OERC Seminar September 2018 Bob Lloyd Director Raynbird Consultants Former Assoc Professor , Department of Physics, Otago University The talk will cover the mitigation strategies given in the IPCC AR5 report. How these have changed since 2015 in terms of the climate change models available. I will also discuss the methane problem, the forest CO2 removals problem and the carbon budgets available to mitigate sufficiently, to stay below global temperature rises that could cause runaway climate change scenarios. For NZ, a recap of the latest 7th National communication to the UN and the Governments NZ zero emissions plan for 2050. Is it sufficient and does it have the right targets that will prevent the global problem. Finally I will discuss my efforts in developing countries (The Pacific Island Nations) in developing their mitigation plans and the conflict in such countries between mitigation and development

1. Climate change update 2018
Bob Lloyd

2. Cheer Up Bob (2011)
“Here we go again”
A decade of warnings and still CO2 is rising

3. The Growth Delusion 2008
Conclusions
 “We are now seeing an interesting interaction between
peak oil and climate change
 As the cost of oil rises, governments are becoming reticent
to put mitigation measures in place that would further
affect “growth” in GDP
 It seems to me that climate change mitigation will not be a
viable option for the world until we extricate ourselves
from the Growth Delusion”

4. 2009 DCC Forum
Climate change
 “Climate change will produce devastating climatic,
ecological and economic consequences
( Stern, Hanson, IPCC)
 A disconnect is appearing between the world’s
scientists and the world’s politicians and industry
leaders”

5. 2009 DCC Forum - Jim Hanson’s suggested
strategy to avoid serious CC problems
 Developed nations will need to phase out ALL coal use
by 2020 (except where CO2 is captured)
 Developing countries need to do same by 2030
 Otherwise dangerous tipping points will be breached

6. 2009 DCC Forum
No coal fired power
stations in the
developed world by
2020

7. Back from the 2012 Rio + 20 meeting
IPCC Reports AR4
 4 volumes
 Scientific Basis
 Impacts adaptations and
vulnerability
 Mitigation
 Synthesis report
 All can be downloaded
from the IPCC web site

8. Rio + 20: 2012 Conclusions (IPCC)
 “World temps must be kept from increasing more
than 2 oC (Copenhagen)
 Otherwise +ve feedback mechanisms will be
triggered and temp will rise uncontrollably eg
peat fires in Russia 2010
 To do this CO2 eq must be kept below ( 435-450
ppm)”

9. 2015 CSAFE seminar Otago:
AR5 IPCC Reports
 4 volumes out
o Scientific Basis
o Impacts adaptations and
vulnerability
o Mitigation
o Synthesis report
 All four an be downloaded
from the IPCC web site
I hope by now
every one in the
room has read this
material

10. 2015 Conclusions (IPCC)
 To avoid dangerous feedback effects average
temperature increase must be kept from
increasing more than 2 oC (Originally agreed
at Copenhagen 2009)
 To do this CO2 eq must be kept to around 450
ppm out to 2100 (5th assessment report)
 350.org says 350 ppm of CO2 is the limit (1
degree) Jim Hansen
 Pacific countries say 400 ppm CO2 is the limit
(1.5 degrees)

11. A/Prof. Malte
Meinshausen
The University of Melbourne &
The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Community House Alexandra, Otago New Zealand, 28 March
2014
Public lecture
The 2°C climate target. What
it means, whether we missed
it, and what step to take next.

12. 2°C1.5°C350ppm

13. 2°C
No Target

14. CO2 in atmosphere: July 2018
July 2018: 408.71 ppm
July 2017: 407.07 ppm
Updated: August 7, 2018
2015

15. CO2 in atmosphere is increasing at an
increasing rate

16. The CO2 increase is proportional to annual
world emissions (44% stays in the atmosphere)

17. 2015: Key mitigation table in AR5 was
TS1

18. 2015 Various RCP Scenarios
 RCP 2.6, 4.5, 6 and 8.5 roughly corresponding to
radiative forcing of around the same number ie
Representative Concentration Pathway 2.6 is equivalent
to a radiative forcing of around 2.5 W/m2 the rough
correspondence is to mesh with historical scenarios
905 Gt
CO2 inc.
FOLU
A 66% chance of staying below 2
degrees Celsius (Likely)
All other scenarios go above 2 degrees with various likelihoods

19. 2015 Who would build a bridge with
33% chance of failure?

