IPS Seminar

1
IPS Seminar 3rd August, 2007 Policy near the
tipping point how carbon neutral NewZealand
can lead a carbon negative world
Peter Read Massey University Centre for Energy
Research
2
WHY ? Art 3.3

• The Parties should take precautionary measures.
• Where there are threats of serious or
  irreversible damage , lack of full scientific
  certainty should not be used as reason for
  postponing such measures which should be
  cost effective so as to ensure global benefits

3
Compare Art 4.2(d)

• The Conference of Parties shall review the
  adequacy of the Rio Convention commitments in
  the light of the best available scientific
  information.
• so whats the best scientific information?
  what everybody assents to ?? The law of gravity
  ???
• Based on this review the COP shall adopt
  amendments to the commitments.
• which became the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, finalized
  (with the COP convoy sailing at the speed of the
  slowest ship i.e., Saudi Arabia, briefed by the
  US coal lobby) after four years of tortuous
  negotiation, with the Marrakesh accords of 2001.
  

4
Is there a threat ? Some controversial climate
science (But note that the IPCC 4th Assessment
Report the best scientific information ? is
sanitized in its references to climatic
instability visit http//www.meridian.org.uk/Re
sources/Global20Dynamics/IPCC/contents.htm
) http//w ww.meridian.org.uk/Resources/Global20D
ynamics/IPCC/contents.htm) So vide Hansen, J.,
M. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell D.W. Lea and M.
Siddall, 2007. Climate change and trace gases,
Phil Trans Roy Soc (A), 365, 1925-54. Ruddiman,
W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era Began
Thousands of Years Ago, Climatic Change, 61,
261-293. Controversial ? They disagree with each
other ! that cant be good science, surely ??
5
But first a cautionary tale

• The ozone hole
• It had long been known that CFCs could destroy
  the ozone of the upper atmosphere that protects
  life on earth from damaging ultra-violet
  radiation. Balloons were flown worldwide since
  1974 to monitor this process and seasonal polar
  ozone depletion was apparent long before the
  Antarctic ozone hole appeared. But the
  observations were attributed to faulty
  instrumentation by the computers set up to
  process the data, which embodied theory that
  projected uniform depletion worldwide. Only
  after a U2 flight showed that the instrument
  readings were correct was theory developed to
  explain this scientific surprise that very
  cold high altitude ice crystals at the end of
  Antarctic winter could concentrate CFC molecules
  and catalyse accelerated local destruction of
  ozone. So theory-led denial of observations led
  to continued use of CFCs and to more severe and
  longer lasting ozone hole damage than need have
  been.
• Conclusion The absence of a theory for a
  potential disaster mechanism, and/or its
  non-incorporation into models is no assurance of
  safety

