”Understanding and influencing global politics towards Copenhagen

and beyond”

Comments by Anders Wijkman at Ny-Ålesund Symposium 2009.

1. Financial crisis2. Climate crisis3. Ecosystem/Natural resources crisis4. Peak oil

• All these crises have the same roots, unsustainable use of resources – in the economic system and in Nature.

• 2/3 of major ecosystems used beyond capacity• Climate change and resource constraints will affect our

economies negatively, will aggravate poverty in many developing countries and may lead to serious conflicts

Several parallel crises:

•Just as a few lonely economists warned us we were living beyond our financial means and overdrawing our financial assets, scientists are warning us that we’re living beyond our ecological means and overdrawing our natural assets,” argues Glenn Prickett, senior vice president at Conservation International. But, he cautioned, as environmentalists have pointed out: “Mother Nature doesn’t do bailouts.” Thomas Friedman in New York Times, march 2009.

•We created a way of raising standards of living that we can’t possibly pass on to our children,” said Joe Romm, a physicist and climate expert who writes the indispensable blog climateprogress.org <http://climateprogress.org/> . We have been getting rich by depleting all our natural stocks — water, hydrocarbons, forests, rivers, fish and arable land — and not by generating renewable flows Thomas Friedman in New York Times, march 2009

Human growth20/80 dilemma

Ecosystems60 % loss dilemma

Climate550/450/350 dilemma

Surprise99/1 dilemma

”The Quadruple Squeeze”

The Planetary Response to global change drivers (Steffen et al., 2004)

From: Steffen et al. 2004

The Planetary Response

1900 1950 2000

CO2, N2O, CH4 concentrations

Overfishing

Land degradation

Loss of Biodiversity

Water Depletion

Unsustainable consumption

…..

Climate Change325 ppm CO2 < 1W m2

(300 – 350 ppm CO2 ; 1-1.5 W m2))

Ocean acidification

Aragonite saturation ratio < 20 % below pre-industrial levels

Ozone depletion< 5 % of Pre-Industrial 290 DU

(0 - 10%)

Global Freshwater Use<4000 km3/yr

(4000 – 6000 km3/yr)

Biodiversity Loss

< 10 E/MSY

Biogeochemical loading:

Global N & P Cycles

Limit industrial fixation of N2 to

35 Tg N yr-1

P < 20 % inflow to Oceans

Atmospheric Aerosol Loading

To be determined

Land System Change≤15 % of

land under crops

Chemical Pollution Plastics, Endocrine

Desruptors, Nuclear Waste Emitted globally

To be determined

Planetary Boundaries

Rethink economic policy framework

• Financial Crisis and Environmental Crisis have same roots - unsustainable use of resources

• Externalities overwhelm us; there are boundary conditions for human development we have to respect

• Beyond GDP – Stiglitz Commission an opportunity, but research needed

• Take Nature into account – loss of tropical forests = 2-5 trillion US p a

• Implement PPP• Discountingof future values critical issue• In the EU: Merge Lisbon and SDS strategies• Reform business models

Global 2ºC pathways and their risks

Challenges for Copenhagen:• Mitigation – minimum 40-50 % GHG reductions for Annex 1

countries to 2020; significantly lower GHG pathways than BAU for non-Annex 1

• Emissions reduction target for 2050 – 70-80% reduction needed to meet 2° target

• Special problem: how to promote forest protection?• Adaptation – 20-50 billion US p a from 2013; kick-start by

funding NAPA:s now• Technology cooperation – in addition to CDM, JI etc• Include ecosystems protection• Funding? – most natural would be PPP, e g auctioning

revenues, tax on bunker fuels, aviation etc

EU energy/climate package• 20% GHG reduction to 2020 – unilateral• 20% Renewables, binding• 20% Energy Efficiency improvement• Reformed ETS• Stricter CO2 standards for vehicles (120 g/km)• CCS – 12 demo-plants• Buildings directive• Eco-design directive• Global Climate Change Alliance, but limited funding• Readiness to move to 30% reduction in the event of

international deal in Copenhagen

Negotiations not encouraging so far

• Proposals on the table far away from what is needed – will result in 3-4° warming

• Perception seems to be that incremental change will do

• North/South distrust• Financial issues so far no progress• Negotiators don´t discuss what stabilisation requires –

rather what is politically possible • EU has provided leadership so far – but that is put into

question now?

Put a price on Carbon• ”Cap and Trade” or CO2 tax• In theory, ”Cap and Trade” the most effective• In reality, CO2 tax easier to implement• Many good experiences w CO2 tax, such as

Sweden, where CO2 tax in 1991 lead to phasing out of fossil fuels in heating of buildings

• A lot of prestige invested in ”Cap and Trade”• Is a CO2 tax at all possible in the US?• One problematic issue is how to incentivise

investments over the long-term?

Experience w ETS• Lots of problems during starting phase - overallocation - permits allocated for free; windfall profits - what to include? – transport missing• Reform issues: - cap must be signif lowered - permits to be auctioned – but EU decision december 2008 disapp! - flanking measures to give technology push - Environment Performance Standards as parallel measure - Should forest credits be included? - How link to other ”cap and trade” regimes? - The degree of flexibility? – how much CDM?

Non-ETS activities – regulation a must!

• Energy efficiency, • Renewables• Land-use• R&D• Strengthen ecosystems in general

Efficiency:

• Buildings• White certificates• Cars• Tyres, eco-driving etc• Electric equipment/Eco-design• Manufacturing• Resource efficiency• Global standards

Future global power generation capacity

GW

Source:IEA; McKinsey analysis

Power supply yet to be built

**** **

2030 capacity yet to be built7%

Existing capacity

23%

Renewables:

• EU objective: 20% of energy mix in 2020 (8,5% today) – binding target

• Trade between MS• Green certificates or feed-in tariffs

Land-use

• Agriculture, incl meat production, low tillage etc

• Forests – avoided deforestation, reforestation • Bio-fuels – Obs sustainability criteria• Bio-char

Energy R&D• Long neglected• Share of public funding for Energy R&D has gone down

significantly since 1980 – must be multiplied• Many promising areas, like solar cells and solar

thermal, off-shore wind, wave, sea currents, fuel cells, electric cars, 2nd generation biofuels, biogas, low-energy housing etc

• CCS special issue – needed but too much used as alibi to continue BAU

• How to guarantee investments? – floor price on oil• Who is investing in alternatives?

Private-sector R&D is increasingly focused on projects with short-term payoffs.Private-sector R&D is increasingly focused on projects with short-term payoffs.Source: IEA Databases, Source: IEA Databases, Doornbosch, et al.,Doornbosch, et al., 2008 2008

Public Energy R&D in IEA Countries

History of US Federal Government R&DHistory of US Federal Government R&D

JFK ApolloProgram

Carter EnergyProgram

Reagan “Star Wars” Program

Homeland Security

Optimism the only possible attitude

• Distrust must be addressed – requires commitments both on mitigation and adaptation; start adaptation NOW

• 2/3 of power generation and buildings in 2030 still to be built• Mitigation saves money• Already huge opportunities to use energy more efficiently• Financial Crisis an opportunity; Rethink economic growth• Contraction and convergence OK as principle but China already

beyond per capita GHG target for 2050• Most important is to put a price on Carbon• Land use issues critical• Develop mechanisms for technology cooperation• Long term: Science – Policy Gap must be bridged