20. Fast forward to August 2018:
New Science Results
 Millar R.J. et al. “Emission budgets and pathways consistent
with limiting warming to 1.5 C”, NATURE GEOSCIENCE, VOL
10, OCTOBER 2017. Suggested that considerably increased
CO2 budgets (from AR5) might be allowed.
 Fisher et al “Paleoclimate constraints on the impact of 2 °C
anthropogenic warming and beyond” Nature Geoscience |
VOL 11 | JULY 2018 | 474–485).
 They suggested that due to the lack of certain feedback
processes, model-based climate projections may
underestimate long-term warming in response to future
radiative forcing by as much as a factor of two.
 Thus we have a target that gives us 66% chance of saving the
earth with 100% uncertainty – This is clearly not an
engineering solution.

21. Finally: the hot house earth paper
 Steffen et al PNAS August 6, 2018 “Trajectories of the Earth System
in the Anthropocene”
 Revisited the tipping point argument first mooted in Copenhagen
2009, “If the threshold is crossed, the resulting trajectory would
likely cause serious disruptions to ecosystems, society, and
economies.
 Our analysis suggests that the Earth System may be approaching a
planetary threshold that could lock in a continuing rapid pathway
toward much hotter conditions—Hothouse Earth. This pathway
would be propelled by strong, intrinsic, biogeophysical feedbacks
difficult to influence by human actions, a pathway that could not be
reversed, steered, or substantially slowed”.
 BUT they caution: “Where such a threshold might be is uncertain”,

22. My conclusions
 The allowed carbon budget thus may be either half that
suggested in AR5 or possibly more than double!
 The new papers has led to a ramping up of press regarding
the dangers of climate change.
 Simultaneously climate effects have been accelerating
 Gywnn Dyer August 13th ODT Hothouse Earth, here we
come: It would be churlish to ask what took them so long. Let
us be grateful, instead, that the climate scientists are finally
saying out loud what they all knew privately at least 10 years
ago.
 Some scientists were warning 10 years ago but the press and
people just weren’t ready to listen.

23. But the economy
 There is another vocal group among the scientists
in the modelling community to assure the public
that we can prevent runaway climate change
without totally sacrificing the economy.
 Rogelj et at Nature Climate Change | VOL 8 | APRIL
2018 | 325–332 | “Scenarios towards limiting global
mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C”

24. Rojelj et al: April 2018 finally gave us a
1.5 degrees budget
AR5 2015

25. 2015 Below 2 degrees?
 Note only RCP 2.6 (AR5) keeps us below 2 degrees and
it actually overshoots around 2070 and needs CCS for
the next 230 years to keep us below 2 degrees
 A simpler way of doing the calculation is to use a linear
decrease
CO2
emissions in
base year
Number of years
Area of triangle is
900 GT
Example CO2 plus FOLU in 2010 was 36 GT so if we started reducing in
2011 we would have 36/2 x Years = 900 .
Years = 50 years ie zero emissions by 2060
2010
2060

26. Start 2015
But we did not start then and in fact have emitted close to
200Gt between 2010 and 2015 and the 2015 CO2
emissions per annum including FOLU was 39 Gt
So we do the sum again and find that Years = (900-200) x 2
/39 = 36 years ie zero emissions in 2051
Area of triangle is now 700 GT
CO2
emissions in
base year 39
GT
2015 2051

27. But we did not start in 2015
So starting 2020
So we need to subtract another 200 GT, assuming
emissions are close to static until 2020, Emissions
including FOLU in 2020 will be around 40 Gt so we do the
sum again and find that Years = (700-200) x 2 /40 = 25
years
ie zero emissions in 2045
Area of triangle is now 500 GT
CO2 emissions in
base year
40 GT
2020
2045

28. What about 1.5 degrees: from 2020:
The 2010 budget is reduced to 600 Gt and by 2020 we will
have emitted some 400 Gt leaving 200 Gt
so we do the sum again and find that Years = (200) x 2 /40
= 10 years
ie zero emissions by 2030
Area of triangle is now 200 GT
CO2 emissions in
base year
40 GT
2020
2030

29. Now add the Uncertainty
 If the 1.5 degrees AR5 2010 budget is reduced to 300 Gt
( i.e. 100% error from 600 Gt) by 2020 we will have
emitted some 400 Gt meaning we have exceeded the
1.5 degree limit and for 2 degrees we will have 50 Gt left
( 450 Gt - 400 Gt from 2010) or one year from 2020 to
exceed the limit.
 It looks to me as if we should have chosen a 90% or
95% chance of avoiding the crisis many years ago but
that would have been not acceptable to the politicians
and economists. The only way to have achieved such
limits would have been to crash the economy.