6
There is little doubt that projected warmings
under BAU would initiate albedo-flip changes as
great as those that occurred at earlier times in
the Earths history. The West Antarctic ice sheet
today is at least as vulnerable as any of
the earlier ice sheets. The processes that give
rise to nonlinear ice sheet response (almost
universal retreat of ice shelves buttressing the
West Antarctic ice sheet and portions of
Greenland, increased surface melt and basal
lubrication, speed-up of the flux of icebergs
from ice streams to the ocean, ice sheet thinning
and thus lowering of its surface in the critical
coastal regions, and an increase in the number of
icequakes that signify lurching motions by
portions of the ice sheets) are observed to be
increasing Part of the explanation for the
inconsistency between palaeoclimate data and IPCC
projections lies in the fact that existing ice
sheet models are missing realistic (if any)
representation of the physics of ice streams and
icequakes, processes that are needed to obtain
realistic nonlinear behaviour. In the absence of
realistic models, it is better to rely on
information from the Earths history. That
history reveals large changes of sea level on
century and shorter timescales. All, or at least
most, of glacial-to-interglacial sea-level rise
is completed during the ca 6 kyr quarter cycle of
increasing insolation forcing as
additional portions of the ice sheet experience
albedo flip. There is no evidence in
the accurately dated terminations (I and II) of
multi-millennia lag in ice sheet response. We
infer that it would be not only dangerous, but
also foolhardy to follow a BAU path for future
GHG emissions. Hansen, et al, op cit
7
Surface Melt on Greenland
Melt descending into a moulin, a vertical shaft
carrying water to ice sheet base
Quite a bit of basal lubrication here ! (PR)
Source Roger Braithwaite, University of
Manchester
8
This and following slides from W. Ruddiman,
op cit (PR)
9
?
Ca. 6000 year deglaciations followed by slower
glaciating phases in the last half million
years. indicates the insolation peaks ending
the warming phases. Note ? the increase of CO2
levels since the last (St1) insolation peak,
attributed to anthropogenic emissions related to
forest fire deforestation in the course of land
clearance for agricultural expansion (PR)
10
Depopulation due to plagues caused abandonment of
agricultural land and forest regrowth, taking
CO2 out of the atmosphere and leading to cool
climatic phases the little ice age after the
Black Death and the dark ages after the
plagues that occurred with the collapse of the
Roman empire (PR)
11
Methane in atmosphere trended upwards
(anomalously compared with earlier glaciating
phases) coinciding with the commencement of
paddy field rice cultivation about 5000 years ago
(PR)
12
Conclusion Earths climate is extremely
sensitive to anthropogenic forcing Most
critically, researchers know relatively little
about feedback effects that might enhance or
weaken the pace and effects of climate
change.. Key sticking points include the
inability of global climate models to reproduce
the amount of sea level rise observed over the
past couple of decades and whether ice flows at
the bases of glaciers is accelerating or not.
How volatile the Antarctic and Greenland glaciers
might become in a warmer world is therefore
pretty much guesswork Nature, pp280-281, 8.Feb,
2007 So yes, the science is uncertain OK We
(posterity and NZ Inc.) need a precautionary
policy
13
WHAT? CARBON REMOVALS Biosphere Carbon Stock
Management maybe enough but maybe need albedo
enhancement also Read P., Lermit J., 2005.
Bio-energy with carbon storage (BECS) A
sequential decision approach to the threat of
abrupt climate change, Energy. 30 2654-2671.
Read, P. and A. Parshotam, 2007. Holistic
Greenhouse Gas Management Strategy (with
Reviewers Comments and author rejoinders).
Institute of Policy Studies Working Paper 07/1,
VUW //ips.ac.nz/publications/publications/list/7
Read, P., 2008 Biosphere Management of Carbon
Stocks.Addressing the threat of abrupt climate
change in the next few decades. Forthcoming
Editorial Essay in Climatic Change
14

• Biosphere Carbon Stock Management
• extract more CO2 from the atmosphere
• stock it somewhere safer
• As a precautionary strategy
• A Do low cost enabling things first (be prepared)
• B Do costly things later if need be (enabled by
  A)

15
As regards 1, there is only one way It involves
large scale land improvement to raise its
productivity and yield all we need in co-produced
food/fibre with fuel (call it Global Gardening
if we look after Mother Nature theres some
chance she will look after us ) It should be
good news for farmers and landowners instead of
difficult emissions reductions, the energy sector
invests in low cost land based activities to
secure a strategic (biomass) raw material supply
and provide a hedge against high cost oil
16

• As regards 2
• standing forest
• Biochar soil improvement bio-oils
• BECS (Bio-Energy with CCS)
• More wooden houses and other structures

17

• As regards A
• 1. Invest in forest plantations to stock carbon
  and act as a strategic reserve of biomass
  raw material
• (quite useful as timber if the climate change
  panic goes away)
• 2. Invest in a vehicle fleet that is compatible
  with biofuels
• (a useful hedge against peak oil the dear
  oil age
• 3. Invest in biofuel supply systems
• maybe 2nd generation cellulosic ethanol
• maybe gasification and Fischer Tropsche
  liquids
• maybe pyrolysis with biochar for soil
  improvement
• maybe on-farm gasification linked to
  herd-homes and riparian
  tree plantations to prevent pollution of our
  rivers
• An investment should not be treated as a cost

