for the Post-Kyoto World ISDC 2009 John D. Sterman Jay W. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Copenhagen Climate Exercise:
 Negotiating a Global Agreement for the Post-Kyoto World

ISDC 2009 John D. Sterman

Jay W. Forrester Professor of Management Professor of Engineering Systems Director MIT System Dynamics Group MIT Sloan School of Management

Kris Wile

Systems Thinking Collaborative

Agenda

• Introduction and schedule
• Roles
• The COP15 Copenhagen Negotiation
• Debrief and your feedback

C-ROADS Development Team


(Climate Rapid Overview And Decision Support)

– Dr. Tom Fiddaman, Ventana Systems – Travis Franck, MIT (Ph.D. student) – Andrew Jones, Sustainability Institute – Dr. Phil Rice, Sustainability Institute – Dr. Beth Sawin, Sustainability Institute – Dr. Lori Siegel, Sustainability Institute – Dr. John Sterman, MIT System Dynamics Group

Partners and Financial Supporters

With Partners in the Climate Action Initiative, C-ROADS Has Already Impacted Global Decisions

• US State Department Deputy

Special Envoy for Climate Change Jonathan Pershing presented C-ROADS slides in his plenary to the UNFCCC in Bonn – April 2009

• Senator John Kerry quotes C-

ROADS results and shows graphs in Congress – January 2009

• European Environment Agency

head, Dr. Jacqueline McGlade, uses C-ROADS.

• Increasing press coverage

To Meet the Overwhelming Demand, We Created C-Learn as Globally-Accessible Online Freeware

Launched May 2009 Available at: www.climateinteractive.org

And we will share:

• 1. All equations
• 2. Simulation in Vensim

software (with a GPL license)

• 3. Code to the xhtml

interface (with a GPL license)

• 4. Graph sets with data

behind them

• Break into negotiating blocs
• Introduce yourselves to members
• f your bloc
• Complete initial questionnaire
• Read Briefing Memo for your bloc

Process

• Developed Nations

US, EU, Japan, Russia/FSU/ Eastern Europe, South Korea, Australia/NZ, Canada

• Rapidly Developing Nations (Developing A)

China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore

• Less Developed Nations (Developing B)

Small Island Nations and “Least Developed Countries”, representing Other Small Asia, Central/ South America, Middle East, Most of Africa

Roles

“I Can Most Identify With…”

• 1. The island nations, Africa, less-developed Asia and

the global lowest income people who deal day to day with the effects of climate change

• 2. The industrialized nations that struggle with making

the biggest changes in their economies, energy infrastructure, and habits of life in order to reduce CO2 emissions

• 3. The less-developed nations that have the

possibility of raising living standards and addressing widespread poverty at home, and look to the developed world to begin significant emissions reductions.

Welcome Delegates
 UNFCCC COP15 
 UN Climate Summit

Copenhagen Climate Conference

• UNFCCC created at Rio “Earth Summit”

conference, 1992

• Commits signatories to take action avoiding

“dangerous anthropogenic interference” in the climate system

• ≈ 190 signatory nations (“the parties”)
• Negotiated Kyoto Accords
• Now negotiating towards a post-Kyoto

agreement

• Failed to reach agreement in Bali, Dec 2007
• COP15 (Copenhagen, December 2009)

Emissions now exceed the IPCC Worst-case Scenario. Fossil Fuel Emissions (GtC/yr)

(IPCC Worst-Case)

Atmospheric CO2 Concentration, 2007:

385 ppm

37% above pre-industrial

Atmospheric CO2 Concentration

Growth in Atmospheric CO2 1970-79: 1.3 ppm/year 1980-89: 1.6 ppm/year 1990-99: 1.5 ppm/year 2000-07: 2.0 ppm/year 2007: 2.2 ppm/year

Data Source: Pieter Tans and Thomas Conway, NOAA/ESRL

Accelerating

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.pdf

Impacts of Projected Warming by 2100

(IPCC AR4)

IPCC Range

1.5 °C 2.7 °F 4.5 °C 8.1 °F

IPCC Range

3.5 °C 6.3 ° F 5.2 °C 9.4 °F 7.4 °C 13.3 °F

MIT Joint Program on Global Change Study (Sokolov et al. 2009, Journal of Climate) Projected mean temp increase by 2100 under BAU:

5.2 °C (9.4 °F)

90% range: 3.5 – 7.4 °C (6.3 – 13.3 °F)

Our Global Task

Manage the Unavoidable and Avoid the Unmanageable

Your Goals

• Achieve emissions reduction

commitments to stabilize GHG levels by 2100 between 350-450 ppm by 2100

• Agree on a deal to share costs of

mitigation and adaptation fund

Developed Nations: 
 Steady Growth in Emissions

Source: CDIAC, WEO, C-ROADS

12 B 9 B 6 B 3 B 1908 1928 1948 1968 1988 2008 tonsC/year

Developed

Developing A Nations:
 Emissions Rising

12 B 9 B 6 B 3 B 1908 1928 1948 1968 1988 2008 tonsC/year

Developed

Source: CDIAC, WEO, C-ROADS

Developing B Emissions Rising

12 B 9 B 6 B 3 B 1908 1928 1948 1968 1988 2008 tonsC/year

Developed

Source: CDIAC, WEO, C-ROADS

Fossil Fuel and Global Deforestation

12 B 9 B 6 B 3 B 1908 1928 1948 1968 1988 2008 tonsC/year

Developed

Source: CDIAC, WEO, C-ROADS

IPAT

Impact = Population * Affluence * Technology Example: CO2 = Population * Income * Emissions
 Emissions Capita Dollar
 Tons = People * $/Year * Tons
 year Person $

Impact
 =
 Population
 *
 Affluence
 *
 Technology

4 5 6 7 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

World Population

Billion

Source: US Census Bureau

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Carbon Intensity of the Economy

Tons CO

2/Thousand Real $ Source: DOE EIA

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

World Average Income/Person

1990 $/Year/Person

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

World Carbon Emissions

Billion Tons CO

2/Year Source: DOE EIA

Impact
 =
 Population
 *
 Affluence
 *
 Technology

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Carbon Intensity of the Economy

Tons CO2/Thousand Real $

10 20 30 40 50 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

World Carbon Emissions

Billion Tons CO2/Year

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

World Population

Billion

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

World Average Income/Person

1990 $/Year/Person

Projections to 2050

Population: 2009 2050 Developed 1.35 B 1.55 B (+0.20 B; 15%) Developing A 3.45 B 4.50 B (+1.05 B; 30%) Developing B 1.90 B 2.87 B (+0.97 B; 51%) World Total 6.70 B 8.92 B (+2.22 B; 33%)

Source: United Nations

3 4 5 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

World per Capita Carbon Emissions from Fossil Fuels

Metric Tons CO

2/Person/Year Source: DOE/EIA

5 10 15 20 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

World per Capita Carbon Emissions from Fossil Fuels

Metric Tons CO

2/Person/Year Source: DOE/EIA

US (-3%) Europe (-10%) World (+6%) China (+176%) India (+153%)

1 2 3 4 5 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Per Capita Carbon Emissions from Fossil Fuels

Metric Tons CO

2/Person/Year Source: DOE/EIA

China India

Data

Data

Cumulative CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Use

Less-Developed Developing Developed

Temp Sea Level rise Specific country emissions Carbon cycle Total fossil fuel CO2 emissions (3, 7, or 15 blocs) Net CO2 emissions from forests Deforestation Afforestation Forests GHGs in atm Climate Other GHGs

C-ROADS Model Structure

User Input User Input

21st Century Warming Scenarios:
 AR4 Ensemble of Models

IPCC AR4 Fig. SPM.5

* * * * * *

4 3 2 1

C-ROADS Projections
 compared to AR4 Ensemble

IPCC AR4 Fig. SPM.5

* = C-ROADS

C-ROADS Scientific Review Panel

• Dr. Robert Watson

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and former chair, IPCC

• Mr. Eric Beinhocker

McKinsey Global Institute

• Dr. Klaus Hasselmann Max-Planck Institut für Meteorologie
• Dr. David Lane

London School of Economics

• Dr. Jørgen Randers

Norwegian School of Management (BI)

• Dr. Stephen Schneider Stanford University
• Dr. Bert de Vries

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, RIVM

Conclusion of Scientific Review Panel

The C-ROADS model

• “reproduces the response properties of state-of- the-art three

dimensional climate models very well”

• “is a sensitivity tool, rather than a tool to provide precise

quantitative estimates of projected emissions, CO2 concentrations, and temperature and sea level responses.”

• “Given the modelʼs capabilities and its close alignment with a

range of scenarios published in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC we support its widespread use among policy makers and the general public.”

Business as Usual

Task 1

• Each bloc will set its own fossil fuel emissions targets

– You will set:

• What year will emissions in your group stop growing

(if any)?

• (If desired), at what rate will emissions fall? 


(as a % per year)

• Starting in what year?
• Developing A and B will set future deforestation

– On a scale of 0 to 1, the current level is 1. – Choose 1 to continue BAU deforestation path, 0 to gradually eliminate deforestation over coming decades,

• r somewhere in the middle.

Task 2

• We are creating the “UN Global Fund for Mitigation

and Adaptation” for

• Disaster relief
• Food and water
• Immigration and refugees
• Mitigation -- Investing in any necessary non-cost-saving mitigation

to achieve Task 1 goals

• Total cost is $X per year for next 10 years
• What is your proposal for the fraction of the annual

cost each Group should pay? And why?

Proposal Form

• Region: ____________
• CO2 Emissions growth stop year: _______
• CO2 Emissions decline start year: _______
• Fractional rate of decline (%/year): ______
• [Developing A and B only]


Deforestation 


(1 = no reduction from BAU; 0 = max reduction): ______

• Fraction of global fund for mitigation and

adaptation paid by your region (%): _______

Your proposals

Stop year Reduce year Annual frac reduce Future deforest % contrib

• dʼped

% contrib - dʼping % contrib

• ROW

Dʼped 2100

• X
• Dʼping

A 2100

• 1
• Dʼping

B 2100

• 1
• (Exam

ple) 2073 2086 2% .4 10% 15% 75%

After you prepare your regionʼs proposal

2-minute presentation by each Bloc about their emissions proposal, their Fund commitment and why. Designate a representative to give your Blocʼs speech.

Debrief Round 1

Example: US Federal Deficit and Debt are highly correlated

(1950-2005: r = .80, p < .001)

100 200 300 400 500 600 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Federal Deficit

Billion $/Year 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Government Debt

Billion $

Federal Deficit

GHG Emissions Net Removal

Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)

24 18 12 6 2000 20 40 60 80 2100

Billion Ton C/year

Removals

GHG Emissions Under Current Proposals Continue to Exceed Removal from Atmosphere

Emissions Emissions Removals

Impact of 1 Meter SLR

Impact of 1 Meter Sea Level Rise

Round 2
 Debrief Round 2
 Round 3
 Overall Debrief

Brazil Eliminate deforesta1on by 2050 Canada 70% below 2006 by 2050 China Europe 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 India BAU rate un1l 2035 and then constant emissions Middle East Mexico 50% below 2002 levels by 2050 OECD Pacific 60% below 2000 by 2050 Other Africa Other Large Asia Other La1n Am. Other Small Asia Russia/FSU 1990 levels by 2012 South Africa BAU un1l 2022; emissions constant un1l 2032, then 1% per year annual decline US 80% below 1990 by 2050

Our interpretation of current proposals


(as of March 2009)

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2000 2050 2100 Billion tons C/ yr

BAU Current Proposals

CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuels

200 400 600 800 1000 2000 2050 2100 ppm BAU Current Proposals

Atmospheric CO2 Concentration

1 2 3 4 5 2000 2050 2100 Degrees C BAU Current Proposals

Temperature Increase (°C)

• Lead to continued growth in global GHG

emissions

• Collectively insufficient to stabilize

atmospheric GHG levels or limit temperature change, sea level rise

• Emissions remain far above level

required to stabilize atmospheric GHGs

• r limit temperature increase to less

than 2°C from preindustrial level.

Current publicly announced proposals for emissions reductions:

• Stabilizing atmospheric GHG levels

requires substantial drop in global GHG emissions

– Emissions must fall to rate of GHG removal from atmosphere

• Global emission reductions of about 


80% by 2050, with substantial reductions in deforestation, could stabilize GHG concentrations near 450 ppm and slow temperature increase and sea level rise.

What is required?

Impacts of Projected Warming by 2100

(IPCC AR4)

IPCC Range

1.5 °C 2.7 °F 4.5 °C 8.1 °F

IPCC Range

3.5 °C 6.3 ° F 5.2 °C 9.4 °F 7.4 °C 13.3 °F

MIT Joint Program on Global Change Study (Sokolov et al. 2009, Journal of Climate) Projected mean temp increase by 2100 under BAU:

5.2 °C (9.4 °F)

90% range: 3.5 – 7.4 °C (6.3 – 13.3 °F)

Balancing (Negative) Feedback

Atmospheric CO2 Concentration Photosynthesis CO2 Removed from Atmosphere + +

• B

CO2 Fertilization

Reinforcing (Positive) Feedback

Average Surface Temperature CO2 in the Atmosphere + CO2 Released from Soil by Bacterial Respiration + + R

Respiration

Newly Bio-available Carbon in Thawing Permafrost

More Reinforcing Feedbacks

Surface Albedo (% of Sunlight Reflected) Solar Energy Absorbed by Surface Average Surface Temperature Snow and Ice Cover +

• +

R

Albedo

Length of Dry Season Incidence and Severity of Wildfire Atmospheric CO2 Concentration

Wildfire

+ +

Wildfire Incidence Growing

Science 18 August 2006 313: 927-928

More Reinforcing Feedbacks

Surface Albedo (% of Sunlight Reflected) Solar Energy Absorbed by Surface Average Surface Temperature Snow and Ice Cover +

• +

R

Albedo

H2O Evaporation (Land and Ocean) Water Vapor in Troposphere Radiative Forcing

Water Vapor

+ +

More Reinforcing Feedbacks

Surface Albedo (% of Sunlight Reflected) Solar Energy Absorbed by Surface Average Surface Temperature Snow and Ice Cover +

• +

R

Albedo

Disappearing Arctic
 Sea-Ice

Source: NASA http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003464/index.html

Sept 1979 Sept 2007

Source: Dr. Asgeir Sorteberg, Bjeknes Centre for Climate Research, Svalbard, Norway http://www.carbonequity.info/images/seaice07.jpg

Arctic Sea Ice Loss Compared to IPCC Models


Arctic ice extent to Sept. 2007 compared to IPCC models 
 using the SRES A2 CO2 scenario 
 (high CO2 scenario).

But wonʼt it hurt the economy?

• “Responding to climate

change is just too expensive”

• “It will slow economic growth

and cost jobs”

• “It will put our country at a

competitive disadvantage”

Mitigation Costs

• “The macro-economic costs of mitigation

generally rise with the stringency of the stabilisation target

• In 2050, global average macro-economic

costs for mitigation towards stabilisation between 710 and 445ppm CO2-eq are between a 1% gain and 5.5% decrease of global GDP

• Slowing average annual global GDP growth

by less than 0.12 percentage points”

• R. K. Pachauri, Head, IPCC

The Climate Dividend

• Cutting GHG emissions puts $$ in our pockets

– Cuts oil imports (≈ $300 billion/year) – Reduce need to defend insecure supplies – Reduce other harmful pollutants & their health costs, saving lives and money while improving quality of life

• Investing in emissions reductions

– Stimulates innovation and new businesses that enhance competitiveness and create jobs – Creates opportunity for global leadership in emerging critical technologies – Getting cheaper every day

Cost of GHG Abatement

Negawatts (Negative Cost)

Source: McKinsey

Primary Efficiency
 Electricity Generation

Source: Thomas Casten, Recycled Energy Development; US EIA

U.S. Delivered Electric Efficiency

Steam Pressure Recovery (190 Projects) Combined Heat & Power 
 (56 Projects) Industrial Waste Heat Recovery (6 Projects)

Energy Recycling Plants

Source: Thomas Casten, Recycled Energy Development; US EIA

Cokenergy, Mittal Steel, Northern Indiana
 Cokenergy, Mittal Steel


Northern Indiana

(courtesy Tom Casten, CEO, Recycled Energy Development)


Cost of Wind Power

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/Update52_data.htm

Global Wind Power Capacity

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/Update52_data.htm

U.S. Wind Power Capacity

http://www.awea.org/faq/instcap.html

Cost of Solar PV Power

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/Update52_data.htm

World Solar PV Production

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Solar/2007_data.htm#fig2

Electricity Generation Costs

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 Dollars per kWh 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 Dollars per kWh

How much more
 can renewable
 costs fall?

Cumulative US solar energy production: ≈ 0.0004 of cumulative US fossil fuel production since 1950.

Over the Tipping Point

Cost of Renewable Energy Demand for Renewable Energy R&D, Production Experience, Field Experience, Economies

• f Scale, Public Acceptance

Price of Renewable Energy + +

• R

Human Ingenuity

Carbon Tax,
 Emissions Cap + Price of
 Fossil Fuels + Government
 Subsidies –

Start where you are. Use what you have. Do what you can.

Arthur Ashe 1943-1993

For More Information

climateinteractive.org

Thank you

Backup

How to Reduce the CO2 “Footprint” of an Old Asheville House?

• Built in

1920s.

• Home for 4
• 1 full time
• ffice
• ~ 1700 sq. ft.

~ 2002

Before moving in:

• - Attic insulation
• - Energy Star fridge, clothes

washer, gas dryer, gas oven, lighting

• - Whole house fan

How To Reduce CO2 Emissions? One Familyʼs Results

Total Household and Office CO2 Production

1 2 3 Feb-02 Mar-03 Apr-04 Apr-05 May-06

Tons per month

13/yr 10.9

• Heating

system tune-up Before moving in:

• - attic insulation
• - Energy Star fridge,

clothes washer, gas dryer, lighting

• - Whole house fan

We Installed Solar Hot Water and Heating

Solar hot water system installed by Sundance Power Systems. Thermacraft provides them too.

• Installed = ~$8500
• Received ~$2500 off of our state taxes via

rebate

We Did a Home Energy Audit

Showed us leaks in our house and suggested ways to save energy. (~$250) We followed up with caulk, insulation, and duct

• tape. (~$200)

B l a c k a r e a s h

• w

s l e a k s a r

• u

n d w i n d

• w

s

More Results

Total Household and Office CO2 Production

1 2 3 Feb-02 Mar-03 Apr-04 Apr-05 May-06

Tons per month

13.0/yr 10.9 8.8 7.3

Tons CO2 saved in 4 yrs = ~12

• Solar backup heat
• n 2nd floor
• Solar hot water

w/ on-demand

• Energy audit
• Caulk and seal
• Solar backup

heat 1st floor

Whatever you do will be insignificant,

Total actions to reduce emissions Reduced CO2 emissions Slowing global warming Your action

Whatever you do will be insignificant, 
 but it is very important that you do it. 


• - Mohandas Gandhi


Total actions to reduce emissions Reduced CO2 emissions Slowing global warming Your action Positive word

• f mouth

Infrastructure to reduce emissions Breadth of "What seems possible"