The Carbon Chronicle - February 2010
Welcome to the first edition of the Carbon Chronicle, a selection of news from the carbon world that has caught the eye of the Carbon Group team.
In the past few months, the carbon world has been dominated by the Copenhagen conference.
The aim of the conference was for countries to reach agreement on a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol which ends in 2012. There had been an intense lead-up to the conference, with governments under pressure to deliver a meaningful result. The outcome disappointed many. For more information, click here.
With the focus on Copenhagen, there was keen interest in public opinion on climate change. Opinion polls have revealed interesting changes in attitudes. Click here for a summary.
One of the key factors in the mitigation of climate change is the need for forest protection, with the acronym REDD coming to the fore. This was an important issue at Copenhagen. More background information is available here.
Each edition, we highlight some of the key developments in the emissions management and clean investment arenas. Click here for the latest selection.
And finally, for some interesting facts and figures from the carbon world take a look here.
Since the Copenhagen climate change conference ended just before Christmas, there have been many opinions expressed on its outcome, the Copenhagen Accord.
An important further step on the road to a low carbon world, or a catastrophe for the planet? It is almost certainly much too early to pass judgement.
How the world responds in the next year, leading up to, and at, the next conference in Mexico later this year, will be critical. Failure to build on the accord and reach agreement, which involves all leading emitting countries, on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, could make the pessimists seem realists.
The two weeks of the conference have been described as chaotic, which perhaps is not surprising given the number of countries and other parties (including business and NGOs) represented, and the passions and politics associated with the issue of climate change.
(One interesting feature of the conference was the role of many multi-national companies in advocating a strong agreement, and creating certainty for them to increase investment in low carbon products and services. The leadership shown by these enlightened companies was encouraging. Of course, some multi-nationals with vested interests in the status quo are less than supportive of change.)
It is generally acknowledged that the key players at the conference were the US and China. One of the key issues was a requirement of the US for the rapidly industrialising developing countries (especially China) to agree to independent verification of their emissions reduction. This requirement was considered to be essential to US Senate agreement to domestic cap-and-trade legislation. China was equally adamant that it would not agree to external verification, claiming it would be a breach of national sovereignty.
In the end, despite reported attempts by Barack Obama and others to forge a binding agreement, the rather limited accord was created.
So, what is included in the accord, and what is not?
- The accord is not a legally binding agreement, unlike the Kyoto Protocol. It is more a statement of intent.
- However it does, unlike any previous agreement, state that action should be taken to try and limit the temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius.
- There is a commitment from the developed world to provide finance to the developing world to help with mitigating, and adapting to, climate change, including providing US$100 billion a year by 2020.
- Developed countries (Annex I Parties) are required to set emissions reduction targets for 2020, and report on progress towards those targets in line with existing practices.
- For the first time, there is a requirement of developing countries (Non-Annex I Parties). They must define and implement mitigation actions which they will take to limit their emissions, and report on the outcome of these actions. But, there is no need for independent verification.
- There is a stated recognition of the crucial need to reduce deforestation and enhance reforestation in developing countries, through financial incentives provided by developed countries.
The next key milestone was January 31st, when countries were required to submit their emissions reduction targets for 2020, in line with the accord’s requirements. By Feb 1st, 58 countries had signed up, including most of the main emitter nations.
Prior to Copenhagen most countries had stated targets, but many were dependent on outcomes from the conference. The New Zealand government had set a responsibility target of 10-20%, but this was heavily caveated, including it being conditional on “a comprehensive and ambitious global agreement”. The government announced, on Feb 1st, that it had signed up to the accord, but emphasised that its target was conditional on various factors.
Here are our picks from the many articles on the Copenhagen outcome.
- New Zealand Herald’s economics editor Brian Fallow cautions against allowing disappointment to turn into cynicism - click here.
- US-based Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute, sees the accord as offering hope for the future, despite its limitations - click here.
- UK environmental advocate Mark Lynas provides an impassioned, behind the scenes, account on the critical stages of the talks, and says that the US was not the guilty party - click here.
Back to top.
Recent opinion polls in New Zealand, and elsewhere, have suggested that the public has become less convinced of the role of human activity in causing climate change.
Whilst a recent poll in the NZ Herald showed that 51% of those polled viewed climate change as either the world's biggest challenge, or one that required serious action now, about 28% were not convinced of human-induced climate change. Compared with a poll in March this suggested the public was less convinced.
Similarly, a recent poll in the US has indicated that the number of americans who think the world is warming has fallen by 20% in the last two years (from 77% to 57%). (A UK poll showed that 56% believed that climate change was a reality and mainly a result of human activity, with a further 33% believing natural forces were the main cause.)
These apparant changes in public opinion are at odds with the increased certainty of the scientific community that climate change is real and a serious problem, and that human activity is the most significant cause. The most recent IPCC report in 2007 stated a very high level of certainty (over 90%). Most findings and observations since 2007 have strengthened this view; indeed many observations have exceeded the expectations of scientists (i.e. climate change is happening more rapidly than expected).
So, why the disconnect between public opinion and the broad scientific community (including all the leading scientific bodies)?
Several explanations have been given by commentators.
Public confidence in the science has probably been somewhat affected by the negative publicity resulting from the publication of emails from one of the UK's leading climate change research centres (University of East Anglia), which suggested that some scientists had "fudged" climate data. However, it is now generally accepted that the action taken did not materially affect conclusions. And, the IPCC 2007 report's claim that Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2030 has also been put into doubt. Despite this bad publicity, there is still strong support for the general conclusions of the IPCC's reports.
