Tag Archives: climate
Comment: Why It’s Time For A Global Price On Carbon
Last updated on 9 May 2013, 7:40 am Writing for RTCC, former Japanese climate change Ambassador Yoshi Nishimura explains how trouble with Europe’s cornerstone climate policy proves that a global carbon market is the best route to limiting warming to 2°C. The current problems created by the European Parliament’s decision not to back reforms of the EU carbon market reveal a number of key issues on carbon pricing. First, in the globalized world, firms participating in a closed-circuit carbon market like the EU ETS run a substantial risk of losing out to free-riding foreign competitors. Carbon pricing inherently requires being a global system if the institution is to provide firms with a level playing field. If a carbon price goes up globally without discrimination, people will shift to a low-carbon lifestyle and won’t complain about different “pollution prices”. Pricing carbon must also be realised in the market devoid of manipulations on the supply and demand of allowances. Even containing price fluctuations within a narrow band is heresy in the market economy. And pricing of carbon must cover the whole economy, not just emitting firms, so that it delivers its full force in pushing investment and consumption towards a low-or zero-carbon future. Finally, pricing of carbon must be instrumental in achieving the global temperature target to limit warming to 2°C. No major climate effort should be launched without regard to this ultimate global objective. No doubt the EU policy makers are working towards realizing a global ETS eventually, but the current European design remains way behind that. No wonder it has long been trouble prone. Whatever surgery might be administered after the April 16 decision against backloading, woes will come back if it does not tackle the above points. The pink circles represent how much fossil fuel can be burned to stay within 2C of warming. The blue is potential reserves. Copyright: Carbon Tracker Initiative and Grantham Research Institute, LSE, 2013 Polluter pays So what is the proper design that meets all above considerations? As experts agree that there is logic to having a global price for CO2 emissions, here is one solution where such logic is put into practice in a global carbon market. First, governments globally must put a lid on global emissions so as to realise the 2°C temperature target. This means capping emissions at a level that simply won’t allow the global greenhouse gas output to go beyond what science says is needed to achieve such a target. [See the Carbon Tracker Initiative and IEA estimates] This limited amount of global emissions is the carbon budget for 2°C. Since this is a new “global commons” it will be collectively owned by an assembly of governments. The assembly will sell them as allowances in the market. Fossil fuel companies that extract or import energy resources must buy allowances and pass the cost on to the downstream economy so that emitting firms and consumers of carbon products bear ultimately the cost of using limited global commons. This would mean the 2°C will be achieved and a universal market price created, a market price that can be integrated into the whole world economy and a level playing field assured. No manipulation of prices. As the carbon price goes up globally, all firms and consumers of all countries shift from high carbon to low carbon investment and consumption. Revenues Furthermore, by instituting a mechanism to channel those sales revenues of allowances to help all countries in need, the global carbon market can give rise to a major source of climate financing that is decoupled from public coffers. This is the only possible way for carbon pricing to work without causing the troubles the EU ETS is embroiled with today. This global carbon market proposal will allow all fossil fuels including coal to be burnt as long as it is price competitive. No consideration other than the carbon price should come into play since the overall cap is set to achieve the 2°C. Linking various ETS platforms is only a half solution…as it does in fact reduce costs but fails to achieve the temperature target. Those individual systems are built on the basis of ambition-driven national pledges to reduce emissions reductions (QELROs) and not on the basis of the carbon budget for the specific 2°C target. Tortuous climate negotiations in year after year shows us a “failure of ambition”. Aggregated ambitions of governments shall never achieve the 2°C target, not even 3°C. Our failing efforts will surely bring us to a furnace of 5°C of warming. Europe should not give up its crucial leadership just because of the current woes. The merit and value of carbon pricing is not called into question. The design is. Europe can continue spearheading renewed leadership by re-designing carbon pricing in ways to stop warming before we pass our temperature target. It can do it cost-effectively and substantially reduce poverty, not just energy poverty but poverty writ large. Continue reading
Cleaner Energy, Warmer Climate?