18
As regards B Be ready to retrofit CCS onto all
large stationary furnaces CCS is a pure
cost But it can very easily be made 100 per cent
effective biomass is coals best friend !
19
But, mix in 20 per cent wood chips and you get
zero emissions From 100 tons fuel, 80 tons
fossil results in 64 tons sequestered and 16 tons
emissions 20 tons wood chips results in another
16 tons sequestered Net emissions - zero
20
Comparison of carbon removals (F) with emission
reductions (Z) in mitigating the level of CO2 (in
ppm) in the atmosphere  
A SRES-A2 Z SRES-A2 with a transition to zero
emissions technologies between 2011 and
2035 F SRES-A2 with a transition to land
improvement carbon removal technologies over the
same period, with land use change complete by
2035 and technological progress to 2060
21
Table 1 Summary of key illustrative
data Outputs linear increase
to2035 then 1.5 tech progress till 2060 Forestry
(co-produced timber and bio-energy on1 b Ha by
2035) Lumber 10Gt/yr 14.5Gt/yr C content of
Biochar 1.2Gt/yr 1.74Gt/yr Biodiesel 20EJ/
yr 29EJ/yr Electricity 23.1EJ/yr 33.5EJ/yr
Ethanol 31.4EJ/yr 45.6EJ/yr Stock of C in
bio-char soil improvement 15Gt 52Gt Stock
of C in standing plantation 120Gt 183Gt Stock
of C in avoided deforestation 8Gt
38Gt Stock of C from CO2 of fermentation
2.4Gt 11.5Gt Stock of C from flue gas CCS
9Gt 60Gt Sugar Cane (co-produced sugar and
bio-energy on 0.43 b Ha by 2035) Ethanol 115EJ
/yr 167EJ/yr Electricity 85EJ/yr
123EJ/yr Stock of C from CO2 of fermentation
7.2Gt 34.7Gt Stock of C from flue gas CCS
9.2Gt 60.5Gt Switchgrass (co-produced
protein and bio-energy on 0.72 b Ha by
2035) Ethanol 113EJ/yr 163EJ/yr Electricity(
net) 4.8EJ/yr 7.0EJ/yr Stock of C from CO2
of fermentation 8.6Gt 41.6Gt Stock of C
from flue gas CCS 13.8Gt 90Gt
22
Aggregate energy supplies (not optimised just
an illustration) Ethanol 259EJ/yr
376EJ/yr Biodiesel 20 EJ/yr
29EJ/yr Electricity 113 EJ/yr 164
EJ/yr Carbon cycle impacts C in oil displaced by
bio-fuels 8.38Gt/yr 12.2Gt/yr \C in coal
displaced by bio-electricity 4.23Gt/yr
6.14Gt/yr Stock of C left as in situ fossil
fuel 164Gt 549Gt Stock of C in standing
plantation 120Gt 183Gt Stock of C in avoided
deforestation 8Gt 38Gt Stock of C in
bio-char soil improvement 15Gt 52Gt Stock of
C from CO2 of fermentation 18Gt 88Gt Stock
of C from flue gas CCS 32Gt 210Gt Total C
reduction in atmosphere and proximate sinks
(e.g. ocean surface layers)with 357Gt 1120Gt and
without flue gas CCS 325Gt 910Gt
23
So carbon removals is far more powerful than
emissions reductions And therefore peak oil and
carbon removals go hand in hand ? Not
quite Sustainability is costly and sustainable
best practice constitutes proof of
Additionality up to leaky bucket standards
see How ? below. So unsustainably produced
bioenergy does more harm than good
24
A SRES-A2 D SRES-A2 with sugar cane,
switch-grass and forestry land use change
activities but no CCS G SRES-A2 with three land
use change activities and 30 tC per ha released
through land use change H SRES-A2 with three land
use change activities and 90 tC per ha released
through land use change I SRES-A2 with three
land use change activities and 300 tC per ha
released through land use change
25
HOW? global implementation

• Calculations illustrates impact of BCSM on C in
  atmosphere
• Do NOT illustrate how it could be implemented
• NOT a thousand million Ha plantations worldwide
  (3 in NZ) BUT
• a million thousand Ha plantations (3000 in NZ)
  and many other types of BCSM project each
  serving local needs and providing sustainable
  rural development paths
• Capacity building programme to train 100,000
  grassroots entrepreneurs with skills to engage
  commitment of farmers, communities, villages,
  etc., to initiate country-driven projects funded
  by energy consumers seeking sustainable best
  practice bio-fuel supplies
• A framework of bi-lateral bio-energy partnerships
  in which South partners agree to objective
  sustainability criteria in exchange for
  investment, technology transfer and a shared
  hedge against peak oil, shared with North partner
  (e.g. NZ and selected Pacific Island partners).

