|
“Delivering on 2 Degrees”:
Kevin Anderson presents “Triumph and Tragedy in Paris” at the University of Sheffield, 28th April 2016. Kevin Anderson is Professor of Energy and Climate Change and Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester. Blog by Adam Howard, MSc (Human Ecology); Panel Chair and member of the Organising Team |
|
Abstract
“Grey-haired and no-haired people have failed your generation.” Addressing students and young researchers amongst the audience in the University of Sheffield's iconic new – and high-emissions - Diamond Building, Kevin Anderson pointed to twenty-five years of inaction on climate change. Worse than inaction – CO2 emissions today are 60% higher than in 1990. Does the outcome of the Paris Climate Conference in December 2015 finally signal that the world is getting to grips with climate change? The simple answer is no – it’s a start, but to assume it’s a solution is dangerous in the extreme. More on this later.
In days of old, yeoman on their farms would hear a call for knights to defend the realm. To leave the peace and safety of the community, face unknown dangers, risk never coming back, or to return weakened and maimed from battle. Not everyone would heed such a call, and take such risks. Yet some found an inner courage, and stepped up to the challenge. The community was thankful for their bravery.
Kevin makes such a call here. A call to those of us who are academics in our institutions of learning, scientists in our research bodies, leaders of non-government organisations – and to those of us who sense some call to leadership in our communities, wherever and whoever these communities may be. He calls on us to step out of our comfortable safety zones, and risk saying things that challenge the “Powers that be”. To provide a kind of leadership that will bring clarity and imagination to our collective task of building a zero carbon future – a task neglected for far too long, and now of the greatest urgency.
“Grey-haired and no-haired people have failed your generation.” Addressing students and young researchers amongst the audience in the University of Sheffield's iconic new – and high-emissions - Diamond Building, Kevin Anderson pointed to twenty-five years of inaction on climate change. Worse than inaction – CO2 emissions today are 60% higher than in 1990. Does the outcome of the Paris Climate Conference in December 2015 finally signal that the world is getting to grips with climate change? The simple answer is no – it’s a start, but to assume it’s a solution is dangerous in the extreme. More on this later.
In days of old, yeoman on their farms would hear a call for knights to defend the realm. To leave the peace and safety of the community, face unknown dangers, risk never coming back, or to return weakened and maimed from battle. Not everyone would heed such a call, and take such risks. Yet some found an inner courage, and stepped up to the challenge. The community was thankful for their bravery.
Kevin makes such a call here. A call to those of us who are academics in our institutions of learning, scientists in our research bodies, leaders of non-government organisations – and to those of us who sense some call to leadership in our communities, wherever and whoever these communities may be. He calls on us to step out of our comfortable safety zones, and risk saying things that challenge the “Powers that be”. To provide a kind of leadership that will bring clarity and imagination to our collective task of building a zero carbon future – a task neglected for far too long, and now of the greatest urgency.
A Brief Glossary to start with
|
BECCS Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage
CO2 Carbon Dioxide COP 21 Conference of the Parties No 21 – i.e. the Paris Conference |
INDCs Indicative Nationally Determined Contributions
IPCC Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – members are 34 of the world’s highest-income countries |
Detailed talk summary with links to video sections
1. Paris: closing the Gap?
What did the Paris Conference set out to achieve? The countries participating – 195 of them – had each made pledges about the cuts in emissions they intended to make up to 2030. These pledges as they stand take us to a world 3o to 4oC warmer by the end of this century. [Link - 1m29s] Yet we agreed as a global community, prior to Paris, to keep global warming under 2oC. Paris set out to close this gap.
Did it succeed?
What did the Paris Conference set out to achieve? The countries participating – 195 of them – had each made pledges about the cuts in emissions they intended to make up to 2030. These pledges as they stand take us to a world 3o to 4oC warmer by the end of this century. [Link - 1m29s] Yet we agreed as a global community, prior to Paris, to keep global warming under 2oC. Paris set out to close this gap.
Did it succeed?
2. The Triumphs
To start with the triumphs of Paris: [Link 9m40s]
To start with the triumphs of Paris: [Link 9m40s]
- Leaders from 190 nations are signed up to the climate science – not the propaganda of the climate sceptics. This is certainly a major triumph, and a vindication of 20 years of work by the scientific community.
- The Agreement is to work to keep global average temperature rise well below 2oC – with every effort to keep the rise to 1.5oC.
