Andrew Macintosh from the ANU Centre for Climate Law and Policy and I released a paper on the implications of carbon-cycle feedbacks on climate policy today. The summary is below or the full paper can be downloaded here. It ain’t good news..
The phrase ‘climate-carbon cycle feedbacks’ refers to the interaction between temperature change, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and the carbon cycle (i.e. the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged between land, ocean and the atmosphere). Research has shown that global warming could significantly reduce the uptake and storage of carbon by land and ocean sinks. This risk has profound implications for climate policy. If the uptake and storage of carbon by natural sinks declines, a greater proportion of each additional unit of carbon emissions will remain in the atmosphere (called the ‘airborne fraction’). As a result, meeting any desired climate targets based on the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will be more difficult, requiring a greater reduction in emissions than would otherwise be necessary.
The importance of climate-carbon cycle feedbacks is well-known in scientific circles, but often overlooked in policy processes. When discussing and analysing desired abatement targets, participants in policy processes often rely on data that do not fully account for these feedbacks. Unless corrective measures are taken, the use of these data could result in abatement targets being set too low and atmospheric CO2 concentration objectives being exceeded.
Using data from advanced climate models that account for the interactions between climate change and the carbon cycle (called ‘coupled climate-carbon cycle models’), 21st century CO2 emission budgets for developed and developing countries were calculated on the basis of the objective of stabilising the atmospheric concentration of CO2 at 450 and 550 parts per million (ppm). These equate to concentrations of approximately 550 and 650 ppm of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) respectively. According to the ‘best guess’ of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), stabilisation of the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases at 550 ppm CO2-e would lead to warming of approximately 2.9ºC above pre-industrial levels. Stabilisation at 650 ppm CO2-e is expected to lead to warming of around 3.6ºC.
After calculating the 21st century emission budgets, emission trajectories were plotted to determine the level of abatement that is necessary to stay within the budgets. A scenario was also developed to determine whether 60 per cent mitigation targets for developed countries for 2050 (which is the Rudd Government’s policy for Australia) are consistent with the objective of preventing dangerous climate change.
The results suggest that without a rapid and dramatic shift in the political landscape there is little chance of stabilising the atmospheric concentration of CO2 at 450 ppm. It follows that there is little chance of keeping the increase in the global average surface temperature below 2ºC above pre-industrial levels (2ºC has been identified as the threshold for dangerous climate change by many governments, policy organisations and scientists). A concerted effort from the international community will be required to achieve even an atmospheric concentration target of 550 ppm CO2 (~650 ppm CO2-e).
In order to have a reasonable chance of keeping the increase in the global average surface temperature to 2 – 3ºC above pre-industrial levels, developed countries may have to pursue sharp emission reductions over the coming two decades. Developed country mitigation targets of 60 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050 are likely to fall well short of what is required to meet these global temperature targets.
While deep cuts in developed country emissions are required to meet 2 – 3ºC temperature targets, developing country emissions must also be quickly stabilised and reduced. If the emission trends since 2000 are allowed to continue for much longer, the growth in developing country emissions will close off the option of keeping the atmospheric concentration of CO2 below 550 ppm.
The results derived from the coupled climate-carbon cycle models are subject to a significant degree of uncertainty. The actual emission budgets that correspond to 450 and 550 ppm CO2 atmospheric concentrations could be significantly higher or lower than those projected by the models used in this exercise. This raises a question about which data to rely on when devising emission budgets and abatement targets. Assuming the available climate models are equally valid, the answer will depend on judgments regarding risk, future generations and the environment.
Given the risks associated with tipping elements and the legal obligations and principles outlined in the UNFCCC, it is arguable that policy makers should be at least mildly risk averse when making abatement decisions. If a risk averse decision framework is adopted, data from coupled climate-carbon cycle models should be used in policy processes. The available data from these models indicate there is reason for concern if there is a desire to prevent the global average surface temperature increasing by more than 2 – 3ºC above pre-industrial levels.
