What are our options for climate change mitigation? What is the U.S. position in the UNFCCC negotiations? What were the outcomes in Copenhagen, Cancun, and Durban? Where does Cancun/Durban get us in terms of mitigation? What does a 2C pathway look like?

1. John Romankiewicz
University of San Francisco
January 24, 2012

2. • What are our options for climate change mitigation?
• What is the U.S. position in the UNFCCC negotiations?
• What were the outcomes in Copenhagen, Cancun, and Durban?
• Where does Cancun/Durban get us in terms of mitigation?
• What does a 2C pathway look like?

3. • Rising greenhouse gas emissions will likely cause catastrophic
climate change and costly ecosystem damage
• Costs of fossil fuel based energy are rising while costs of clean
energy are falling
• Political security has large ties with energy security
• Current investment activity in clean energy and carbon markets
is largely driven by government policy

4. Pure regulation: emitters have to reduce by x%
Tax: emitters have to pay X dollars for every ton of
emissions
Cap and trade: emitters have to reduce by x% but
emitters can trade their emissions allowances

5. “We’re going to fight the greenhouse
effect with the White House effect.”
-- George Bush Sr. while running for
president in 1988

6. Rio Earth Summit: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is
created: “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level
that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”
Conference of parties (COP) 3: Kyoto Protocol signed. Annex 1
countries commit to 6-8% reduction by 2012 below 1990 levels.
Emissions trading established, offset mechanism created.
COP 13: Bali. Negotiations begin on a post-2012 framework.
Two-track process begins.
COP 15: Copenhagen. Decision on post-2012 framework
postponed. 140 countries sign up to “Copenhagen Accord” which
was negotiated outside of the UNFCCC.

7. Get rid of the “firewall” created between Annex 1 (A1)
and non-Annex 1 (NA1) countries
Commit to reducing emissions in the range of 17% off
2005 levels by 2020
Provide assistance to developing countries to mitigate
and adapt to climate change

8. • Mitigation commitments • Financial assistance
• Relative – NA1 • Fast start finance: $30bn
• Absolute – A1 • Long term finance
• Transparency: emissions • Technology cooperation
monitoring, reporting, • Adaptation
and verification • Forests/REDD
“Balanced progress”

9. 20-30%
17% 1990 40-45%
2005 intensity 25%
30% 1990
25%
from BAU intensity 26-41%
36% from BAU
from BAU 5-25%
34% 2000
from BAU
Copenhagen Accord pledges fail the 2°C test

10. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (MtCO2/year)
China
7,797
United States
5,470
European Union
56% of emissions
3,889
India
Russia
1,602 1,572
Japan
1,098
Canada
South Korea
South Africa
Mexico
Brazil
Australia
81% of emissions
Indonesia
541 528 450 444 420 418 413
Rest of countries
5,765
Source: EIA (2009)

11. • Shared vision: 2C, work towards identifying a global 2050 goal
• Adaptation: adaptation committee, enable LDCs to form and
implement adaptation plans
• Mitigation: actions listed and anchored in new agreements
• Transparency: domestic MRV and ICA for unsupported actions,
international MRV for supported actions
• Finance: commitments + establishment of Green Climate Fund
• REDD: framework includes consideration of conservation,
sustainable mgmt of forests, enhancement of forest carbon stock
• Technology: Technology Executive Committee, Climate Technology
Center and Network

12. • An extension of Kyoto: 2nd commitment period ending Dec 2017
• “Develop a protocol, another legal instrument or a legal
outcome under the Convention applicable to all Parties, through
a subsidiary body under the Convention hereby established and
to be known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban
Platform for Enhanced Action”
• Elaborating outcomes from Cancun Agreements
• Green Climate Fund
• Biennial report guidelines
• Adaptation committee, technology committee, REDD outcomes

13. • The lure of a legally binding agreement:
• A legal agreement is often presumed to include compliance provisions creating
incentives, mostly negative, some positive, designed to push countries to meet
their commitments.
• Some argue that a legal agreement is necessary if you want to build an
international carbon market, in which parties – whether countries or companies
– could trade rights to emit greenhouse gases.
• The drawbacks of a legally binding agreement:
• Difficult to achieve: need legal obligations from all major parties
• Some parties may reduce the level of ambition for fear of not meeting targets
• A legal treaty will take a long time to implement
• David Victor’s myths:
• Scientist’s myth
• Environmentalist’s myth
• Engineer’s myth

14. • There are other things we can do:
• HFCs
• Black Carbon
• Global Methane Initiative
• Clean Energy Ministerial/Major Economies Forum
• Green Climate Fund
• Energy access
• Etc…

15. Greenhouse gas emissions (GtCO2e/year)
58
Other developing
56 Other developed
54 South Africa
Brazil
52 Indonesia
India
50
China
48 Mexico
South Korea
46 Australia
Japan
44
Canada
42 Russia
EU
40 US
38
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2C scenario
Historic
All pledge scenarios modeled off of IEA BAU using C-ROADS software. Assumptions on pledges based on country submissions for Cancun Agreements. 2C scenario has 66% probability

16. • IEA: "Four-fifths of total energy related CO2 emissions permissible by
2035 in the 450 Scenario are already "locked in" by our existing
capital stock (power plants, buildings, factories).
• UNEP Emissions Gap Report: Emissions pathways consistent with a
likely chance of meeting the 2.0 °C limit have the following
characteristics
• A peak in global annual emissions before 2020
• 2020 global emission levels of around 44 GtCO2e
• Average annual reduction rates of CO2 from energy and industry between
2020 and 2050 of around 3% (2.2-3.1% range)
• 2050 emissions that are 50-60% below their 1990 levels
• In most cases, negative CO2 emissions from energy and industry starting at
some point in the second half of the century

19. Source: IEA

20. Source: IEA

21. Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance

22. Additions -
Average annual additions, 2011-2035 2010
Delayed CCS -
New Policies 450 Scenario 450
Hydro 27 34 41 17 (China only)
Wind 52 76 91 38
Solar 22 39 44 17
Nuclear 14 22 27 5
• Nuclear operating capacity: 369 GW
• Under construction: 63 GW
• Planned: 173 GW
• Hydro operating capacity: ~900 GW
Source: IEA, Global Nuclear Energy Council

23. • Building consensus for federal climate legislation for
the U.S.
• Two-fold China Energy Group mission
• Help China to become more energy efficient (mitigation)
• Help the world to understand China better (transparency)
• Occupy rooftops

24. • Is the U.S. position fair?
• Is the U.S. “standing in the way” of a global agreement?
• Is a 2C pathway realistic? Economically feasible?
• Will a “bottom-up” model be sufficient to mitigate climate
change?
• Should a global agreement be legally binding? On all parties?

25. John Romankiewicz
Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory
China Energy Group
jpromankiewicz@lbl.gov
sustainablejohn.com
Twitter @sustainablejohn