Real clothes for Norways Emperor Paris, carbon budgets & 2C - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Real clothes for Norway’s Emperor Paris, carbon budgets & 2°C mitigation twitter : @KevinClimate web: www.cemus.uu.se Foto: Tina Rohdin Kevin Anderson Isak Stoddard Jesse Schrage Zennström Professor in Climate Change Leadership Deputy Director CEMUS & CSD CCL Coordinator CEMUS & CSD

From Paris to Norway & Bergen via carbon budgets  Our Paris commitments  Importance of carbon budgets  Translating 1.5 & 2 ° C into Global carbon budgets  Estimating Norway’s fair carbon budgets  … and what of Oslo’s proposals?

The Paris Agreement established our commitments

Paris – an important diplomatic triumph … hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C …to undertake rapid reductions in accordance with best science …on the basis of equity ,

Backdrop to Paris (& latest IPCC reports)  The mitigation message has changed little in twenty seven years  Annual emissions now ~60% higher than in 1990  Even in Norway, CO 2 emissions have risen by ~ 25% since 1990

Backdrop to Paris (& latest IPCC reports)  in terms of temperature rise (e.g. 2 ° C )  A focus on 2030, 2050, etc. has no scientific basis  It is carbon budgets that matter

Thinking of this graphically…

CO 2 emissions (GtCO 2 /yr) Carbon dioxide emissions 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

80 70 It’s not what happens at some date in the future that matters 60 Carbon dioxide emissions 50 40 30 20 10 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

80 70 CO 2 emissions (GtCO 2 /yr) but the carbon budget i.e. the area under the curve ( e.g. for 2°C ) 60 Carbon dioxide emissions 50 40 30 The Carbon Budget 20 10 . 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

80 If we delay stringent mitigation today 70 CO 2 emissions (GtCO 2 /yr) We emit additional CO 2 60 A Carbon dioxide emissions 50 A 40 30 20 10 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

80 70 which CO 2 emissions (GtCO 2 /yr) must be 60 compensated Carbon dioxide emissions later 50 A B 40 (if possible!) 30 20 B 10 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

80 70 CO 2 emissions (GtCO 2 /yr) 60 Carbon dioxide emissions 50 A with much higher rates 40 of mitigation 30 20 B 10 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Quantifying the Paris 2 ° C challenge

Before Paris … 4°C to 6°C 2040 2060 2080 2100 1980 2000 2020

With Paris … national pledges add up to... 3°C to 4°C 2040 2060 2080 2100 1980 2000 2020

And to stay “well below 2°C” - the carbon budget remaining from 2017 is: - approx. 800 billion tonnes CO 2 (i.e. 800GtCO 2 ) 3°C to 4°C 2017 2040 2060 2080 2100 1980 2000 2020

2017 ~Zero CO 2 by ~2050 2040 2060 2080 2100 1980 2000 2020

But Paris also has an important EQUITY dimension - wealthy nations need to transition to zero-CO 2 ahead of poorer nations 2017 ~Zero CO 2 by ~2050 2040 2060 2080 2100 1980 2000 2020

So how is Oslo addressing this challenge?

So what are Norway's commitments under the Paris Agreement?

Sequential logic …  Norway has committed to make its fair contribution to reduce its emissions in line with staying “well below 2°C” and “pursuing … 1.5°C”  The IPCC provide a range of carbon budgets for these temperatures  We derive very ambitious mitigation pathways for poorer (non-OECD) nations  Estimate the non-OECD carbon budget & subtract from the global budget  This gives an OECD carbon budget (i.e. from 2018 onwards)  Divide the OECD budget fairly to give a Norway & Oslo carbon budget

Very challenging mitigation for poorer nations

Apportioning global budgets to Norway (NB. provisional) NB: even v. ambitious mitigation by non-OECD exceeds 1.5°C budgets Apportion remaining 2°C budget to Norway:  Gives ~ 280 to 320MtCO 2 from 2018  c.f. 2016 - Norway 44MtCO 2 (territorial) - i.e. 6 to 7yrs! approx. 50MtCO 2 with aviation & shipping

Headline mitigation message for Norway (NB. provisional) Assuming: 1) Norway is to meet it’s Paris commitment 2) & its policies are to have a scientific foundation … then,  mitigate at > 13% p.a. starting now  ~ 75% reduction in CO 2 by 2025  approaching full decarbonisation of energy by 2035

So how do Oslo’s commitments stack up?

Initial headline comment on Oslo’s commitments Deserve congratulations if they deliver as promised  Broadly inline with Paris 2°C mitigation rates  Probably the only geographical area to do this But …

Initial headline comment on Oslo’s commitents Equates to ~ 1.5 tCO 2 /person  Norway mean/person is ~ 8.5 tCO 2  i.e. over 80% of Oslo citizens’ CO 2 is excluded from mitigation

So, if the Emperor is to have real clothes…  Oslo to develop 2°C mitigation programme for all sectors  Norway to match Oslo’s courageous ambition – now! … and that’s just the start

Norway – a Parisian bellwether  Norway has a small highly educated population  … with world-beating renewable energy potential  … is one of the wealthiest nations in the world  And with an oft-deserved ‘ethical’ reputation … but does all this mask a morally suspect legacy?

Norway – a Parisian bellwether 1987 Norway leads with the Bruntland report 1990 IPCC’s first report 1990 Norway establishes its Sovereign ‘wealth’ fund

Norway – a Parisian bellwether  In 2017 SWF is worth around 8 trillion NOK i.e. 2 million NOK for every adult in Norway 2005 1998-2012 2013 2014  50% chance 2°C, ~ 70% fossil fuels in the ground  “likely” chance 2°C, near 80%+  Paris 1.5°C over 90%  2017 Statoil keen to begin Arctic drilling ( Lofoten & Barent Sea) … or as the FT called it “Oil and the battle for Norway’s soul”

Norway’s future – Bruntland or Statoil?  Ra pid phase out of Norway’s hydrocarbon assets  Moratorium on airport expansion  Use the Oslo plan as a catalyst for national decarbonisation  Return the SWF to those who have, are & will be paying for it i.e. reparation for poorer, climate vulnerable, communities “… meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

and a message of hope to finish … “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.” Robert Unger

Tack för att ni lyssnade twitter : @KevinClimate web: www.cemus.uu.se Foto: Tina Rohdin Kevin Anderson Isak Stoddard Jesse Schrage Zennström Professor in Climate Change Leadership Deputy Director CEMUS & CSD CCL Coordinator CEMUS & CSD