I haven’t had a chance to read the full paper yet but it looks very good. The papers on climate-carbon cycle models by Friedlingstein et al also look good. Unfortunately I suspect that these models may be conservative. A June 13 paper in geophysical research letters suggests that the melting arctic will lead to strong arctic land warming, and this in turn will increase the release of methane from permafrost.
As bad as this is, I think we need to brace ourselves for far worse: Hansen’s current work (and other groups’) is pointing to target atmospheric CO2 concentrations of only 350ppm (eg, http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TippingPointsNear_20080623.pdf)
Yes, 350ppm; yes, we’re already at 385ppm.
[For the record I did *not* insert a smiley!]
Just to expand on this for information and discussion purposes… We need to address the way we get our food, not just the way we get our transport and energy. The public discussion has focused on transport and energy, we need to broaden it. I’ve written about this before, but it seems relevant to look at it again here.
The IPCC Nov 2007 summary report looked at six groups of scenarios for emissions reduction or increase. None of them gave an eventual temperature increase of less than 2C, the lowest was emissions peaking somewhere between 2000 and 2015, and a 50-85% reduction in total emissions by 2050, giving eventual temperature rise of 2-2.4C.
Check out the graph here, showing the spread of the six groups of scenarios. The roman numerals are the six different scenario groups, according to whether we reduce or stabilise emissions by 2050 (groups I, II and III) or increase them (groups IV, V and VI).
Looking at what is physically possible and politically achievable tells us that we’re not going to go zero carbon overnight, which is why the most optimistic IPCC-reviewed scenarios (group I) have a 50-85% reduction on 2004 levels of emissions (49 Gt CO2e annually) by 2050. That takes emissions to 7.4Gt to 24.5Gt CO2e by 2050. They claim this gives us 450ppm and an eventual 2.0-2.4C increase.
However, in a footnote they tell us that none of this accounts for carbon cycle feedback changes, as Oliver in the article and Peter in the comments are noting. So I’d say it’s prudent to be looking at the 85% reduction scenario as our goal.
However, since we’re talking indirectly to politicians here, and the public debate so far about climate change has focused on burning fossil fuels, it’s worth mentioning that globally burning fossil fuels only accounts for about 57% of greenhouse gas emissions.
17% comes from deforestation. Forests are cut down first for agriculture, secondly for timber products, and lastly for firewood
14% comes from methane, which is about equally due to livestock and rice-growing (organic material rots in the rice paddies)
8% comes from nitrous oxide, which comes from artificial fertiliser and livestock manure
3% comes from non fossil-fuel sources of carbon dioxide, mostly cement-making
1% comes from fluorine gases - the developing world still uses CFCs
So that even by entirely eliminating the burning of fossil fuels, we’re left with only a 57% reduction, 43% of current emissions. And of course, absent fossil fuels we could expect more deforestation - over in Haiti they’re eating mud because they cut down all their forests for cooking charcoal, this sort of thing will only be worse with no fossil fuels.
We might decide to eliminate artificial fertiliser, go organic and thus halve the nitrous oxide contribution, bringing it from 43% to 39%. We might also halve worldwide animal product consumption, halving the remaining nitrous oxide emissions, and dropping a quarter off the methane emissions. There’s also some work being done on reducing emissions from rice paddies, we could perhaps knock another quarter off.
Certainly we can get rid of the last CFC and HFCs.
We then get to 30% or so. We’re still left with the cement-making. Given that a 1.5MW wind turbine needs 200-400 tonnes of concrete, and that even an ecotechnic paradise will need the occasional bit of concrete reinforcement for bridges and the like, it seems unlikely we can knock that out.
So even with these significant efforts, we’re not all the way. We’re still left with deforestation and agricultural emissions.
Thus, addressing the way we get our food is as important as addressing the way we get our transport and energy.
I think the Greens and Christine are right on the mark with this article.
Peter - your’re probably right. We discussed our paper with two scientiests who really know this issue, Professor Andy Pittman (UNSW) and Dr Michael Raupach (CSIRO). Both felt we were being conservative.