Another common reason put forward is the recession. As the public has focussed more on the economy and their own employment and financial situation, their interest in the climate change issue has taken a back seat.
The next two explanations are somewhat contradictory.
Some have suggested that the scientific community has not adequately communicated the complex issue of climate change (its causes and impacts) to the general public. The media have also been criticised for being alarmist on the one hand, but also giving equal opportunity to those who reject human-induced climate change.
Conversely, there is the view that some are in a state of denial. With this view, climate scientists and the media are seen as having been successful in informing the public on the likely serious effects of climate change. But, given a feeling of helplessness, or an awareness of the lifestyle changes needed, many choose to ignore the issue.
Most likely, all of these explanations are true to some extent, and together explain the change in public opinion.
Back to top.
Deforestation is estimated to account for up to 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than the transport sector.
For some countries, such as Brazil and Indonesia, deforestation is the major contributor to their national GHG emissions. (Indonesia and Brazil are now the third and fourth highest GHG emitter country due to their deforestation. China and the US are the top two emitters.)
Most deforestation occurs in tropical regions, mainly the Amazonian basin and south-east Asia. It is estimated that over half of the tropical forest has been lost in the last 60 years, and present deforestation rates could lead to loss of all but 10% by 2030. Currently, 13 million hectares of forest are estimated lost each year - the same as half of the New Zealand land mass.
As well as the impact on carbon emissions, the loss of forest obviously has a major effect on biodiversity. Many species are under threat from continued deforestation. The loss of the Indonesian rainforest in Sumatra, mainly for conversion to palm oil plantations, is having a devastating effect on orangutan populations. Numbers are estimated to have dropped from over 60,000 a few decades ago to only about 7,000 today, with only three viable populations on the island.
(Palm oil is used in many everyday products, including biscuits, crackers, shampoo, skin care, and pet food. But, it is seldom explicitly labelled, usually under the generic vegetable oil term. Nearly all palm oil is sourced from Indonesia and Malaysia, and only about 4% is estimated to come from sustainable sources. For more information on the issue, visit the excellent Auckland Zoo website, which provides a shopping list of palm oil free products.)
So, what is REDD all about?
REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) is a scheme which aims to pay developing countries to protect their forest, rather than cut it down for timber, plantations or ranch land.
The REDD concept was introduced by Papua New Guinea and other countries in 2005, and the scheme has been in development for several years. Details are nearing completion and were part of discussions at the Copenhagen conference.
The scheme is complex, with key issues being land ownership, accounting methods (i.e. estimating carbon content), verification (including proving that the forest under claim would have been cleared), payment method, and corruption.
The Copenhagen Accord states that some of the US$100 billion a year fund (by 2020) will go towards REDD projects. Some are advocating for a tax on international currency transactions to provide these funds.
It is hoped that REDD will be implemented from 2013, and if successful would have a very significant role in reducing carbon emissions, as well as contributing to climate stability (including essential water production) and the protection of biodiversity and indigenous peoples.
Back to top.
***** Creating burp-less livestock *****
Agricultural emissions account for nearly 50% of New Zealand's overall GHG emissions. Of these, about two-thirds are estimated to be methane directly from livestock (mainly cattle and sheep).
With the entry of the agricultural sector into the ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) scheduled for 2015, there is clearly an incentive for the industry to look for ways to reduce these emissions. (Having said this, the high levels of free allocation of credits do somewhat reduce this incentive.) The industry lobbied for exclusion from the ETS. It argued both that there is currently no way for these emissions to be reduced, expect by reducing stock levels (and therefore affecting production), and that other countries (e.g. Australia) will not be including agriculture in their emissions trading schemes.
Research is underway, both in New Zealand and overseas, to find ways of lowering per head emissions from livestock. Areas for research include genetics and feed content. In New Zealand, research is mainly taking place at Massey University, although most of this is being funded by the government rather than the industry.
In Australia, which has a sheep population of over 90 million (about double that of NZ, at 43 million), new research is trying to understand the genetics of sheep which belch less. (About 90% of emissions are thought to be from burps, rather than farts!) Once identified, and assuming the genetic variation is not associated with other negative conditions, the population will be engineered through selective breeding.
In the UK, the McDonalds fast food company is looking into how to lower cattle emissions, responding to the UK government's call for the food industry to increase their research into lower emissions methods and technologies.
Back to top.
Global GHG emissions
- Current annual emissions - 47 billion tonnes (CO2 equivalent)
- 2020 (assuming BAU - business as usual) - 58 bn
- 2020 (required for less than 2 degrees of warming by 2100) - 44 bn
- Required emissions reductions by 2020 - 14 bn (24% below BAU levels)
Deforestation
- Brazil and Indonesia are the third and fourth highest carbon emitters (after China and the US)
- 70%-80% of these emissions are from deforestation
- Brazil accounts for almost half of global deforestation between 2000 and 2005, with Indonesia responsible for 13%
- Orangutan numbers in Sumatra have dropped from over 60,000 to 7,000 in the past three decades
Carbon prices (as at Jan 20th)
- European units (EUAs) - €13.70 (NZ $26.50)
- CDM project units (CERs - Certified Emission Reduction) - €11.70 (NZ $22.70)
Back to top.
For more information, contact Phil Jones.