+

Capstone: GCCClass 19: Costs & StabilityPOLS 405Spring 2011Fisher

+Lomborg

General Findings Majority agreed with Lomborg but disagreed with his analysis

(50%)prioritize 25% Agreed with Lomborg on prioritization but would still put CC near

top 15% Agreed with Lomborg on priorities and his analysis

Lomborg’s Priority list is a bit skewed (False choices??) Basic Health Services (18) highest + Lomborg Global energy efficiency (15) - Lomborg Local Water Sources & Changing Energy Systems(12) + & - Lomborg Malnutrition: Micronutrients (11) + Lomborg New Agr methods and HIV/AIDS (6)

Anything on his list for protecting ecosystem or ecosystem services??

+Global Priority List from Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consesus

+Survey Results (General) No significant political orientation correlation Slight negative correlation on 2°C with temp Qs More you

agreed with 2°C, the LOWER you thought the threshold 80% agreed with the 2°C threshold 80% thought controlling emissions to stay between 2-4°C

was a critical policy goal, with 50% at 3°C target 500ppm was the most REASONABLE goal (55%), while 550

was thought to be the most REALISTIC objective (55%) 60/40 split on Temperature vs. Cost as the goal of policy

(12-7)

+Evaluating Targets: Putting it all Together

Stabilizing TargetCO2e

Must Peak in

Reduction in 2050

compared to 2000

GHG Decline

After Peak(per year)

Likely Range of

Temp

Cost(Global

GDP/yr for 50 years)

450ppm NOW - 80% 7% 1.75-2.5° ~3-3.5%

500ppm 10-15 years

- 55% 3% 2-3.25° ~2%

550ppm 15-20 years

- 20% 2-2.5% 2.5-3.5° ~1%

600ppm 25 years +15 % ~1.5% 3-4° ~0.4-0.7%

** currently at 430ppm CO2e

+What does it mean?

It means many in the class feel that 2°C is a worthy goal, yet even when it came to regulating emissions to get there, the class backed off Most thought that 500ppm was reasonable, which would

lead to 2.5-3°C temperature increase; Most also thought that 550ppm CO2e was REALISTIC, which

would lead to 3-3.5°C (5-6°F)

This also means that many in the class would be willing to spend 2% of global GDP to peak at 500ppm, but thought 1% of Global GDP was more realistic

+What should the targets be?

To stabilize at 500ppm would cost 2%GDP/yr but will reduce the possibility of global temps exceeding: 5°C from 50% to 3%. 4°C from 80% to 10% 3°C from ~100% to just under 50%

Question of Where? At 550ppm would cost just over 1% Global GDP/yr, but will reduce possibility of global temps from exceeding: 5°C from 50% to 7%. 4°C from 80% to 25% 3°C from ~100% to just under 70%

+Climate Stabilization: Views

Stern: 500ppm stabilization, while weighing risks and benefits Cost: 2% Global GDP (for 50yrs) $1.16t (US) Minimum: 1% GDP; otherwise risk 20times in adaptation

Lomborg: 650+ppm, prioritize our needs and climate stabilization is too expensive Cost: .05% Global GDP $29.5b (US)

UNFCCC Process: 450ppm to meet 2°C goal Cost: 3.25% Global GDP; $2t (US)

+Stabilization Wedges

Graph of next 50 yrs of global emissions of CO2, the difference between the business as usual scenario (doubling of CO2 Pre-Industrial) and the flat path forms a triangle.

This triangle is known as the stabilization triangle, which is divided into seven stabilization wedges

Each represents different measures that must be taken to reduce emissions.

If goal is to reduce emissions by 14Gt by 2060, requires 2Gt in each wedge.

+15 Wedge Strategies

1. Efficiency (4 strategies) 2. Decarbonization of power (5 strategies) 3. Decarbonization of fuel (4 strategies) 4. Forest and agricultural soils (2 strategies

Wedge Stabilization Approach

+ Efficiency and Transport(all equal 1 wedge or 1gt CO2)

1. Double vehicle fuel economy (30 to 60mpg) 2. Cutting distance driven (per car) in half (how in US?) 3. Energy Efficient Buildings, Appliances & lights

CFLs would represent 1/3 wedge by itself Reduces emissions by 25% (2 wedges, but 1 assumed in BAU)

4. Improved efficiency of Coal-fired power plants 40% to 60% efficiency (up from 32% today) Cutting by 50% the energy lost from fossil fuel extraction,

processed and delivered

+ Renewable Energy(all equal 1 wedge or 1gt CO2)