Kiashu - I agree. We need to cut emissions in all sectors, and some are much more difficult than others - especially agriculture and some industrial processes. Even with complete success in dealing with forestry and waste emissions, the upshot is that energy sector emissions have to fall to zero very quickly. For this reason, investing in low (but not zero) emission electricity generation will be an expensive mistake. These include coal with carbon capture and storage and nuclear.
Unfortunately the industrial democratic world is being governed by politicians with the wrong credentials. They, therefore, generally view the current global warming energy crisis from the wrong perspective. Fundamentally they are trying save the “economy” not the planet. From their position human habitation of the Earth only exists in their minds as it is today. Perhaps we now need to be a little more imaginative in our approach to an impending problem than trying to persevere the present.
BUT!!! This is what we are faced with, bloody outrageous!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/03/2293063.htm
The expected form of global emissions agreements suggests that these BRIC economies (with the possible exception of Russia) will have more scope to increase emissions than say Eurozone, US and other highly developed economies.
Brazil, Russia, India & China (BRIC) will be driving many more cars between now and 2050, probably tripling the total number of cars on the road as compared with today.
Given the price of oil all those new cars will probably be electric cars.
This means we can expect a whole lot of coal burning to happen.
Oil prices won’t stop the upcoming emissions surge since BRIC will shift to coal sourced energy for vehicles.
In the absence of a global depression, the likelihood of meaningful total global emissions reductions within 20 years seems very slim.
We found out last year that IPCC had been caught by surprise in its projections due to unexpected surge in emissions from developing nations. We should expect more surprise in that direction.
We will be squeezed by increasing emissions and (from the post above) escalating consequences for each marginal increment in emissions. Its looks like a perfect storm is coming our way.
We probably need coal to go up an order of magnitude in price (just like oil has) in order to create a meaningful downtrend in global emissions. As a positive, I think this happen, but it is just about the worst possible way to manage this crisis.
Given other reactions to otherwise unstoppable badness, it seems likely eco-activists will eventually resort to disabling coal export facilities and such, in order to create uncertainty and start driving up coal prices thus curbing demand for it and encouraging switching to clean sources.
Ultimately many nations (those without generous renewable resources) will of course switch to nuclear.
For our part, if we are weaned off coal for domestic power then we are protected from future massive inflationary pressure on the price of power. This future protection can be built into the agreements on federal grants given to the builders of renewable plants. That is the grant is conditional upon upper limits on future power prices from the project funded by the grant.
If we wait for coal to get more expensive so that plants are justified without grants, then there is less scope for negotiating controls on future inflationary pressure on energy prices.
Kiashu@4: Zeobond is an geopolymer concrete alternative for wind turbine footings. http://www.zeobond.com/
I just finished a conversation with a bright and informed young business man.
He holds a bizarre opinion that seems to be heralding an even stranger resurgence.
“Global warming is a construct of those with a vested interest and does not represent an actual measurable reality”
It’s a seductive argument with as much irritating obstinance as creation science. This kind of opinion backed up by inaccurately applied science is attractive for conservatives to fall back onto. Unfortunately reluctance to change is the stuff of conservatism and is based on the success of the working model made conservative over time.
These people pretty much rule and / or own the world and will probably continue to do so despite (or in spite of) all the big holistic green think.
Has anybody or group considered any kind of in-depth survey of our political and business leaders to probe the probable cynicism / recalcitrance quotient?
I get the impression that despite the prevailing politic the results would be surprising to many of us out here.
shytskutz, it’s a worrying trend - and I use that word advisedly. I’ve actually been getting the impression from many conversations recently that climate scepticism is actually becoming a bit of a badge of honour amongst well-educated young conservatives - many of whom I went through Uni with. Very disturbing.
Tim@11, I think you can deal with this by simply asking the smart young conservatives to consider what sort of future we might have if there is no climate change problem.
In this case the rapidly developing world will have no constraint on their coal use. There do however exist constraints on our coal supply and even the spectre of peak coal in a few decades. We have the ready example of peak oil to inform us how this might pan out.
