Six criteria for a climate change response strategy Joseph Aldy, - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Six criteria for a climate change response strategy Joseph Aldy, PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 1bf43b-YjAwO


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Six criteria for a climate change response strategy Joseph Aldy,


Six criteria for a climate change response strategy (Joseph Aldy, IEW, 2004: 'A Comparison of Global ... two decades hence (H=nature horrid, N=nature nice) ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:46
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 21
Provided by: peter117


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Six criteria for a climate change response strategy Joseph Aldy,

(No Transcript)
  • Six criteria for a climate change response
    strategy (Joseph Aldy,
  • IEW, 2004 A Comparison of Global Climate Policy
  • Environmental effectiveness
  • address the real problem ACC
  • 2. Dynamic efficiency
  • not defined under U
  • 3. Dynamic cost effectiveness
  • eliminates inferior strategies but fast train
    to wrong station
  • Flexibility to take account of new info
  • two decision stages gt many decision stages
  • Distributional Equity
  • value judgements, no efficiency criterion
  • Participation and compliance
  • if 5 then 6 (?if 6 then 5?)

  • Is it a fast train in the wrong direction to
    assume that a problem that is caused by
    industrialized countries energy sectors is best
    solved in
  • their domestic energy sectors, as with Kyoto?
  • a different question from who pays? of
    course the polluter pays
  • but going in the wrong direction may lead to an
    unacceptable price
  • 3 points
  • Recent WTO decisions will entail changes in farm
    support policy in USA/EU/Jap and hence global
    land use change
  • (and about time too ! )
  • Global anthropogenic (mostly energy) emissions
    are 8 GtC p.a.
  • Oceans absorb 3
  • Net annual increase 3
  • Terrestrial biosphere emits 110, absorbs 1102

? Is it more sensible to change the balance of
terrestrial biosphere by 4 per cent OR to try
to cut global energy related emissions by 50 per
cent ?
  • Note that
  • Energy sector is heavily capitalized and hence
    slow to change
  • Land is exploited and under-capitalized (If
    they farmed
  • Zambia like they farm Holland it would feed all

  • If you (sensibly) do the first,
  • what do you do with the surplus Carbon?
  • Bio-refinery and long lived high value products
  • Bio-energy (returns CO2 to atmosphere Carbon
  • BECS (gets CO2 out of atmosphere using solar
  • extracts convenient energy, puts CO2 safely
  • BESI (gets CO2 out of atmosphere using solar
  • extracts convenient energy, puts C into soil

Back of envelope calculation 1.36e9 ha arable
land e4sqm/Ha .2m deep10 charcoal 0.4 sp
gravity 11e10 tons C 110Gt C or 25 years net
emissions And there is 3.48bHa of pasture land
(and/or 20 ) Why do that? Aldy No 1
environmental effectiveness (now!) Also the
Terra Preta or black earth story - leave to next
speaker !
Wheres all that charcoal coming from? Plant
50mHa in short rotation (20 odt per Ha-year) for
20 years, then keep 1billion Ha in short
rotation for another 10years and you crop 400Gt
biomass yielding 100Gt charcoal and 4000EJ
energy Whats 1billion Hectares The lower 48
States is about 450m.Ha so not from the USA
! Sub-Saharan Africa, South America, East Europe
and West Russia, central India, bits and pieces
fro SE Asia Australia, etc. Thats a sizeable
chunk out of 3.48bHa of pasture and means we are
going to need the enhanced soil productivity that
comes from investment in the land So to get
that 4 per cent change in the balance of biotic
atmosphere -terrestrial carbon exchange we are
talking not only about large scale land use
change but also about trade both downplayed by
Kyotos focus on domestic action by Annex 1
(industrialized) countries which are not the
best places to grow biomass
Raised soil fertility facilitates Policy driven
global land allocations under a be prepared
strategy if precursor signals indicate imminent
Abrupt Climate Change two decades hence
(Hnature horrid, Nnature nice)
  • Manhattan Project style actions taken over
    the following decade in
  • response to scientific news of Abrupt
    Climate Change precursors
  • 1     Retrofitting of all large point source
    fossil and bio fuel
  • emitters with CCS technology
  • 2     All new large fossil and bio fuel plant
    fitted with CCS technology
  • 3 A system of gathering pipelines installed to
    collect captured CO2
  • and deliver to below ground storages
  • 4     All long rotation policy land converted to
    short rotation mainly bio-fuel
  • production with the part grown bio-mass
    material used wholly for biofuel
  • 5     Shift from half hearted to full-on
    implementation of non-fuel renewable energy and
    energy efficiency.
  • (These could be outcomes of shift to very high
    C-price, but other measures, such as absorption
    portfolios protect consumers and may be
  • The effect of these measures is that emissions
    per ton of fossil fuel fall from .025tC/GJ to
    .015tC/GJ and per ton of biofuel from zero to
    0.01tC/GJ,with biofuel supply rapidly dominating
    the market.
  • Aldys No 4 flexibility in light of changing

Another back of Envelope calculation Energy
security   500 GJ/Ha-yr x 500 million Ha 250 EJ
annually half current best commercial practice
in Brazil x 40 per cent of cultivable land said
by IPCC to be available after allowing for
growing food supplies   30 per cent conversion
displaces 75 EJ gasoline annually 120 EJ
crude (assuming 5/8 high value fractions)
12,000EJ per century 12,000 x 24 mtoe 2.2
millions of millions of barrels of oil, over
twice global proved reserves Say 1½ allowing for
a slow start in first few decades. NB Andre
Faaij and colleagues in University of Utrecht
derive 1000EJ per annum in a GIS based model
using the IMAGE2 database Aldy No 3 this
dominates Kyoto or any strategy that neglects
LUC Kyoto may be a fast train to the wrong station
  • Two Models
  • Common features of FLAMES (simulation) and LOLA
  • Partial equilibrium approach modeling dynamic
    demand and supply in three markets
  • ?Fuel basic CxHyOz raw material with global
    current price 2/GJ.
  • Timber basic timber product industry raw
    material price 130/ton
  • after separation from joint product bio-fuel at
    process cost 90/ton.
  • ?Land 6bHa of non-barren, non conservation
    forest land that can be used
  • commercially for farming or forestry or
    otherwise left to wilderness.
  • Demands grow with population and per-capita
    living standards supplies of fuel and land
  • products grow with technological progress.
  • Parameters are adjusted to achieve, in the
    without-policy case
  • ? Constant real prices broadly consistent with
    historic patterns
  • ? Emissions paths to mimic reference case (i.e.
    no new scenarios)
  • Policy is represented by land allocations to two
    activities long rotation plantations and
  • short rotations which are both joint producers of
    timber and bio-mass for energy in
  • proportions (different for the two activities)
    determined by relative prices.
  • Net policy costs are charged to fossil fuel
    suppliers (and hence consumers - PPPolicy).

Gigatons C in atmosphere ( 2 x ppm Cat ) for
three reference scenarios and with be prepared
policy related to Kyoto case with and without
response to ACC precursors after 2020. Note
that negative emissions energy system is needed
to get below 330ppm.
(No Transcript)
  • Provisional inferences from optimizing model
  • ? Price profiles are smoothed out by optimizing
  • Policy driven land use change induces policy
  • through reduced replanting by existing foresters
  • (this is anticipated in FLAMES).
  • Providing landowners are price-takers, their
  • rate of return does not greatly impact on the
    pattern of
  • harvesting and replanting.

  • Caveats
  • 1. Optimization modeling (LOLA) in early stages
  • 2. Low Cat levels require, in addition, high
    energy efficiency and increased use of non-fuel
    renewables as in f.f.e.s. scenario but note that
    driven by ACC precursors not GCC as in f.f.e.s.
    and as envisaged in Kyoto
  • Land use is assumed Maximal
  • 4. Need for capacity building

International Framework for Bioenergy Action
Scenarios A1 B1 A2 B2 Tech
Hi Hi Lo Lo Pop Lo
Lo Hi v. Hi Globalise Yes Yes No No Value
s Econ Enviro Econ Enviro Bioenergy
Potential In 2050 North Am 111 137 4 34 Latin
Am 253 315 46 178 Africa 363 449 42 151 S
Asia 21 24 14 21 W Eu 32 40 0 14 E Eu
CIS 125 153 3 76 E Asia 178 221 10 21 Ocaeania
100 125 15 60 Total 1183 1464 134 555
  • Clearly the outcome in 2050 depends upon choices
  • Aldys remaining criteria
  • 5. Distributional Equity
  • 6. Participation and compliance
  • 56 Its got something for everyone in a world
    of technological progress

IN CONCLUSION A question Why, given its
win-win-win-win-win potential, is the global
bio-energy solution to the Climate Change issue
ignored or down-played in policy formation
?? Win 1 early and effective stabilisation
and medium term reductions in atmospheric
carbon. Win 2 potential to respond effectively
to Abrupt Climate Change Win 3 deals with
intractable problem of transportation emissions
(no need for pie in the sky hydrogen or pie in
the sky fuel cells) Win 4 increased energy
security and resistance to potential oil price
increases Win 5 sustainable economic prospects
for landowners both in developed and developing
  • A Possible answer
  • Market co-ordination failure between
    suppliers of bio-energy raw material and
  • potential users separated by decades, oceans,
    language and culture
  • Unfortunate self-perpetuating error in the
    negotiations that ended, almost i.e. all
  • bar Russia at Marrakesh due to maintained
    assumption that best policy is
  • to price up carbon through TEPs, ignoring need
    to drive technology change,
  • particularly land use change.
  • Nothing more path dependent than a negotiation
  • Maybe its time to try again in context of Art
    3.3 of the 1992 Rio Convention, looking at
  • the grounds for early action provided by threats
    of ACC.
  • Land allocations here described as maximal
  • Nobody knows what is possible but, prima facie,
    the more that
  • is done the better and the sooner the start the
    better maybe the basis
  • for bi-partizan support in the Senate (minimal
    impact on coal)

Expert Workshop IEA Paris 30.ix.04-1.x.04 Greenho
use Gas Emissions and Abrupt Climate
Change Positive Options and Robust
Policy Mission Statement To address the policy
implications of potential abrupt climate
change Registration does
not imply invitation (24 presenters 18
discussants, 3 workers, room for 65 max)