Newton Paciornik BRAZIL Policy Goals and Common Metrics Implications Bonn, 04 April 2012 Workshop on...
-
Upload
lorin-neal -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Newton Paciornik BRAZIL Policy Goals and Common Metrics Implications Bonn, 04 April 2012 Workshop on...
Newton PaciornikBRAZIL
Policy Goals and Common Metrics Implications
Bonn, 04 April 2012
Workshop on common metrics to calculate the CO2 equivalence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by
sources and removals by sinks
• Why we need a common metric?– Multiple greenhouse gases
– Need to provide an information about a non-CO2 ghg in CO2eq
• Types of information– Climate change influence -> contribution to damage– Scenarios and projections– Inventories of emissions and removals– Responsibility to climate change– Goals – Mitigation options (cost/benefit analysis)– Choice of gases to consider
• One metric fits all?– Is it possible? Is it desirable?
Common Metrics and Policy Issues
• UNFCCC definition– Anthropogenic emissions and removals– Greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal
Protocol– Issue: influence of other GHG and non-anthropogenic
sources and sinks.
• UNFCCC objective and principles– “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations at a
level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”
– “on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.”
Policy Issues and Policy Options
• Evaluating the dangerous interference – Emissions -> Concentrations -> Climate Change (global) -> Damage (regional or local)
• Limiting climate change (measure of interference) options:– temperature increase (average)– rate of temperature increase– sea level rise– others– Basket of measures
• Secondary measures (proxys?)– concentration– cumulative radiative forcing
Dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system
• Limiting global average temperature increase – Most recent policy decision– Durban Platform: “holding the increase in global
average temperature below 2 °C or 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels”
• Horizon– Forever below 2 °C– Trajectory– Overshooting allowed?– Intermediary goals (checkpoints) – trajectory
correction
• Secondary scenarios and goals– Emissions and concentrations– Individual gases or basket
Dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system
• Original sin – Kyoto Protocol basket approach
• Flexibility of mitigation options to Annex I Parties
– Option: Brazilian proposal• Burden sharing among Annex I Parties based on contribution to
climate change (top-down approach)– Average temperature– Sea level rise
• Too innovative at that point in time
– Adoption of a bottom-up approach– On the shelf option: GWP (not developed with a policy
objective in mind)
• Propagation effect– Inventories: total GHG emissions– Mitigation options: policies and projects– Mitigation analysis: cost/benefit
Basket of Gases and GWP
• Estimation of annual anthropogenic emissions and removals of individual Greenhouse gases
• Emissions in CO2 eq– Nice, easy and understandable (?) information– Annex I , mandatory (GWP SAR)– Non Annex I, (GWP SAR if reported)– Annex I from 2015 submission on (GWP from AR4)
(most recent science!)• Time-series from 1990 on recalculated• GWP from AR5 will be available at this point in time• Fixed GWP along the time-series make sense?
• Keep the individual gases estimates in metric units archived. It is the basic and useful information (policies can change)
GHG Inventories and GWP
• Annex I Parties – Quantified Emission Limitation and Reductions in
CO2eq under the Kyoto Protocol
– Flexibility of different gas reductions– Market mechanisms– Inappropriate metric can lead different contributions
to combat climate change
• Non-Annex I Parties– Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the
Kyoto Protocol– Inappropriate metric can lead to incorrect evaluation
of the project contribution
Mitigation Options and GWP
• Is it time to revisit the basket approach option?– Keep one overall basket– Individual gases– Multiple baskets
• Recent developments– Proposal for dealing with F-gases in the Montreal
Protocol– Papers questioning the basket approach and pointing
for the Montreal Protocol lessons (e.g. Daniel et al. 2012)
Revisiting the Basket Approach
• Single gas – From temperature to concentration to emissions – How to compare trajectories?– Discounting rate
• On temperature• On cost
– How to assess the cost before sharing the burden?
• Different countries different costs• Market mechanisms work?
• Basket of gases– CO2 equivalent trajectories– Individual gases trajectories
Translating Goals into Budgets
• Options to share the burden– Pledges (bottom-up approach)– Top-down approach
• Responsibility• Capability• Equity
• Individual parties goals– Second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol
• Bottom-Up approach
– Durban Platform• Open discussion
Burden Sharing
Data: Oak Ridge National LaboratoryCO2, Energy and Cement
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000
USA
China
Brazil and UK
Data: Oak Ridge National LaboratoryCO2, Energy and Cement
Brazilian Emissions in 2005 < UK emissions in 1888
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
UK
Brazil
• Evaluation of responsibility – Current annual emissions– Emissions per capita– Historical responsibility
• Contribution to Climate Change– Cumulative emissions– Contribution to global average temperature increase
Responsibility
• Evaluation of Capability – GDP– GDP per capita– Human Development Index– Others
• High correlation with responsibility
Capability
• Dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system should be prevented on the basis of equity
• Basket of gases and basket of sectors– Emissions from a gas have the same influence from
the atmosphere point of view regardless of the anthropogenic source
– From the equity point of view, anthropogenic sources may have different evaluation, e.g.
• emissions from fossil fuel combustion• emissions from food production
Equity
• From the policy side, there are still many options open
• One specific metric not necessary will be appropriate to all situations were a basket of gases is used – Scenarios and projections– Selection of trajectory– Evaluation of responsibility– Burden sharing– Mitigation options
• Historical responsibility to climate change is key in establishing budgets when sharing the burden and a common metric has to reflect it
Final Remarks