Quite simply coal will get more expensive.
If CST is cost with competitive with coal now, then CST will soon be cheaper than coal, since sunlight is free.
So with a modicum of foresight the skeptics should see the wisdom of backing CST for new energy generation.
The smart young conservatives would be the first to castigate a CEO for managing by looking in the rear view mirror. The expect the CEO’s of the firms held in their share portfolio’s to anticipate the future and manage accordingly.
I watched a very disturbing (and deeply flawed) piece by Adam Shand on Sunday which would have greatly encouraged the smart young conservative skeptics.
I don’t think we can afford to rely on climate change as the sole argument for winning support for renewables.
I don’t think we need worry too much about the minority of “climate sceptics”. The simple fact is that you never convince everyone. There still exists a flat earth society, after all.
We don’t even need a majority to want change, just a loud minority. A majority of blacks did not march with MLK, still less did a majority of whites agree with them, yet segregation was ended. A majority of Australians did not oppose the Vietnam War for most of its duration, yet that was ended. A majority of Australians did not vote for Pauline Hanson, yet racism and detention without charge or trial became institutionalised in the form of camps in Nauru and PNG.
And so on. Social change, whether good or bad change, does not require that everyone agree with it, and it doesn’t even require a majority. It just requires a loud minority who drag everyone else along with them by force of will.
So we can safely ignore Tim Hollo’s old classmates, if only we manage to be loud and willful. Focusing on the obtuse minority is wasting our time.
I believe it is important to note that all of the potentially major positive feedback mechanisms (PFMs) to global warming (GW) are related to “climate carbon-cycle feedbacks” and that it is, urgent, in my opinion, that the governments of our world should have got or should get started on commissioning comprehensive and integrated research into potentially major PFMs to GW.
Even with this new report, neither Macintosh or Woldring suggest that we need more comprehensive research into feedbacks to GW but that:
“The results derived from the coupled climate-carbon cycle models are subject to a significant degree of uncertainty. … This raises a question about which data to rely on when devising emission budgets and abatement targets. Assuming the available climate models are equally valid, the answer will depend on judgments regarding risk, future generations and the environment.”
I argue that much more comprehensive and integrated research, aimed at reducing scientific uncertainty rather than guessing what the targets should be, is essential for the degree of ‘certainty’ that governments, business and consumers require, in order to know how much they need to reduce their atmospheric GHG emissions. What Macintosh and Woldring give us in their paper is secondary research, most of which, in summary, is well known to those who have been following GW issues. Oliver tells us that “it is arguable that policy makers should be at least mildly risk averse when making abatement decisions”. There is no great breakthrough for humanity and the biosphere with that advice! We need more primary scientific research in order to have science-based GHG emission abatement targets, not just ‘best guess’ targets based on (inadequate) research to date. This is not to say that we don’t need to be very cautious about setting GHG emission abatement targets right now, based on what is known to climatological science. Of course we need to be cautious, but we should also definitely bother to find out, via careful research and sound mathematical modelling, whether we need to reduce our GHG emissions to below a specific percentage, e.g. to 70%, 50%, 30%, or 0% of 1990 levels by 2012 or 2020, if we are to have a reasonable chance of avoiding runaway GW, assuming/hoping that such a chance still exists.
I am of the opinion Carbon Emission reduction through the promotion of solar energy, will be far greater than anything the Government is currently planning, and will assist Australian households in not only becoming greener, but in easing the financial pressures on these families. With Government schools, Public Service buildings, factories etc similarly converted the cost saving can be astounding to both the environment and to the schools and organizations themselves. And all this without the need for an Emission Trading Scheme which is due to increase the cost across the board of food, petrol and other items we have come to regard as essential.