5. Wind: 50 Fold Expansion in Wind Energy Requires adding 2 million wind turbines (1mgw) up from 30k today (replacing coal). To meet this target, wind energy would have to increase by only 8% yr (today it’s increasing by

30%/yr)

6. Wind (H2): New market Add 4 million turbines to generate H2 for fuel cells (but need infrastructure)

7. Solar: 700 fold expansion of PV solar technology Would have to expand by 14%/yr (today, it’s 30%/yr) Cover an area size of NJ, but can be put on buildings Drawbacks: Current high cost of PV production

8. Biofuels: 50 fold expansion in Ethanol (displacing gasoline) Requires size of India (far more than wind/solar) 15% more land than is currently used today

for agriculture; also, undermines biodiversity and food issues

9. Halt Deforestation (& reforestation on non-forested land) Also, requires doubling current rate of reforestation; but runs counter to #8 biofuels 50% of deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia (Brazil: $1b/yr in lost revenue)

10. Conservation Tillage (all cropland) Avoiding ploughing currently less than 10% of cropland globally Drawbacks: Can never til. Quality of crops? Organic farming requires extensive tillage.

+ Replacing Coal (Decarbonization)(all equal 1 wedge or 1gt CO2)

11. Nuclear: Triple energy now generated by nuclear Requires 700 1gw plants and maintaining those in use now Drawbacks: waste, terrorism & proliferation

12. Fuel Shift to Natural Gas: from coal to natural gas quadrupling use of natural gas

13, 14, 15. Sequestration (3 wedges): capturing carbon and storing it (CCS) 3gt by 2054, providing 3 wedges 1 from standard coal plants 1 from synfuel plants (which generate synthetic fuel from coal)

although this actually CO2 emissions without CCS 1 from hydrogen plants that draw on coal lack current infrastructure.

+Survey Results (top 6 wedges)

Top Wedges: Fuel efficiency and deforestation (15 each); fuel efficiency was lower mean (so more respondents ranked as top choice)

Next Top Two: Wind Power conversion (from Coal) and Building Efficiency (both 11 each)

Next Two: Driving ½ distance and Biomass Fuels (6 and 5 each)

Look at the top 6: what does this say not only about the climate solutions, but how the climate problem is being perceived?

If someone looked at those 6 wedges without any other info, would they necessarily think you were talking about the problem of CC?

+Adaptation Adaptation changes the cost equation, because now you are

talking about adaptation + mitigation costs. Adaptation: Maladaptation, Can’t adapt, or high cost to

adapt To what degree is adaptation a function of underlying

conditions: poverty, disease, sanitation, personal health, access to food/water?

If so, what does this say for Lomborg’s argument? What does it say about the costs of “climate change”? So, is the Q about priorities? Temperature stabilization? Or

protecting ecosystems and people from dangerous climate change?

+ Countering Lomborg: To Mitigate GCC or not?

All affected including US—mitigated now is a reduced cost to all? Technology driven—technology race Lomborg just calls for

more R&D, not driven by sectoral or emissions targets that fuel innovation

Collapsing ecosystems Diminishing ecosystem services which will increase their cost

(not accounted for by Lomborg) Climate inertia and potential “Runaway global warming”—major

tipping points No looking back…can’t change your mind 20-30 later…effects

are irreversible

+ Adaptation: 2 HurdlesAdaptation: adjustments in practices, processes, or

structures [which] can moderate or offset the potential for damage or take advantage of opportunities created by a given change in climate

NOTE: all adaptation is local

2 Big Hurdles 1. Big Hurdle funding?

Carbon tax (universal or left up to countries) Per capita or based on country Other taxes? Incentives to give? Part of larger development fund or separate

2nd Big Hurdle: Who gets funding for adaptation? How is determined? Vulnerability (pre-CC—so HDI), vulnerability to CC, and capacity (to adapt)

+Cancun Agreement Based on target of 2°C To meet the level demanded by the science of a 25-40%

reduction of emissions below 1990 levels by 2020, and an 80-95% reduction by 2050.

No hard targets for developed countries, but better monitoring; developing countries have to divert from BAU

Adaptation Framework (and Committee), with $30b guaranteed between 2010 and 2012, with $100b guaranteed by 2030.

+Vids

Pawlyn Part 2 Pawlyn Part 3

Pawlyn Debates Lomborg Part 2 Part 3

Lomborg on Panel debate (Munk Debate) Dec 2009 (Stern Report)

Lomborg’s final argument (Munk Debate) (4m)