30. Atmospheric CO2 v population

31. Atmospheric CO2 v population
extended to the year 1 CE

32. Energy growth and economic growth
are also the problem
As I suggested in 2008
Economic data and population from Angus Madison

33. In 2012 I suggested that it looked
worse than even I thought
Nov 2012

34. And now (2018) we have even more
fires, floods and droughts
Australia 2018
California 2018 India 2018

35. 2018: So what is NZ doing ?
NEW ZEALAND
Zero Net emissions by 2050

36. NZ 7th Nat communication

Forests -24Gt Gross 80Gt

37. 7th Nat com projections
Gross
Net

38. To get to zero gross by 2050 NZ emissions:
Note even this may not be quick enough 2045,2030!

39. NZ Productivity Commission Sept 2018

40. Should we include Methane
in net zero for NZ ?

41. Cows and people (global)

42. Methane budget

43. GWP Methane
 GWP 21 x CO2 AR4, 25 AR5 (100 years)
 Between 72 and 84 AR5 ( 20 years)
 Some scientists are arguing for an increase in the GWP
for methane from 25 to 72
 This would increase NZ methane emissions from 38 Mt
to 110 Mt with commensurate increase in total
emissions.
 And cause an even greater uproar from the farming
lobby in NZ

44. Reducing methane means reducing
cow numbers
Thus again we come down to climate change mitigation or the economy

45. What about Forests ?
 The next question to consider in the NZ net zero
emissions is the role of forestry.
 From an economic point of view (NZ Government) gross
zero CO2 eq emissions by 2050 is virtually unthinkable.
 Thus the NZ Govt will try to preserve some gross
emissions by netting them with negative forestry
emissions (as per the Commerce Commission).
 The existing situation is that NZ has enjoyed negative
forestry emissions that have been netted against the
gross emissions since the 1990s
 But with BAU (7th Nat Com) they are predicted to
become positive around 2030

46. Existing situation LULUCF (7th Nat Com)

47. So we have to plant more trees
 But planting exotic species such as Pinus radiata will
only work for the 30 year growth cycle and then they are
cut down and or stop growing .
 In addition there are problems with plantation forests
including ecological problems and of course the fact that
forests can be a strong positive feedback in terms of
forest fires
 AND it is not even certain that increasing forest cover
will actually lead to a decreasing atmospheric CO2 level

48. Remember the atmospheric CO2
versus emissions graph

49. Deforestation
 The slope in the above curve has remained quite
constant for over 70 years despite substantial global
deforestation over the same period
 Deforestation should have meant that the forest system
had a reduced uptake of atmospheric CO2 leading to an
increase in the % of CO2 staying in the atmosphere from
annual emissions. This did not occur. Why? Maybe the
increased atmospheric CO2 level caused forests to work
harder in removing CO2.
 It is not clear what then will happen in reverse
 There is, however, a clear relation between annual CO2
emissions from fossil fuels and CO2 in the atmosphere

50. Finally NZ and the REST of WORLD
(ROW)
 The final problem I have with the NZ Zero Emissions bill
is how it accounts for the ROW.
 As it seems to stand NZ wants to reduce emissions
unilaterally.
 This brings us to a discussion of Mitigation versus
Adaptation.
 And a discussion of the situation in developing countries

51. Mitigation
 Mitigation is clearly a global commons problem ( Garret
Hardin 1968)
 The atmosphere does not care who emits CO2 or other
GHGs.
 To stay below 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees the only task is to
stay below an agreed global carbon budget (either CO2
alone or including other gasses with the corresponding
GWPs) Or using a dynamic model result.
 The political task is to manage and provide funding for the
reduction among the various nations of the world.
 It is highly likely that mitigation will need a reduction in
global wealth and consumption.

52. Developing countries
 This brings us to what have I been doing since I retired
from Energy Studies at Otago Physics Department
 I have been doing consulting work in the Pacific for
various nations with one of my ex Otago PhD students
 INDCs in 2015 for PNG, Fiji, Vanuatu and Nauru
 In 2016 I started the TNC for Fiji an Energy Mitigation
project for Samoa. NDC roadmap for Nauru, Technology
Needs Assessment for Fiji.
 In 2017 a transport NAMA for Samoa plus starting the
TNC for the Cook islands
 2018 finished the TNC for Fiji and now working on the
TNC for Cook islands plus completing a review of all
SNC and INDCs for region

53. Paris agreement recognises
Sustainable Development
 “Climate change presents the single biggest threat to
sustainable development everywhere and its
widespread, unprecedented impacts disproportionately
burden the poorest and most vulnerable”.
 Thus the burden is to be shifted to the rich countries via
financial transfers to developing countries to assist them
to mitigate and adapt.
 It has been clear from my work that the Pacific countries
are relying on such transfers in order to sustain
development.
 All Pacific INDCs asked for funding assistance
(conditional emissions reductions)