I believe the use of solar energy is a far simpler solution to reducing Carbon Emissions, which will reduce emissions far sooner than any Emission Trading Scheme could, as it is aimed at reducing the emissions emitted, and will show a repayment in financial terms to Australians for their efforts in ‘Greening Australia’. It seems the Government is intent on following the European Union lead rather than approach this problem in a way that suits Australian conditions
To start, the Government will need to provide rebates and subsidies which are aimed at assisting all homeowners to convert their homes to solar energy. Through Government assistance at this early stage, we can generate up to 70% of the power required to run our homes without using the present carbon intensive measures. The current cost of converting your homes energy to solar is not affordable for most and can cost between $20,000 to $30,000 and possibly more dependent on the size of the home and your energy needs. People do not own their home long enough to see the return on this type of outlay as the likely energy payback of a typical domestic sized rooftop grid connected solar conversion is approximately four years, so government assistance will be required.
Part of our surplus budget funds can be used for this purpose through non-interest loans available to all and could be repaid through individual tax increases over an agreed period of time, or recouped on the sale of the home, whichever is the sooner
As a bonus to the above we would be implementing measures that will reduce costs in households for essential supplies. The Solar energy system is reported to result in a offset of approximately 105,203kgs of CO2 over a 30 year period from one residential house. If these figures are even close the reduction in CO2 is staggering and with up to a 70% reduction in your electrical bill, this is great for the environment and friendly to the family budget. As coal-fired electricity generating stations are said to be producing up to 50% of Australia’s Carbon Emissions at present a reduction in demand of up to 70% per household will reduce the amount of emissions at this source.
(http://www.solarcity.com/tabid/281/Default.aspx ) (http://www.urbanecology.org.au/topics/solarpanels.html)
Secondly the Government should encourage people to purchase electric bikes and scooters, without a need for license and registration for vehicles up to 500w or 50cc motors. This will assist in reducing emissions, and will force the petrol companies to reduce petrol prices due to the reduction in demand. This will then have a ongoing effect with other supplies such as food etc due to reduced petrol costs etc.
Further emission savings could be achieved with discount in registration costs for vehicles using cleaner solutions such as Electric, LPG or Diesel. Although the Government will need to ensure some form of regulation to keep the sale price of these fuels steady, at least initially. This will result in an increase in greener vehicles being sold. Tesla now have released a vehicle that runs solely using Electric power, it will go from 0 – 100kmh in 4 seconds and can travel at 200kmh. It will do 350kms in a charge that is equivalent to 250 mpg (US) = 0.9408583 liters/100 km. So the technology has arrived and is only a matter of time before it will be available at a price for we all can afford.
A matter for serious consideration should be closing our city centers to general traffic, and the introduction of a congestion tax, with a time of day restriction on heavy vehicle traffic and deliveries, this will reduce the congestion in the city, and alleviate the carbon emissions produced by vehicles that can only travel at a snails pace there anyway. This would mean city workers would use the current public transport arrangements, or be able to use bicycles, e-bikes, scooters, and even roller blades safely, leading to not only reduced carbon emissions, but would show an improvement in the health and fitness of many of these workers. The increase in demand on public transport would mean the Infrastructure fund would need to upgrade these facilities.
Of course I have not even broached other approaches that could well be used in conjunction with these measure such as wind power, but that was as a result of our ability to use global warming, with increased sunlight to our advantage rather then be the victims of it, where wind would be better used as a back up to solar power.
These ideas are based on the use of existing technology, the ability to implement these measures fairly immediately and with an eye on the larger picture for Australians in general. This system is workable and good for the environment, for families, and our future. If enough people become as convinced as me, we may just be able to pitch this at the politicians and set them thinking about solutions that can benefit us all.
Kevin Hicks
Mark - feedbacks research is of course essential and fortunately this seems to be occurring. The problem, however, is that the results of this research will never be definitive, and more importantly, Government’s can’t wait any longer. The point of the paper was to demonstrate that if our current understanding of carbon cycle feedbacks proves accurate, we needed to act yesterday.
Regarding the line “it is arguable that policy makers should be at least mildly risk averse when making abatement decisions”, what we are saying is, if you argree with this (and surely we all do) then you must consider the implications of carbon cycle feedbacks. The issue is, Governments’ are not.