After the failure in Copenhagen: which way forward for climate policy? Reiner Grundmann

1. After the failure in Copenhagen: which way forward for climate policy?Reiner Grundmann

3. Climate change -- timeline

5. Build up to Copenhagen • “we have a window of only ten to fifteen years to avoid crossing catastrophic tipping points.” • -Tony Blair and Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende in a letter to EU leaders, 2006 • “It is now or never to save the planet” • UNEP report, 2007 • “If we do not reach a deal this time, let us be in no doubt; once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice. By then it will be irretrievably too late.” • -Gordon Brown, 2009 • “The solutions exist, what has been missing is the political will”

7. U.S. Poll The Pew Centre, Oct. 2009

9. The dominant approach so far • Focus on CO2 • Agree on global targets and timetables • Implementation through national legislation • Little or no progress, even in EU • Initially limited to ‘Annex 1’ countries • Copenhagen process was supposed to involve developing countries • Avoid ‘dangerous climate change’ • 2 degrees Celsius target • 450ppm CO2 • 80% reduction goal by 2050 • Rhetoric of alarm, blame and fear • Moralisation and demonization

10. Problems with the dominant approach • Top down global approach but missing institutions for implementation • CO2 emissions tightly coupled to economic activity • Frontal attack on carbon emissions unlikely to succeed • More energy demand worldwide expected • Challenge: • How to satisfy energy demand (cheap energy for all); • Develop economy without undermining natural systems; • Protect against climate impacts whatever their causes. • The challenge was translated into a narrative that instilled fear and hinted at big personal sacrifices • “Having been told that climate science demands that we fundamentally change our way of life, many Americans have, not surprisingly, concluded that the problem is not with their lifestyles but with what they’ve been told about the science.” (Nordhaus&Shellenberger 2009)

11. Alternative approach: The Hartwell paper • 1 Abandon global managerial approach with science at the centre • International cooperation unlikely • Science cannot tell us what to do • Recognize that climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ • Pragmatic, bottom up approach • Climate policies need to be attractive based on their non climate benefits

12. 2 Separate short term from long term targets • Short term pragmatic goals • early action on non-CO2 forcing agents with short lifetime • Soot/black carbon • Tropospheric ozone and precursors • HFCs can be regulated under Montreal Protocol • Protection of forests • Sectoral approach; high energy sectors (aluminium, steel, cement, power) • Increase energy efficiency (e.g. CHP)

13. 3 Long term strategy • Long-term innovations • Decarbonised, affordable energy • Investment in R&DD needed • Dedicated carbon tax • Not a tax to change behaviour! • Global fund

14. Illustration: The Kaya identity(online tool)

15. KAYA • if we want to reduce emissions to zero, then either population (P), consumption (g), energy used in production (e), or carbon used to produce that energy (f) must go to zero. • No options • depopulate Earth • stop eating and commuting • eliminate energy use • Only long term option • zero-carbon energy source cheaper than existing carbon based energies.

16. Last week at UN meeting in Bonn • “I do not believe we will ever have a final agreement on climate change, certainly not in my lifetime… If we ever have a final, conclusive, all-answering agreement, then we will have solved this problem. I don’t think that’s on the cards.” • Addressing the issue successfully would “require the sustained effort of those who will be here for the next 20, 30, 40 years”. • Christiana Figueres, designate executive secretary of the UN climate change secretariat