 12. [2't The actual country Targets apply to a fiaske: of six greenhouse gases and allow sinks and international credits to be used tot compliance. The overall 'Kyoto target' is estimated for this publication by applying the counlry target to IEA data for CO; emissions from tjeI combustion, and is only shown as an indication. The overall target for "Jne corrbined EU-'5 under ".he Protocol is -BW, bullhe member countries have agreed on a burden-sharing a rrangernent as lis:ed. (3) Emissions from Monaco are included with France. (4) Composition of regions diPers from elsewhere in :his publica-jon to take into account coumries tha: are nor Kyoto Parties. (5) The Kyoto "jrget is calculared as percentage of the ' 990 CO.- errissions from fuel combustion only, therefore i: does not represent ".it t;:i \i je". f; ■ :l"e i is I: .isk?:. _ ■ s jssl "?s ".".it rK <*z:k i "..iri^t; v.re s:--ev.:l e-: .ii y .icn: es i jise:. CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES Post-Kyoto system • Second commitment period of KP for 2013-2020 concluded in 2012 (COP 18 in Doha). Belarus, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, USA and Ukraine missing. Others reduction commitments covering 13% of global GHG emissions at 2010 levels. • To limit global temperature increase to less than 2°C above pre-industrial level, countries are negotiating a new climate agreement (partialy finalised at COP21 in Paris 2015). • It builds on the voluntary emission reduction goals for 2020 that were made at COP15 in Copenhagen. • Developed and developing countries with these aims account for over 80% of global emissions, (goals nevertheless not sufficient to fulfill 2°C limit). CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES Annual CO2 emissions per country, 2014 Annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are measured in million tonnes OurWorld in Data 2,000 4,000 No data | 500 3,000 5,000 7,500 12,000 10,000 Source: CDIAC Note: Data converted from carbon to carbon dioxide using conversion factor of 3.67 C02 emissions (million tonnes per year) OurWorldlnData.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ • CC BY-SA Paris agreement (C0P21) Legally binding treaty with reduction commitments from 187 countries starting in 2020. It will enter the force once 55 countries covering 55% of global emissions are in. It: • Reaffirmes the goal of limiting global temperature increase below 2 degrees, while urging efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees. • Establishes binding commitments by all parties to make "nationally determined contributions" (NDCs), and to pursue domestic measures aimed at achieving them. • Commites all countries to report regularly on their emissions and "progress made in implementing and achieving" their NDCs, and to undergo international review. • Commites all countries to submit new NDCs every five years, with the clear expectation that they will "represent a progression" beyond previous ones. CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES Paris agreement (C0P21) Reaffirmes the binding obligations of developed countries under the UNFCCC to support the efforts of developing countries, while for the first time encouraging voluntary contributions by developing countries too. Extends the current goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year in support by 2020 through 2025, with a new, higher goal to be set for the period after 2025. Extends a mechanism to address "loss and damage" resulting from climate change, which explicitly will not "involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation". Requires parties engaging in international emissions trading to avoid "double counting". Calls for a new mechanism, similar to the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, enabling emission reductions in one country to be counted toward another country's NDC. CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES Mitigation or adaptation? 150 Mitigation or adaptation? Global CO emissions by world region, 1751 to 2015 Our World in Data Annual carbon dioxide emissions in billion tonnes (Gt), 3& 1S hifofi forties in 2015 3B.17tnlffil[Xii>tshS(?1'l imenia(i^*iaveitiflsii; i'vt li-Ti-a Harepol Africa Asia and Pacific (other) Middle East Americas (other) Europe (other) India China United States i U 28 neo iľ?