Climate Policy Imperatives

Climate Policy Imperatives

[email protected]

Dr John BroderickEPSRC Knowledge Transfer FellowTyndall Manchester

Overview

About the Tyndall Centre Taking responsibility as a region

» Allocation methodologies » Novel approach for the regional scale

Cumulative emissions accounting» Credible climate framework» Current climate policy and uncomfortable conclusions» Aviation and tourism within this framing

Acknowledgements» Work by Ruth Wood, Alex Joyce, Alice Bows, Kevin Anderson» Funded by Tyndall Centre, EPSRC and Joule Centre grants

Tyndall Manchester

• Interdisciplinary research centre started in 2000, with 7 partners

• Social, economic and engineering climate change research

• Tyndall Manchester focussed on energy, emissions and stakeholders

• Agenda setting research on emissions budgets, aviation and shipping

• High policy relevance and profile, for instance Hansard citations 2008– UoM: 43– Tyndall Manchester: 100

• EPSRC Knowledge Transfer role allows for further outreach and policy work

Taking Responsibility

View aviation as a complex system, where responsibility may be allocated amongst actors in a variety of ways. No objectively “right” answer.

Status quo: no allocation, » Aviation excluded from national and international emissions control regimes, but soon to enter EU ETS

To producers, bottom-up on the basis of fuel sold» E.g. Nation states

To producers on the basis of emissions calculated» E.g. Airlines

To consumers (end-users) of the service» Passengers, as individuals » Aggregating or disagregating across spatial or administrative scale: State – Region – Local Authority

To other influential actors or beneficiaries within aviation system» Airports » (Regional) Planning authorities» Air traffic control

Issues» Purpose of accounting – reflective of interventions?» Availability of data» Consistent with existing UNFCCC inventories

What contribution does aviation in the North West make to the region’s total CO2 emissions?

International Accounting

UNFCCC: Bunker Fuels

National AccountingNo Standard

Joule Centre research, part funded by NWDA Stakeholder workshops, including future scenarios Develop regional apportionment methodology Reflects local influences:

» Over LTO» Of residents flying practices & tourists attracted

Reflects local economic benefits:» From hosting an airport (direct benefit)» From services to residents, businesses and tourism (indirect)



LTO : Apportioned to the airport’s region

Cruise emissions: apportioned according to the region from which the passengers start their journey

Diagram from Corinair/EMEP EEA 2009


Emissions calculated under hybrid apportionment

Reproduced from Wood et al (2010)

Current Method New Method



Reproduced from Wood et al (2010)

Sub-regional apportionment based on passenger survey data and 20 major emitter flights from Manchester and Liverpool airports

Highly uneven spatial distribution


Reproduced from Joyce (2011)

Conclusions from apportionment work

Reasonable and possible to apportion aviation emissions sub nationally. Methodology applicable elsewhere.

Continued growth of aviation impacts other sectors of the economy under constrained emissions budgets» CCC estimates of 0.8% to 1.5% p.a. seat-km efficiency improvements,

ACARE target at upper end.

Substantial unevenness, spatially and considering destinations, raises questions of governance and appropriate policy interventions

Cumulative Emissions Accounting

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Ann

ual C

O2e

em

issi

ons

Illustrative pathway for a carbon budget

Em

issi

on

s alr

ead

y r

ele

ase

d

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Ann

ual C

O2e

em

issi

ons

Illustrative pathway for a carbon budget

Em

issi

on

s alr

ead

y r

ele

ase

dA

BA=B for same climate impact

2050 target shifts

Trajectory becomes steeper

Growth 3.5% p.a

Peak 2025

Reduction 7% p.a. (2x Stern!)

Anderson-Bows: 2°C budget, CO2 onlyhttp://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/20.full.pdf+html?sid=423cdf2d-23a1-4170-b4b6-74e87f173156

Budget premised on 37% chance of exceeding 2°C GMT rise

Peak ~2010

Reduction ∞% p.a.



Current climate policy

• Broadening the analysis beyond the previous slides• If... IPCC’s link between cumulative emissions &

temperature rise is broadly correct» Non-Annex 1 nations peak emissions by 2025» There are rapid reductions in deforestation emissions» Food emissions per capita halve from today’s values by 2050» No discontinuities (“tipping points”) occur• And... Stern, CCC, IEA’s maximum “feasible” reductions

of 3-4% in Annex 1 p.a. is achieved• Then... 2°C stabilisation is virtually impossible

» UK’s budgets premised on 63% chance of exceeding 2°C • and 4°C by 2070 looks likely (on the way to 6°C …?)

Greater impacts at lower temperatures

From Smith et al (2009) Assessing dangerous climate change through anupdate of the IPCC)‘‘reasons for concern’’

Summary

Final (2050) targets are unrelated to avoiding dangerous climate change.

It is cumulative emissions that matter. Fundamentally rewrites the chronology of

climate change. Every delay makes the problem worse. Stop thinking of long term gradual reductions and consider

urgent and radical reductions.

Conclusions

Timeframe of climate change problem is extremely challenging for all but especially for the aviation industry.

Technological & infrastructure lock-in suggest aviation’s emissions will grow considerably as a proportion of tolerable EU and UK emissions budgets (Bows 2010).

Emissions trading will not be viable in the medium-term if 2ºC remains the target.

Accelerating R&D, plus demand management and destination shifts will be essential.

Challenge to Air Tourism

Climate Policy Imperatives

Documents

Transcript of Climate Policy Imperatives