26
A problem

• Most carbon removals systems involve land use
  change with a large margin of error in
  determining how much C has been removed (OK, you
  can measure how much biochar goes into the soil,
  but what about claimed methane and nitrous oxide
  emissions reductions, and increased soil organic
  matter and increased crop yield..?
• But an emissions cap generates a need for
  rigorous accounting
• History of difficulty in negotiating land use
  change offsets in Kyoto (Art 3.3, forestation)
  leads to complex rules and high transactions
  costs. Hence only 2 LUC projects under the CDM,
  neither forestry.
• A small but beautifully formed teaspoon is not
  much use for bailing CO2 out of the S.S.
  Atmosphere if the ship is sinking a leaky
  bucket is much more use
• So aim to drive policy-desirable BCSM projects
  with minimal trasnsactions cost through bilateral
  bio-energy partnerships
• (Eventually, learning from experience, converging
  on a second and complementary Wellington?
  protocol hanging from Art 3.3).
• Then the psychology is quite different instead
  of a punitive zero sum emissions cap game, such a
  project oriented approach releases
  entrepreneurial energy to get ahead with securing
  market share and competitive edge with the new
  policy oriented technologies

27
HOW ? a leading role for NZ

• Because
• NZ economy is more exposed to accelerating
  climate change impacts than any other Annex 1
  country and needs an effective post-2012 regime
• NZ economy has comparative advantage in the land
  based activities that are central to BCSM, and
  consultancy expertise for relevant technology
  transfer
• And because BCSM serves multiple objectives in
  the Millennium Development Goals and Multilateral
  Environmental Agreements that New Zealand supports

28
Another problem Carbon neutral NZ ?(from Ward,
2007)
29
Royal Soc says 3m Ha low return land in NZ Plant
150,000 Ha p.a. for 22 yrs from 2011 to establish
a 22yr rotation normal forest (better get busy
propagating seedlings next year ! ) Assume zero
growth for 2 years and 8 tons C p.a. per Ha for
20 yrs 30 t CO2 captured per Ha p.a.
Then 30 x 150,000 4.5 Mt CO2 in 2013, 9
Mt CO2 in 2014, 13.5 Mt CO2 in 2015 etc
till 85.5 Mt CO2 in 2031 and 90 Mt
CO2 in 2032 This gives 945Mt CO2 permanently
stocked in the normal plantation forest by
2032 NZ Business As Usual emissions 2010-2030
average 42Mt p.a. 2012-2032 20 yrs x 42 Mt
p.a. 840mt CO2 BINGO carbon neutral NZ
!! Carbon negative if all those other emissions
reductions policies work OK From 2033 there is
an annual crop of 320 tons / Ha x 150,000 Ha
48m tons p.a. Say 24 m tons timber for more
wooden houses, etc And 24m.t. x 16GJ/ton
400PJ bioenergy raw material p.a. for ever
(around half NZ demand for primary
energy) Forestry (commercial) is NOT as has been
stated a trivial tool for mitigation
30

• Then, in domestic policy
• Adopt ambitious aspirational targets
• Aspire towards a rising proportion of
  sustainably produced (not all in NZ) biofuels
• Aspire towards a large proportion of flexifuel
  cars in the new car import mix
• Aspire towards importers of 2nd hand cars to
  adapt them to 10 per cent ethanol
• Aspire towards investment by stationary
  emitters both energy, and land use based in a
  rising area of sustainably managed new
  plantations (not all in NZ)

31
Getting action on these aspirations Given that
the carbon price is already serving the emissions
reduction commitment, we need a second tool to
drive the BCSM programme Make use of the policy
tool that is wasted in the pork-barrel politics
of grandfathering versus auctioning the initial
issue of emissions permits Give the permits
away up to the level of the cap on condition
that recipients surrender Carbon Removals
Vouchers certified independantly (e.g. by
Veritas) in a proportion to the permit issue that
increases over time. Equivalent to Renewable
Portfolio Standards used in the USA (e.g.
California, and proposed in Bills before the
Federal Congress). Also equivalent to recycling
auction revenues but keeps government agencies
out of the front line. Initially grandfathered
to incumbent firms but with an increasing
proportion for new entrants
32

• Forestry is the most powerful technique available
  for carbon removals
• Yet the NZ Government has totally stuffed up its
  dealings with the forestry sector
• Carbon Removal Vouchers put the job in the hands
  of firms at the point of policy obligation
  energy firms and other emitters (livestock
  farmers, Fonterra, meat processing firms?)

33
Through diplomacy Draw attention of Conference
of Parties to the threat of ACC and
responsibilities under Art 3.3 . NZ is doing
this what are you doing? Seek partners for
BBPs Network other industrialized countries to
initiate their own BBPs Work through the G8
Global Bioenergy Partnership towards consensus
on sustainability criteria and eventual
convergence on a second Protocol, complementary
to Kyoto Negotiate emissions reductions
commitments that reflect carbon removals
activity without the nausea of detailed
accounting or demonstrating additionality (i.e.
sustainable best practice is sufficient).
34

• Thank you for coming