ú íľac i?9u 18Q0l6lQ ikm i™ i e-io i 05Q i em ism issď 186019001010 ido í&miggrjiMc ísra íaao ieeü2O002Qli) Data source: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAQ; aggregation by world region by Our World In Data The interactive dale visualization Is available etOurWoMdinbataoig,. There you find 1he raw data and more visualizations on the tope. Licensed under CC-6Y-SA CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES A wide range of energy and climate policies reduce greenhouse gas emissions Policy Type Policy options Price-based instruments Taxes on CO2 directly Taxes/charges on inputs or outputs of process (eg fuel and vehicle taxes) Subsidies for emissions-reducing activities Emissions trading systems (cap and trade or baseline and credit) Command and control regulations Technology standards (eg biofuel blend mandate, minimum energy performance standards) Performance standards (e.g. fleet average C02 vehicle efficiency) Prohibition or mandating of certain products or practices Reporting requirements Requirements for operating certification (e.g. HFC handling certification) Land use planning, zoning Technology support policies Public and private RD&D funding Public procurement Green certificates (renewable portfolio standard or clean energy standard) Feed-in tanffs Public investment in underpinning infrastructure for new technologies Policies to remove financial barriers to acquiring green technology (loans, revolving funds) Information and voluntary approaches Rating and labelling programmes Public information campaigns Education and training Product certification and labelling Award schemes Source: Hood (2011), based on de Serres, Murtfn and Nicolleti (2010). Carbon pricing • To decrease demand we need to raise its cost. Trying to find the balance of the costs and benefits of carbon production, not to reducing it entirely. To internalize the externalities. • Instruments that reach throughout the economy, influencing all production and consumption decisions. • 1) figuring out how much carbon we want to put into the environment. 2) Then a cost must be applied: • applying tax on it (Pigouvian tax) • cap-and-trading • Both these systems raise some revenue that could be used to offset the negative macroeconomic impacts of energy price rises CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES Carbon taxes • Norway — C02 tax introduced in 1991. Applied to oil products, emissions from oil and gas production and gas used for heating and transport. Sectors covered by EU ETS exempted from carbon tax, with exeption of the offshore oil and gas sector. From 2013 the tax level has been increased to offset the falling EUA price. • Japan — introduced in 2012 to raise revenue for energy efficiency and RES programmes, not as a direct price incentive. • Switzerland — C02 levy intended as an incentive for energy efficiency and for shifting toward cleaner heating and proces fuels (not to raise revenue). In place since 2008. Increased from 12 CHF/tC02 to 120 CHF/tC02. • British Columbia (Canada) - introduced in 2008 at USD10/ton, eventually reached USD30/ton. Revenue neutral, compensated by income and corporate tax cuts. Consumption fuels dropped by 5-15%, while in the rest of Canada increased by about 3%. GDP continued to increase. CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES Cap and trade systems • A government assigns to itself the right to put emissions into the environment. • It defines what it believes to be the socially optimal quantity of emissions. • The govevernment generates a number of permits equal to the amount of allowable emissions. • These permits are allocated to emitters to trade with them — market is created. = economically efficient, provides incentives for efectivity of the system. To develop technology that would allow one to reduce emissions at a cost lower than that of buying a permit, that spurs innovation and technological development. CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES Current and proposed emissions trading systems 2013 Start year 2008 Start year 200S Electricity and n dost r, Sac ton Electricity andinduttry Sector* Electrica* industry •v United States of Crffornia f America Stan year 2013 Secton Electricity and m du ary f." Iii f Start yea/ 2009 Secton Electricity * 'el Secton To be determined "■IUI To be determined I Sectors E le- n city and industry Ú Sartors To be ila—i nJiil Ones h.-,(.rif lurijir, Shanghai Chongqing. Shenthen Provinces Guangdong, Mubel Secton vary by pilot scheme f || In place Implementation scheduled Under consideration Iha imp is BBS prejudge to rr* itarn of or soverefnty over any tax Au str ata Start year 2012 Secton Electricity, industry, waste, forestry, domestic aviation and snipping Start year 2010 Secton Commercial buildings and industry Start year 2011 Secton Commercial buildings and industry 4L Start year 2006 Sectors Electricity, industry, waste, forestry, transport fuels and domestic aviation E and boundaries, and to t M nam* of anytirrstory. c«y or mt Source: IEA (2013a) Carbon tax vs. cap and trade system • Carbon tax: • Simpler to understand, easier to built, more transparent. • Keeps pushing for reducing the emissions despite technology development. • Is to be