54. Per capita emissions Pacific
Comparisons
World: 7 T
NZ : 20 T
Australia: 30 T
US: 25 T

55. Pacific GDP/capita
Comparisons
World average 17,000 US$
NZ : 38,000 US$
Australia: 50,000 US$
US: 60,000 US

56. Bottom line for mitigation
 Unless the NZ zero emissions bill works to assist the
ROW in reducing emissions we will not stay below the
mitigation target – there is no point in NZ showing
heroism if the result (World Saved) is not achieved.
 There is point in NZ showing the way as long as NZ
looks over its back to see if the ROW is following and to
assist the developing nations (Pacific) in reducing their
emissions and lobbying tardy nations to pull their weight.
 Success in reductions should always be referenced to
the real measured concentrations in the atmosphere
CO2, CH4, N2O and other GHGs -- not to national
emissions reductions.

57. Adaptation
 Adaption on the other hand is the effort to adapt to an
increasingly warm world with the associated natural
disasters, health problems, migration shifts and
agricultural failures .
 Adaptation will cost money and so this aspect needs a
robust world economy and increased national wealth.
This is the opposite to mitigation.
 Adaptation will be assisted by cooperation between
developed and developing nations but in the last resort,
with drastic climate effects taking hold, it will be every
country’s task to save itself .

58. Back to the beginning
 And this brings us back to the original discussion of the science
and the allowed carbon budgets.
 In the pessimistic modelling scenarios we cannot as of now, stop
global temperatures rising above 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees, as
suggested by Malte Meinshausen in 2014 in his Alexandra talk.
 Even in the optimistic scenarios it will be extremely difficult
without crashing the world economy.
 It will be up to a revision of the consensus regarding this position
due in the next 2022 AR6 reports
 There, however, will be a lot of political pressure to give a carbon
budget and scenarios that are politically and economically
acceptable.
 Personally I have come to the conclusion that we are highly likely
to have crossed the threshold to prevent runaway climate
change.

59. The end game
 The alternative scenario, once we do pass the point of no return
( the tipping point), is very scary
Because after this point there will be no rational reason not to
concentrate just on adaptation and let emissions rise to safeguard
the economy -- as the climate change deniers want us to do !!!!!

60. Chris Martenson - mentioned in 2015 talk
 Update August 2018 “I continue to be
baffled and annoyed by the climate
change spokespeople who hurt their
own aims by failing to be honest and
complete in their answers about what
needs to be done.
 Cutting carbon by 50% right now
would result in massive starvation
and the collapse of our economy and
financial system as we know it.
Massive joblessness, deprivation, and
suffering would result”.
 “Nobody has a clue what to do about
it because the answer is just too
painful to consider.”

61. Final slide -- to Albert Bartlett from his
2006 GROWTH talk in Dunedin
Making it worse Solutions
Procreation Abstention
Motherhood Contraception/Abortion
Large families Small families
Immigration Stopping immigration
Public Health Disease
Sanitation War
Peace Murder/ Violence/Euthanasia
Law and Order Famine
Scientific agriculture Accidents
Accident prevention Pollution ( Smoking)
Clean air Climate change (my addition)
Ignorance of the problem Resource depletion (my addition)

62. Questions and discussion
Leaked 1.5 degrees report: The IPCC is due to approve the Summary
for Policymakers of the report in the first week of October 2018
Helen Clarke Interview 31st August “The last data I saw they were
saying there's a only a 5 per cent chance of avoiding a 2 degree rise in
temperature by the end of the century, and we know that's
catastrophic. It's a tipping point. Many now say it's only 1.5 degrees,
which we're perilously close to”.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12115940

63. People are starting to panic
Earth quickly heading for 'point of no
return' unless we takes immediate
action, climate scientists warn
(The Independent, 30 Aug 2018) Even this dramatic estimate could be
overly optimistic, authors say.
Governments 'not on track' to meet
greenhouse gas targets, says top UN
official ahead of major climate talks
UN climate change chief Patricia Espinosa says summer's heatwaves,
wildfires and droughts will 'create a bigger sense of urgency' for
discussions in Bangkok.

64. Temperature data NOAA

65. Temperature: rate of increase is
increasing
1880-1940 0.55% pa
1940-2000 1.14% pa
1970- 2017 2.07% pa

66. Temperature rise since 1959

67. Temperature rise since 1880
T= (CO2) ppm/100 - 3