The atmosphere as a bathtub, with current inputs and outputs of carbon

Transcription

1 The atmosphere as a bathtub, with current inputs and outputs of carbon Fossil Fuel Burning 7 billion tons go in ATMOSPHERE 4 billion tons added every year 800 billion tons carbon Conversion: from C to CO2 multiply by 3.67 Ocean Land Biosphere (net) = 3 billion tons go out 3 billion tons go out Courtesy of Robert Socolow 38

2 Legacy and development 300 GtC emitted in the atmosphere since 1800, 2/3 from OECD countries nonoecd/oecd total emissions is 1 today, 1.5 in 2030 nonoecd/oecd per capita emissions is 1/5 today, 1/3 in 2030 people with no access to electricity is 1.4 bln today, 1.2 bln in 2030 despite that 2 bln people will gain access to electricity 40% of world population rely on biomass New Yorker WRI 39

3 Fuel Prices Fuel prices (2002=100) uranium oil coal gas

4 Energy demand: 450ppm World Primary Energy Demand MToe Adv Biofuel Trad Biofuel OIL GAS COAL Trad Biom ass WIND&SOLAR NUCLEAR HYDRO

5 Reducing 1 billion tonnes of carbon 42

6 Cost of alternative energy technologies 43

7 FEEM-CMCC Climate Scenarios 44

8 Climate Policy Post Basic ingredients Ambitious long term targets Participation of developing countries Development of new energy technologies Can all this be achieved? How? What legal and institutional framework? What policy instruments? 45

9 Main questions (1) What are the weak and strong points of proposals to build a successful future climate regime? What should be the appropriate scope (global, regional, sectoral,..) for a climate agreement? In the case of a global approach, should we stick to a Kyoto like regime? A combination of technology-based and Kyoto-like framework? How to provide incentives for participation? Is the UNFCCC the most adequate policy arena? 46

10 Main questions (2) In the case of a regional/sectoral approach, how to coordinate decentralised actions? How to prevent leakage and free riding? Ho to ensure that the total effort is sufficient and equitably shared? 47

11 Kyoto s weaknesses: The Kyoto Protocol s architecture has been criticised on a variety of grounds, including: it imposes high costs and unfair burdens on some industrialised countries; it effectively forbids developing countries from taking on emissions commitments; it provides ineffective incentives for participation; it generates modest short-term climate benefits while failing to provide a long-term solution. 48

12 Building on Kyoto: Proposals based on the Kyoto framework address the above issues by introducing: limits on costs or relative targets; more ambitious reductions targets beyond 2012; technology cooperation and transfers in particular with developing countries; broader permit market with longer time horizon to provide incentives to innovation. 49

13 Departing from Kyoto: Proposals with a different policy architecture may: replace targets and markets with taxes; focus on issue linkage (trade tariffs, technology transfers); give up with large conventions and global negotiations (G12 or G20) insists on domestic or regional policies rather than on global ones. 50

14 Main message The real issue is not Kyoto vs. non-kyoto, or cap and trade vs. other policy instruments. We need a basket of instruments anyway (including technological cooperation, adaptation funds, etc). The real issue is whether the proposed policy framework contains incentives for broad participation and institutions that guarantee compliance. 51

15 Variety and Variability Basic ingredients of a bottom up policy architecture: The coordination of a variety of efforts. Countries would agree on things to do rather than on emission reduction targets. A variable geometry of participation. Some countries would agree on more efforts than others. A sufficient accountability system to ensure that commitments become connected to action. 52

16 Tools: How can this be achieved? Limit on the number of negotiating countries (e.g. the 20 top polluters) Issue linkage: trade (e.g. Stiglitz s proposal), energy security, migrations, Transfers, e.g. through economic cooperation (e.g. Victor on energy infrastructure, use of ODA, ) Review and scrutiny 53