implemented more quickly • Greater price predictability • Cap and trade system • Avoids negative connotation of 'tax' • Some companies are effective in lobbying for exemptions • Known reduction of emissions, unknown price CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES GHGs related policies • Energy policies — implemented primarily for other reasons with emissions reductions one of a number of their benefits. • Energy efficiency programmes to overcome barriers to cost-effective investment in energy-savings. • Technology deployment policies (incl. RES support) which drive the deployment of cleaner energy options. • Energy taxes and subsidies, which change the prices of fuels, impacting production and consumption choices. • Regulation of conventional pollutants from fossil-fueled power stations to improve air quality. CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES Energy policies that affect emissions • Energy taxes and subsidies • Non-climate objectives (funding of infrastructure, revenue rasing), can shift the average and relative prices of fuels, therefore act as a significant carbon price, (and vice versa). • Energy efficiency • The primary motivation for energy efficiency policies is cost savings to consumers and society, improved energy security. Emissions savings a positive by-product. • Performance standards, information and labelling, energy provider obligations in lightning, equipment and buildings. • Development and deployment of low-carbon supply • Technology support policies — research development to demonstration projects to support for deployment CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve for 2030 60 40 d) O20 Ü & 0 (/) o-20 u ■ c d) E-40 a> ■ re .Q <-60 -80 -100 Carbon capture and storage, reduced intensive agriculture conversion New building efficiency, Waste recycling, small pasture, grassland, soil Wind and solar power, forest restoration hydro, other efficiency and forest management improvement I 7 _2_11 3 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 Hybrid cars, electricity from landfill gas, other industrial efficiency v Improved cropland ^ management, insulation retrofit (residential) Efficiency improvement, LED lighting, insulation retrofit (commercial) Abatement potential (GtC02e per year) CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES WHAT *f it'S A E\6 rto^y, and \a/oRLT> For NöT^tAG? o Ö 6 "of o Author: Joel Pett • ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ♦ PRESERVE RAINFORESTS . SUSTAINABLE GREEN Jops IJVA&LE CITIES fcENEVWLES CLEAN WATER s A\R HEALTHV CWiLWEN ere. etc. CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES Climate Change Adaptation Needs, by Sector Sector Adaptation strategies Water Agriculture Infrastructure Human health Expand water storage and desalination Improve watershed and reservoir management Increase water-use and irrigation efficiency and water re-use Urban and rural flood management Adjust planting dates and crop locations Develop crop varieties adapted to drought, higher temperatures Improved land management to deal with floods/droughts Strengthen indigenous/traditional knowledge and practice Relocate vulnerable communities Build and strengthen seawalls and other barriers Create and restore wetlands for flood control Dune reinforcement Health plans for extreme heat Increase tracking, early-warning systems for heat-related diseases Address threats to safe drinking water supplies Extend basic public health services CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES Climate Change Adaptation Needs, by Sector Sector Adaptation strategies Transport Relocation or adapt transport infrastructure Energy Ecosystems New design standards to cope with climate change Strengthen distribution infrastructure Address increased demand for cooling Increase efficiency, increase use of renewables Reduce other ecosystem stresses and human use pressures Improve scientific understanding, enhanced monitoring Reduce deforestation, increase reforestation Increase mangrove, coral reef, and seagrass protection CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES Sources • Wagner, G.; Weitzman, M.L.(2015: Climate Shock: The Economic Consequences of a Hotter Planet • Figueres, Ch.-Ivanova, H.M.: Climate Change: National Interests or a Global Regime? • IEA: C02 Emission from Fuel Combustion • Carbon Brief • Center for Climate and Energy Solutions • Harris, J.M.; Roach, B.; Codur, A-M.(2017): The Economics of Global Climate Change. A GDAE module • Ritchie, H.; Roser, M.: C02 and other Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Our World in Data • Biermann, F; Boas, 1.(2010): Preparing for a Warmer World: Towards a Global Governance System to Protect Climate Refugees CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES