charles darwin symposium 2011 the risks of climate change: international responses through...

Charles Darwin Symposium 2011

The risks of climate change:international responses through

adaptation and mitigationJean Palutikof

National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility


What’s NCCARF up to?

• ARGP: – Stephen Garnett, Adaptation Strategies for Australian

Birds – Currently have a Call open for Indigenous Communities

and Adaptation, which closes 28th October: information session this evening

• Synthesis and Integrative Research Program:– Will open a Call in about 2 weeks on further topics

• Planning for Phase 3


The International Process


UNFCCC and the Kyoto ProtocolFramework Convention on Climate

Change• Started at the Rio Summit, 1992• Entered into force March 1994• To consider actions to reduce global

warming (mitigation) and • To manage whatever temperature

increases are inevitable (adaptation)

Kyoto Protocol• Sets up binding commitments• Adopted in Kyoto, December 1997• Entered into force February

2005• Australia signed December 2007• First commitment period ends in

2012

Rio +20: 2012: June 2012

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2009.png


COP-15: Copenhagen

• The UNFCCC holds an annual Conference of the Parties (to the Kyoto Protocol) to negotiate action

• Copenhagen was to put in place a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, and develop a roadmap

• It failed, leaving the international process in limbo


Why did it fail?

• The UNFCCC process is around one country one vote

• The big emitters (now and future) won’t accept external policing: USA +– BRIC: Brazil, Russia,

India, China– BASIC: Brazil, South

Africa, India, China

Rank CountryPercentage of global total

1 China 16.36%

2 USA 15.74%

3 European Union 12.08%

4 Brazil 6.47%

5 Indonesia 4.63%

6 Russia 4.58%

7 India 4.25%


CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, total

USA + BRIC: Brazil, Russia, India, ChinaUSA + BASIC: Brazil, South Africa, India, China


Outcome from Copenhagen

• The Copenhagen Accord• Countries can pledge reductions, which

they self police• It isn’t enough:

– Even if countries met their pledges, unlikely to avoid ‘dangerous’ climate change (warming greater than 2oC)

• COP-16 Cancun; COP-17 Cape Town


COP-16 Cancún

• REDD+ [Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation] – a roadmap but no financing

• Green Climate Fund: legal architecture for management of the $100 billion by 2020

• MRV: Monitoring, reporting and verification of adaptation and mitigation schemes

• Carbon Capture and Storage in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

• Kyoto Protocol "no gap" negotiations• Restoration of the two-track negotiating process• Cancun Adaptation Framework


Over the next twelve months

• Busy times– COP-17 Durban– Rio+20 in mid 2012– Big science meetings:

• Planet under Pressure• Arizona Adaptation meeting

– IPCC Fifth Assessment author meetings, ready for delivery in 2013/14

– Getting ready for the carbon economy in Australia


Who taxes carbon, who trades?

• Sweden introduced a carbon tax in 1991, followed by Finland, Norway, the Netherlands

• Japan has mandated a “household energy tax” equivalent to $21/ton of carbon

• The 25-member European Union has a carbon trading scheme with a Phase 2 price around $10-12 per tonne

• New Zealand is in the transition period of its ETS• Regional schemes: British Columbia, Boulder CO, NSW,

Tokyo …


Role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Formed in 1988 under WMO and UNEP

To provide assessments of the science of climate change for the UNFCCC

Responsibility to provide policy makers with objective findings that are policy relevant but not policy prescriptive - an ‘honest broker’


Inter-relationships of UNFCCC and IPCC

http://maps.grida.no/library/files/storage/15b_large.jpg

The four AR4 reports

• The Fourth Assessment began in 2002

• The three 1000-page Working Group reports, and the Synthesis Report, were published in 2007

• There were ~500 authors, three review periods

• Some 2000 people involved altogether

To produce an Assessment Report: 2002 Elections to appoint Chair, Co-Chairs and Bureau2002 Decision taken to produce report2003 Outline approved by governments2004 Authors and review editors selected2004 Sept WGII 1st Lead Author Meeting - Vienna2004 Dec Zero Order Draft (ZOD) Delivered 2005 Feb Informal Peer Review of ZOD Where the AR5

sits now2005 Mar 2nd Lead Author Meeting - Australia2005 June First Order Draft (FOD) Delivered2005 Sept Expert Review of FOD2005 Nov 3rd Lead Author Meeting - Mexico2006 Apr Second Order Draft (SOD) Delivered2006 July Government and Expert Review of SOD2006 Sept 4th Lead Author Meeting – Cape Town2006 Nov Final Government) Draft Delivered2007 Feb Final Government Review2007 Apr Approval by WGII Plenary2007 Dec Publication

The people in an IPCC Assessment

• The IPCC Chair and the Vice-Chairs: elected• Secretariat: standing• Working Group:

– Reconstituted for each Assessment cycle– 2 Co-Chairs and the Bureau: elected– A Technical Support Unit

• Co-ordinating Lead Authors, 2 for each chapter

• Lead Authors, typically 6 for each chapter• Review editors: 2 per chapter• Contributing Authors =

2000/assessment• Expert and government reviewers

The product: The WGII Fourth Assessment

Summary for PolicymakersTechnical Summary1. Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and

managed systems SECTORS AND SYSTEMS 2. New assessment methodologies and the characterisation of future

conditions3. Fresh water resources and their management 4. Ecosystems, their properties, goods and services 5. Food, fibre and forest products6. Coastal systems and low-lying areas 7. Industry, settlement, and society8. Human health REGIONS 9: Africa, 10: Asia, 11: Australia and New Zealand, 12: Europe, 13: Latin

America14: North America, 15: Polar Regions (Arctic and Antarctic), 16: Small

IslandsRESPONSES TO IMPACTS17. Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity18. Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation19. Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change20. Perspectives on climate change and sustainability


The key is the Summary for Policymakers (SPM):

A 15 page summary which is approved by governments, leading to acceptance of the underlying report


The Approval Meeting

• Government negotiators on the floor

• IPCC on the podium: Co-Chairs, TSU, authors

• Text of SPM is projected line by line and approved


Approximately 20-30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5oC

Roughly 20-30% of species are likely to be at high risk of irreversible extinction if global average temperature exceeds 1.5-2.5°C. * N [4.4]

Text submitted to the Final Government Review

Final published text

Text projected at the Approval Meeting


Contribution of the IPCC

1. Evolving the ‘accepted’ science

2. Definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change– +2oC global mean temperature– but baseline woolly

3. Thinking around how dangerous climate change can be avoided


Evolution of the science

FAR: insufficient observational evidence to make a statement

SAR: ‘The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate’

TAR: ‘Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations’

AR4: ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.’


What is dangerous climate change?


Avoiding dangerous climate change

Tell us that global emissions have to peak by 2015-2020, and to decline rapidly until 2050 and beyond if dangerous climate change is to be avoided


Strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC

• The rigorous review process, by scientists and governments– Each chapter is reviewed three times– Elapsed time means science has moved on

• The approval process, bringing together governments and scientists to approve the SPM line-by-line– Governments are ‘bought in’ to the key statements in the SPM– Science is ‘watered down’

• It is no more and no less than an Assessment– Perceived by governments as unthreatening and impartial– Widely misunderstood to do more

• Each Assessment is largely free-standing– Able to renew itself for every Assessment– Lack of corporate memory


Final messages

1. Where do we stand:– While governments hesitate, the evidence mounts:

• Russian ban on wheat exports after the 2010 hot summer• Texas wildfires

– Science under threat• IPCC subject to extensive evaluation e.g., IAC Report

2. Is the IPCC worthwhile?– Is there a need?– If so, how would we fill it without the IPCC?

3. The Australian carbon legislation is an important global development

charles darwin symposium 2011 the risks of climate change: international responses through...

Documents

charles darwin symposium

australia slide

limbo slide

international process

cape town slide

adaptation strategies

verification of adaptation

cancun cop