- Emissions reductions are to be undertaken in accordance with the best science. The science now is clear, and this gives a framework.
- Reductions are to be made on the basis of equity, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
3. The Issues [Link 11m50s]
What, then, are the issues with the Paris Agreement? Our global plan, coming out of Paris, rests on the following assumptions:
The UK is presented as one of the leading nations taking action on climate change. Are we getting to grips with this gap between 2oC intentions and 3o-4oC pledges? Kevin lists eight things the UK Government is currently doing – all heading in the wrong direction. Here’s the list. [Link – 14m02s]
What, then, are the issues with the Paris Agreement? Our global plan, coming out of Paris, rests on the following assumptions:
- We can limit our emissions without having agreed carbon budgets – no budgets are mentioned in the Paris Agreement.
- Long-term targets – out to 2050 – will do the trick. We don’t need legally-binding short-term targets.
- We can delay action – and then reduce emissions faster once we get round to it, by at least 10% per annum.
- The kind of reduction rate needed – at minimum 10%, more likely 13% per annum or more – is quite achievable without affecting economic growth or prosperity.
- The Agreement makes no direct reference to fossil fuels or to decarbonisation.
- Aviation and Shipping emissions are excluded from the Agreement.
- Existing pledges (“Nationally Determined Contributions”) take us on the path to 3o – 4oC (not 2.7oC – that’s misleading); and will not be reviewed until 2023. That’s 300 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere between now and then.
- The Agreement relies heavily on speculative negative emissions technologies coming on-stream – which have not been proven to work at any significant scale.
The UK is presented as one of the leading nations taking action on climate change. Are we getting to grips with this gap between 2oC intentions and 3o-4oC pledges? Kevin lists eight things the UK Government is currently doing – all heading in the wrong direction. Here’s the list. [Link – 14m02s]
4. Closing the Gap – Demand as the short-term key
How can we close this gap, and give ourselves a fighting chance of keeping to 2oC? Reducing demand has to come first, Kevin explained – we can’t decarbonise the electricity grid fast enough to achieve the reductions we need. At the same time, we need to be building renewable supply capacity – a project over a longer time frame.
He goes on to look at what all this really means – and especially, what “on the basis of equity” implies for the reductions needed, and their effects on Western economies. [Link – 16m28s] This is a frank, hard-hitting part of his talk. A wake-up call for all of us concerned with the well-being of our wider global community. He points to hypocrisy in IPCC working groups, the UK Committee on Climate Change, and university research councils writing their strategy documents. Bodies which he suggests are concealing the gravity of the situation, in the interests of their own funding. “This is a disgrace,” he says with feeling.
How can we close this gap, and give ourselves a fighting chance of keeping to 2oC? Reducing demand has to come first, Kevin explained – we can’t decarbonise the electricity grid fast enough to achieve the reductions we need. At the same time, we need to be building renewable supply capacity – a project over a longer time frame.
He goes on to look at what all this really means – and especially, what “on the basis of equity” implies for the reductions needed, and their effects on Western economies. [Link – 16m28s] This is a frank, hard-hitting part of his talk. A wake-up call for all of us concerned with the well-being of our wider global community. He points to hypocrisy in IPCC working groups, the UK Committee on Climate Change, and university research councils writing their strategy documents. Bodies which he suggests are concealing the gravity of the situation, in the interests of their own funding. “This is a disgrace,” he says with feeling.
5. The Rabbits
Rabbits – there are two of them being pulled out of the hat, to make 2oC look workable without making major social and economic changes.
This will not do. Here Kevin draws a connection with the work of Richard Feynman, who wrote the report on the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster. “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations – for nature cannot be fooled”, Feynman pointed out. That could have saved seven lives – we’re talking about rather more lives here. [Link – 29m15s]
Rabbits – there are two of them being pulled out of the hat, to make 2oC look workable without making major social and economic changes.
- “BECCS” – Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage. This is the technical fix which the most of the IPCC models assume will come on-stream, sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere on a big scale. Is this realistic? Kevin outlines what this will involve – for example, planting up an area 1 – 3 times the size of India with energy crops. Hmm…. [Link – 23m50s]
- The Tardis Solution: Peaking Emissions in the Past. This is the most impressive rabbit. Most of the models assume peak emissions in 2010. It’s 2016, and emissions are still going up. So presumably Western governments are mounting a search for the real Dr Who, to sort this one out. [Link – 26m45s]
This will not do. Here Kevin draws a connection with the work of Richard Feynman, who wrote the report on the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster. “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations – for nature cannot be fooled”, Feynman pointed out. That could have saved seven lives – we’re talking about rather more lives here. [Link – 29m15s]
6. Physics – or Finance? Which do we listen to? The physics has been around for 13 billion years – our economic model is ephemeral. Why has the academic community become beholden to the latter? Why not speak out? [Link – 29m50s]
7. Hypothesis: 2oC?
Is 2oC still a viable goal? Kevin’s hypothesis is: Yes… just. In 15 minutes he maps out a blueprint – what we can do about Demand, Supply and Policy – that could get us there. [Link – 30m21s]
Is 2oC still a viable goal? Kevin’s hypothesis is: Yes… just. In 15 minutes he maps out a blueprint – what we can do about Demand, Supply and Policy – that could get us there. [Link – 30m21s]
8. Demand: making a big difference quickly [Link - 30m35s]
There are three areas where major impacts can be made on Demand:
There are three areas where major impacts can be made on Demand:
- Equity/Behaviour – large reductions early from a small group.
- Technology – demand-side technologies can deliver early and large reductions.
- Growth – alternative measures of the good life. This topic is not explored here – but there is a growing body of work looking at alternatives to growth-based economic models for high-emitting countries.
9. “On the basis of Equity”
Now this may get uncomfortable. 50% of CO2 emissions come from 10% of the global population. We are quite probably in that 10%. Could we tighten our belts a little?
The figures are striking – Kevin gives some examples, ranging from Leonardo DiCaprio to climate scientists and academics in OECD countries; and anyone who annually takes a long-haul flight or two. [Link - 31m33s]
The myth of population – this is an important one. The idea that “the problem” is the poor becoming wealthier and emitting too much carbon is “a red herring”. “Do the maths”, as Kevin puts it – over the short timeframe we need to make deep reductions, it’s just not possible for the poor to become wealthy enough to make a significant impression. It’s the rich who need to make the cuts. [Link – 33m55s]
Suppose the top 10% of emitters reduced their carbon footprint to that of the average European – surely not such a huge sacrifice – this would bring about a 33% reduction in global emissions. Is that too much to ask over the 20 years or so we need to put low carbon infrastructure in place? [Link – 34m20s]
The “brutal logic” of carbon budgets – this is close to the core of the challenge. We know that for people in poorer countries, over the short term access to fossil fuel increases their quality of life. With current infrastructure - transport, health care, agriculture, essential industries, food on the shelves – all rely on access to fossil fuels. [Link - 35m15s]
For a given carbon budget, each tonne we emit in the wealthy countries is a tonne the poor cannot emit. Period. This is a tough one to face square-on. It has quite an effect, psychologically. Is there a way round it? As Kevin said, he’d be interested to know if there is. He hasn’t found one. [Link - 36m09s]
10. Demand-side Technology
For the techies amongst us, this is where it gets to be fun, at last!
Efficient cars – Kevin outlines how with existing infrastructure and car usage, we could achieve between 50% and 70% reductions in emissions from private cars. It needs “politicians with spines – and a public prepared to back them”, he suggests. [Link - 36m54s]
Refrigeration – look for example at what the Japanese did with their “Top Runner” programme. We could reduce emissions from refrigeration by 50% in 10 years. [Link – 39m15s]
“Jevons’ Paradox” – we spend the money we save on jet-skis and another flight. There are a range of things that can be done about this. (Not covered in this talk.) [Link - 39m45s]
Looking at the whole electricity system, 1 unit less of consumption can save 13 units altogether if we consider fuel extraction, energy production and transport. So reducing consumption is much quicker to deliver reduced emissions. [Link - 39m59s]
Housing – a “deep retrofit” programme. We could vastly improve the energy efficiency of our housing stock, with many benefits. Eliminating fuel poverty; making our homes more resilient to climate change and volatile fuel prices; creating a wealth of training and employment opportunities. This would cost under 2% of GDP, and result in a 60% - 70% reduction in energy use and emissions from housing. Kevin offers some figures. [Link – 41m54s] Whilst last year the UK Government abandoned the “Code for Sustainable Homes” – suggesting, once again, a short-sighted move in the wrong direction. http://www.building.co.uk/code-for-sustainable-homes-scrapped/5074697.article (restricted access)
For the techies amongst us, this is where it gets to be fun, at last!
