Ecosystem wide action driven by co-benefits is key – New 3rd IPCC report on Climate Change Mitigatio
- Mark Skilton
- Apr 13, 2014
- 8 min read
The IPCC WGIII AG5 report April 2014 on Climate Change Mitigation indicates that a focus on co-benefits and a sense of ecosystem level thinking will be needed across all economic and human behavior to tackle climate change
The United Nation’s Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the third volume of its 5th Assessment Report on Climate Change: Mitigation of Climate Change in Berlin, Germany on 12 April 2014.
As usual the media reporting ranges from the misinformed to raising the alarm in one snapshot or another with soundbites from “cautious optimism” to “speedier action needed to avert disaster”.
But the general consensus in the IPCC report is clear on mitigation planning and making the economic case for a shift from carbon based production to avoid costs that will be much more severe on economies if delayed, let alone the impact on the human ecosystem. A key phrase in the report is some optimism in its approach to mitigation if action is taken but the authors also recognize the many probabilities and potential variables involved.
A look at the report suggest that if the global goal is to keep global temperate rise to below 2C to avoid international catastrophe the current report figures mean we are not succeeding and on target for 3C or 4C. This is not good and something needs to change.
I’ve always felt the timescales where a self deluding generation away but this latest report seems to indicate the effects on world economies in the area of food production(wheat and maize yields for many regions in the aggregate in particular) due to climate change has already begun. Progress is needed to make action now in the next 15 years within existing economic scale to avert a potentially much bigger disruption in economies that really could be equivalent to mass population migration and resource conflict.
The technical feasibility recommendations in the report suggested containment can be achieved with a planetary ecosystem wide switch to low-carbon systems such as nuclear, renewables and carbon capture. However this the kind of coordinated industrial and governmental policy and action universal across all developing and developed countries.
I cannot help but see the many parallels in ecosystem dynamic thinking and the struggle to rise above the local and industry sectoral issues to a new playing field of coordinated and mutually sustainable systems.
Examples of Ecosystem economics from the 5th assessment report include
Excerpts
Energy Supply
In the baseline scenarios assessed in AR5, direct CO2 emissions from the energy supply sector are projected to almost double or even triple by 2050 compared to the level of 14.4 GtCO2/year in 2010, unless energy intensity improvements can be significantly accelerated beyond the historical development. (medium evidence, medium agreement.)
Decarbonizing (i.e reducing the carbon intensity of) electricity generation is a key component of cost-effective mitigation strategies in achieving low-stabilization level s( 430-530 ppm CO2eq); in most integrated modelling scenarios, decarbonization happens more rapidly in electricity generation that in the industry, buildings, and transport sectors (medium evidence, high agreement)
Since AR4, many RE technologies have demonstrated substantial performance improvements and cost reductions, and a growing number of RE technologies have achieved a level of maturity to enable deployment at significant scale (robust evidence, high agreement)
Nuclear energy is a mature low-GHG emission source of baseload power, but its share of global electricity generation has been declining (since 1993). Nuclear energy could make an increasing contribution to low-carbon energy supply, but a variety of barriers and risks exist (robust evidence, high agreement).
GHG emissions from energy supply can be reduced significantly by replacing current world average coal-fired power plants with modern, highly efficient natural gas combined-cycle power plants or combined heat and power plants, provided that natural gas is available and the fugitive emissions associated with extracted and supply are low or migrated (robust evidence, high agreement.)
Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technologies could reduce the lifecycle GHG emissions of fossil fuel power plants (medium evidence, medium agreement).
Combining bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) offers the prospect of energy supply with large-scale net negative emissions which plays an important role in many low-stablization scenarios, while it entails challenges an drisks (limited evidence, medium agreement).
Transport
The transport sector accounted for 27% of final energy use and 6.7 GtCO2 direct emissions in 2010, with baseline CO2 emissions projected to approximately double by 2050 (medium evidence, medium agreement)
Technical and behavioural mitigation measures for all transport modes, plus new infrastructure and urban redevelopment investments, could reduce final energy demand in 2050 by around 40% below the baseline, with the mitigation potential assessed to be higher than reported in the AR4 (robust evidence, medium agreement).
Buildings
In 2010, the building sector accounted for around 32% final energy use and 8.8 GtCO2 emissions, including direct and indirect emissions, with energy demand projected to approximately double and CO2 emissions to increase by 50–150% by mid century in baseline scenarios (medium evidence, medium agreement)
Recent advances in technologies, knowhow and policies provide opportunities to stabilize or reduce global buildings sector energy use by mid‐ century (robust evidence, high agreement).
Lifestyle, culture and behavior significantly influence energy consumption in building (limited evidence, high agreement).
Most mitigation options for buildings have considerable and diverse co-benefits in addition to energy cost savings.
Strong barriers, such as split incentives (e.g., tenants and builders), fragmented markets and inadequate access to information and financing, hinder the market-based uptake of cost-effective opportunities.
Industry
In 2010, the industry sector accounted for around 28% of final energy use, and 13 GtCO2 emissions, including direct and indirect emissions as well as process emissions, with emissions projected to increase 50-150% by 2050 in the baseline scenarios assessed in AR5, unless energy efficiency improvements are accelerated significantly.
The energy intensity of the industry sector could be directly reduced by about 25% compared to the currently level through the wide-scale upgrading, replacement and best available technologies, particularly in countries where these are not in use and in non-energy intensive industries (high agreement, robust evidence.)
Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU)
The AFOLU sector accounts for about a quarter (approx 10-12GtCO2eq/yr) of net anthropogenic GHG emissions mainly from deforestation, agricultural emissions from soil and nutrient management and livestock
Policies governing agricultural practices and forest conservation and management are more effective when involving both mitigation and adaptation.
Human Settlements, Infrastructure and Spatial Planning
Urbanization is a global trend and is associated with increases in income, and higher urban incomes are correlated with higher consumption of energy and GHG emissions.
The next two decades present a window of opportunity for mitigation in urban areas, as a large portion of the world’s urban areas will be developed during this period.
Recent investigations I’ve written about on the Greenpeace report on just the ICT or Transport sectors is important but may not do it full justice of the need for wide scale action across all industry and societal behaviors. Integrated systems that control and drive betterefficiencies and lower carbon and related emissions. This is also emphasized in the IPCC report recommending investments to improve energy efficiency in transport, buildings and industry needing to rise $336bn a year. Figures like these are not trivial, while they are carved into country level and regional investment plans, a sense of strong economic drivers to move the populus to these lower cost alternatives made irrefutable and compelling. If the timeframe of human perception and common sense evidence is not enough to grasp this inevitability, then the nearer term bank balance and wallet may be the only option. The physical economy and digital economy will be critically intertwined on this is an absolute fact, being able to orchestrate people, industries and consumption will need responsive control and visibility on a truly massive and ubiquitous scale.
The IPCC report states these findings in conclusion
Excerpts
Substantial reductions in emissions would require large changes in investment patterns.Mitigation scenarios in which policies stabilize atmospheric concentrations (without overshoot) in the range from 430 to 530 pm CO2eq by 2100 lead to substantial shifts in annual investment flows during the period 2010 to 2029 compared to baseline scenarios (Figure SPM.9). Over the next two decades (2010to 2029), annual investment in conventional fossil fuel technologies associated with the electricity supply sector is projected to decline by about USD 30 (2–166) billion (median:20% compared to 2010) while annual investment in lowcarbon electricity supply (i.e., renewables, nuclear and electricity generation with CCS) is projected to rise by about USD 147 (31- 360) billion (median: +100% compared to 2010) (limited evidence, medium
agreement).For comparison, global total annual investment in the energy system is presently about USD 1200 billion. In addition, annual incremental energy efficiency investments in transport, buildings and industry is projected to increase by about US D 336 (1to641) billion (limited evidence, medium agreement), frequently involving modernization of existing equipment. [13.11, 16.2.2]
The need for a widely agreed definition of what constitutes Climate Finance, but estimates of the financial flows associated with climate change mitigation and adaptation are available.
Sector‐specific policies have been more widely used than economy wide policies (medium evidence, high agreement).
Regulatory approaches and information measures are widely used, and are often environmentally effective (medium evidence, medium agreement).
The evidence is in plain sight. The IPCC WGIII AR5 report does remain positive in highlighting national and sub-national mitigation plans and strategies. However the outcome projections show the challenge in all biological and industrial ecosystems. These “top down” outcome key metrics must be translated into specific actions and changes. To that aim the IPCC WGIII AG5 report interestingly highlights some synergies that are are key in ecosystem thinking and where I see technological augmentation as a key enabler to this.
Interactions between or among mitigation policies may be synergistic or may have no additive effect on reducing emissions (medium evidence, high agreement)
Some mitigation policies raise the prices for some energy services and could hamper the ability of societies to expand access to modern energy services to underserved populations (low confidence). These potential adverse side-effects can be avoided with the adoption of complementary policies.
Technology policy complements other mitigation policies
In many countries , the private sector plays central roles in the processes that lead to emissions as well as to mitigation. Within appropriate enabling environments, the private sector, along with the public sector, can play an important role in financing mitigation (medium evidence, high agreement.)
The IPCC WGIII AR5 report also highlighted international global policy synchronization efforts.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the main multilateral forum focused on addressing climate change , with nearly universal participation
Existing and proposed international climate change cooperation vary in their focus and degree of centralization and coordination.
The Kyoto Protocol offers lessons towards achieving the ultimate objective of the UNFCC particularly with respect to participation, implementation ,flexibility mechanisms, and environmental effectiveness
From an Ecosystem thinking perspective I see a number a key themes
Ecosystems need liminality mechanisms to balance their resources and sustainability – The large scale increase in energy, urbanization and consumption in next twenty years needs to move to a Sustainable lower Carbon model.
Ecosystems are finite at some scale and have some baseline, baseload and moving state entropy , diversity and longitudinal property based on its participants behaviors and resources inside and outside or join that ecosystem.
Co-benefits are an essential mechanism to drive mutual outcome systems
The use of Public and Private sectors investment to simultaneously drive singular and co-investment for mitigation to new forms
Focusing on Industry sector level initiatives can provide a driver for desirable mitigation and economic outcomes rather than just economic drivers.
Technology is a layer that linked to other sector layers and can act as direct, indirect and possible subterfuge benefit enabler.
It is useful to classify technologies (such as RE technologies) that are mature enough to support an ecosystem at scale as a certification and practice guide (robust evidence , high agreement for RE technologies)
Enabling platform environments to migrate to new sustainable transport,buildings and other forms through smart platforming strategies
A synchronized set of Governance Policies from International global to national and sub-national
Perhaps this report shows the first steps forming in identifying what metrics and economic models are really needed so we are behaving in the right sense. I hope in so doing the impact on commercial operating policy and resources that politicians and finance put so much effort into controlling and generating “wealth” realize this is a mirage in the “medium” term and are now under threat from a global phenomena that no-one owns directly – the air, water and biosphere we breath and all live within.
Comments