Tue, 05/07/2013 – 12:00am Massachusetts Institute of Technology The growing global demand for energy, combined with a need to reduce emissions and lessen the effects of climate change, has increased focus on cleaner energy sources. But what unintended consequences could these cleaner sources have on the changing climate? Researchers at MIT now have some answers to that question, using biofuels as a test case. Their study, recently released in Geophysical Research Letters , found that land-use changes caused by a major ramp-up in biofuel crops — enough to meet about 10 percent of the world’s energy needs — could make some regions even warmer. “Because all actions have consequences, it’s important to consider that even well-intentioned actions can have unintended negative consequences,” says Willow Hallgren, the lead author of the study and a research associate at MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. “It’s easy to look at a new, cleaner energy source, see how it will directly improve the climate, and stop there without ever considering all the ramifications. But when attempting to mitigate climate change, there’s more to consider than simply substituting out fossil fuels for a cleaner source of energy.” Hallgren and her colleagues explored some of those consequences in considering two scenarios: one where more forests are cleared to grow biofuel crops, and one where forests are maintained and cropland productivity is intensified through the use of fertilizers and irrigation. In both cases, the researchers found that at a global scale, greenhouse-gas emissions increase — in the form of more carbon dioxide when CO2-absorbing forests are cut, and in the form of more nitrous oxide from fertilizers when land use is intensified. But this global warming is counterbalanced when the additional cropland reflects more sunlight, causing some cooling. Additionally, an increase in biofuels would replace some fossil fuel-based energy sources, further countering the warming. While the effects of large-scale expansion of biofuels seem to cancel each other out globally, the study does point to significant regional impacts — in some cases, far from where the biofuel crops are grown. In the tropics, for example, clearing of rainforests would likely dry the climate and cause warming, with the Amazon Basin and central Africa potentially warming by 1.5 degrees Celsius. This tropical warming is made worse with more deforestation, which also causes a release of carbon dioxide, further contributing to the warming of the planet. Meanwhile, Arctic regions might generally experience cooling caused by an increase in reflectivity from deforestation. “Emphasizing changes not only globally, but also regionally, is vitally important when considering the impacts of future energy sources,” Hallgren says. “We’ve found the greatest impacts occur at a regional level.” From these results, the researchers found that land-use policies that permit more extensive deforestation would have a larger impact on regional emissions and temperatures. Policies that protect forests would likely provide more tolerable future environmental conditions, especially in the tropics. David McGuire, a professor of ecology at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, says these findings are important for those trying to implement mitigation policies. “Hallgren et al. caution that society needs to further consider how biofuels policies influence ecosystem services to society, as understanding the full dimension of these effects should be taken into consideration before deciding on policies that lead to the implementation of biofuels programs,” McGuire says. He adds that he finds Hallgren’s incorporation of reflectivity and energy feedbacks unique among studies on the climate impacts of biofuels. Beyond the climate While Hallgren focuses specifically on the climate implications of expanded use of biofuels, she admits there are many other possible consequences — such as impacts on food supplies and prices. A group of her colleagues explored the economic side of biofuel expansion as part of a study released last year in Environmental Science & Technology — a paper that was recognized as that journal’s Best Policy Analysis Paper of 2012. The team, led by Joint Program on Global Change co-director John Reilly, modeled feedbacks among the atmosphere, ecosystems and the global economy. They found that the combination of a carbon tax, incentives for reforestation and the addition of biofuels could nearly stabilize the climate by the end of the century; increased biofuels production alone could cut fossil-fuel use in half by 2100. But just as Hallgren found trade-offs when she dug deeper, so did Reilly and his team of researchers. “The environmental change avoided by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions is substantial and actually means less land used for crops,” Reilly says. This leads to substantial rises in food and forestry prices, he says, with food prices possibly rising by more than 80 percent. Hallgren says, “There is clearly no one simple cause and effect when it comes to our climate. The impacts we see — both to the environment and the economy — from adding a large supply of biofuels to our energy system illustrate why it is so important to consider all factors so that we’ll know what we’re heading into before making a change.” Continue reading
Ed Davey Hits Out Against Coalition Climate Change Sceptics
Energy and climate change secretary will use a major speech at Clarence House to promise stronger action on global warming Fiona Harvey , environment correspondent guardian.co.uk , Wednesday 8 May 2013 13.15 BST Ed Davey , the energy and climate change secretary, is to use a major speech at Clarence House on Wednesday afternoon to fight back against the increasingly vocal climate change scepticism among other parts of the coalition. His uncompromising speech, seen by the Guardian, promises stronger action on global warming and follows the admission by his party leader, Nick Clegg, that green issues are now some of the most serious flashpoints between the coalition partners . The Liberal Democrats have long sought to be seen as strong on the environment, a core issue for the party’s voters. But they have suffered setbacks in government as the Treasury has cut renewable energy support and an increasingly vocal number of Tories oppose windfarms , money for low-carbon projects and tougher targets for UK emissions cuts, all of which the Lib Dems support. The extent of some of the divisions was on display in the European parliament recently, when rebel Tory MEPs played a pivotal role in scuppering plans to rescue the EU’s carbon trading system (ETS) . Davey struck a firm stance: “As a politician, you quickly realise that compromise is a part of the game. But there are some issues where you have to draw the line – where you have to stand up and be counted, and you have to do the right thing. I think climate change is firmly in that category.” He quoted David Cameron as saying “we can’t afford not to” act on the problem. Davey was speaking to a conference on preserving tropical forests, an area where progress has been disappointing despite deforestation being one of the leading sources of carbon emissions . The conference was convened by the Prince of Wales, who has set up a working group to find ways of funding forest protection. Davey pinned his hopes on a global deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions, through United Nations negotiations that are proceeding at a glacial pace , although governments have agreed to write a new agreement by 2015 that would come into force from 2020. “The bottom line is climate change can only be addressed through an international response to reduce emissions.” He also addressed the tricky issue of the future of carbon trading. Davey and allies including France and Germany suffered a serious setback a few weeks ago when the European parliament – aided by most of the UK’s Tory MEPS, who defied the official party line – voted against reforms that would have rescued the EU’s emissions trading system. Although the CBI supported the reforms, there was heavy lobbying from other EU business groups to reject the reforms, that would have helped to prop up the price of carbon dioxide permits to businesses. Davey vowed to fight on for reforms to strengthen the troubled system, in which the price of carbon dioxide permits has fallen to record lows, giving companies almost no incentive to reduce their emissions. “The UK was one of nine member states to announce in a joint statement this week that we want the EU ETS to be reformed so it sends the right price signals to properly stimulate low-carbon investment,” he said. In a side swipe at the business interests that helped to scupper EU ETS reform and that have opposed spending on the low-carbon economy in the UK, Davey pledged: “Across multiple fronts, the UK is mounting a strong, concerted effort to unite and find common ground. Because we cannot gamble our future on vested interest and short-term gain. The stakes are too high.” Continue reading