Efficient cars – Kevin outlines how with existing infrastructure and car usage, we could achieve between 50% and 70% reductions in emissions from private cars. It needs “politicians with spines – and a public prepared to back them”, he suggests. [Link - 36m54s]
Refrigeration – look for example at what the Japanese did with their “Top Runner” programme. We could reduce emissions from refrigeration by 50% in 10 years. [Link – 39m15s]
“Jevons’ Paradox” – we spend the money we save on jet-skis and another flight. There are a range of things that can be done about this. (Not covered in this talk.) [Link - 39m45s]
Looking at the whole electricity system, 1 unit less of consumption can save 13 units altogether if we consider fuel extraction, energy production and transport. So reducing consumption is much quicker to deliver reduced emissions. [Link - 39m59s]
Housing – a “deep retrofit” programme. We could vastly improve the energy efficiency of our housing stock, with many benefits. Eliminating fuel poverty; making our homes more resilient to climate change and volatile fuel prices; creating a wealth of training and employment opportunities. This would cost under 2% of GDP, and result in a 60% - 70% reduction in energy use and emissions from housing. Kevin offers some figures. [Link – 41m54s] Whilst last year the UK Government abandoned the “Code for Sustainable Homes” – suggesting, once again, a short-sighted move in the wrong direction. http://www.building.co.uk/code-for-sustainable-homes-scrapped/5074697.article (restricted access)
11. A Radical Plan for 2 degrees [Link - 41m]
- Deep reductions in Demand – from now until 2030. The measures outlined above could reduce demand by 40% - 70%. [Link - 43m30s]
- A “Marshall Plan” for Supply – moving towards zero-carbon energy supply. 100% penetration globally by 2050. [Link - 43m50s]
- Policy – levers of government that gain a big advantage. [Link - 45m25s]
12. A quick look at Supply [Link – 43.50]
- An electrification programme. Currently 80% of energy consumption is not electrical energy.
- A “Smart Grid” with intelligent metering.
- Community Energy – many benefits for generation, conservation, resilience, energy literacy.
- Exploit the UK’s huge Renewables potential. For example, solar panels on all south-west facing roofs could generate 1/3 of current electricity demand.
- Indigenous biomass/biogas – this can help work around intermittency issues.
13. Policy Levers [Link - 45m23s]
- Progressive Metering Tariffs – favour less, not more, consumption.
- Adopt a Low Discount Rate – one for the economists in the room. The Treasury’s Green Book recommended rate is 3.5% for long-term investments. At this rate, on-shore wind turbines are much cheaper than gas. At 10%, they are more expensive. The discount rate, used in assessing projects, is not an objective function – “costs are what you want to make them”.
- A Moratorium on all new Hydrocarbon developments. (Obviously this includes fracking for shale gas.)
- Rapid re-skilling of people in the oil industry to work on renewables, such as off-shore wind.
- A Moratorium on Airport expansion (!)
14. A Call to Arms: the role our universities can play [Link – 46.37]
What is our role in bringing about the changed world we need?
Kevin quoted the Brazilian philosopher Robert Unger:
“At every level, the greatest obstacle to transforming the world is that we lack the clarity and imagination to conceive that it could be different.”
It is our job as universities to provide that clarity and imagination, Kevin asserts. “That’s what we’re paid for.” It has been lacking for at least 25 years on climate change. We need to think of how the future could be different – and provide policy-makers with both the vision, and clear guidance on how to get there. The skills are here in our universities – they just need to be focussed in the right direction.
Using this Talk as a Tool for Change
You can pick and choose elements of this talk – click on a link to a 2-minute excerpt from the event. On the other hand, you could set aside 45 minutes – half the length of that feature film you’re going to watch when you finally sink into the sofa on Sunday night – and watch the whole thing. Now you’ve read this far it’ll probably make more sense that way, and help to build the whole picture.
You can pick and choose elements of this talk – click on a link to a 2-minute excerpt from the event. On the other hand, you could set aside 45 minutes – half the length of that feature film you’re going to watch when you finally sink into the sofa on Sunday night – and watch the whole thing. Now you’ve read this far it’ll probably make more sense that way, and help to build the whole picture.