Durban Platform Agreement Concludes 2011 Climate Change Talks

Summary.  This year’s UNFCCC conference to negotiate a climate change treaty convened in Durban, South Africa.  On December 11, 2011 the attending parties agreed to the Durban Platform, embodying new climate change objectives.  For the first time, agreement was reached to negotiate a legally binding world-wide treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions.  The objective is to complete the negotiations by 2015, and to implement them by 2020.  Unfortunately, these dates are greatly extended from earlier timelines.  They permit greenhouse gases to be emitted unconstrained and to continue accumulating in the earth’s atmosphere without sanctions in the interim.  Because of the delay, climate scientists are concerned that the global average temperature will increase considerably more than previously hoped.  This would mean severe changes in climate and weather, leading to increased numbers and severity of extreme weather events.

Introduction.  Following up on the 2010 Cancun conference, this year’s meeting under the U. N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) took place in Durban, South Africa from Nov. 28 to Dec. 11 (an unscheduled extension of two days was needed to reach a conclusion).  The principal objective had been to negotiate a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol (see this post), originally concluded in 1997, and which expires at the end of 2012.  It covers only “developed” countries such as the U. S., Europe and Japan, but the U. S. Senate unanimously refused to ratify the pact so that the U. S. in fact has not been bound by its terms.  The Kyoto Protocol went into effect in 2005.  Under its terms, most participating states undertook to reduce man-made greenhouse gas emissions below their emission levels of 1990 by 8%, during the commitment period, 2008-2012. 

Another goal was to negotiate implementation of commitments made last year at the Cancun conference on funding adaptation efforts, verifying greenhouse gas emissions, and reforestation.

The Kyoto Protocol specifically excludes developing countries of the world from its terms. In 1997 developing countries had very low levels of economic activity, and emitted very small amounts of greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide).  Since then, however, the principal developing countries, such as China and India, have expanded dramatically, and have become major contributors to man-made greenhouse gas emissions.  China overtook the U. S. in total amount of emissions around 2009, and now emits the most of any country on earth.

Developing countries have argued that the economically advanced countries had been burning fossil fuels, generating greenhouse gases, for more than a century as they reached their present state of economic well-being.  Developing countries insisted that they too should have the opportunity, if not be granted the right, to use fossil fuels to similar extents in order to develop their economies along similar paths.   That is, they object to being placed under future restrictions affecting their growth because of the past history of greenhouse gas emissions from the industrialized countries of the West.

China’s position, for example, in recent years has been that the terms of any new accord be based on carbon intensity, i.e., the amount of greenhouse gas emitted per unit of economic activity (e.g., gross domestic product), rather than the absolute amount of emissions.  As measured in this way, China’s greenhouse gas intensity has been trending lower year-by-year, although China  still continues pouring more and more absolute amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The “Durban Platform”.  After 2 days of intense negotiations extending beyond the scheduled end of the conference, the parties agreed to the new “Durban Platform” (see References below for sources).  As had been foreseen before the conference began (see this post) agreement on a specific format for an agreement after 2012 to follow the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol was not reached.  Rather, it was agreed that negotiations to reach a formal agreement by 2015, to take effect no later than 2020, would start now.  It is felt that the Durban agreement represents a significant positive departure from earlier agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, and the Cancun Agreements of last year.  A major stipulation of the Platform, to be incorporated into the treaty to be negotiated, is that all parties would be legally bound to abide by emission limits agreed to in the treaty. 

This represents an important positive step over the voluntary efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that were incorporated into the Cancun Agreements (reported here).  It would bring major emitters from the developing world such as China and India, on the one hand, and the U. S., currently not bound by the Kyoto Protocol, on the other, under the same legal framework for reducing emissions and limiting the accumulation of atmospheric greenhouse gases.  This feature is a crucial concession from both sides of the emissions argument granted in reaching the platform agreement.  Indeed, the U. S. special envoy on climate change, Todd Stern, expressed misgivings about undertaking an initiative that would likely encounter opposition in the U. S. Congress.  He stated “This is a very significant package. None of us likes everything in it. Believe me, there is plenty the United States is not thrilled about.”  Yet he understood that the Platform incorporates important new features that would fall apart if all parties did not buy into them.  In this regard, the Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication reports that, based on a nationwide U. S. survey taken in November 2011, 21% strongly support, and 45% somewhat support, signing a treaty that requires the U. S. to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by 90% by the year 2050.

Additionally, the Durban Platform included an agreement to extend the Kyoto Protocol for five years beyond its expiration in 2012.  Currently only the European Union has an emissions reduction “roadmap” already in place (see this post). It has set the goal of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below the levels of 1990 by the year 2020, to increase energy production from renewable sources to 20% and to reduce overall energy use by 20%.  Its ultimate goal is to reduce emissions by at least 80% by 2050.  Its emission rate is already decreasing; in the period from 1990 to 2009, the gross domestic product of the EU grew by 40%, while overall emissions were reduced by 16%.

Financing for Adaptation and Mitigation

The Durban Platform included an agreement to begin assembling the “Green Climate Fund” for these purposes from developed countries and disbursing the funds to developing countries.  The Cancun Agreements committed to achieving a level of $30 billion by 2012, and a long-term goal of providing $100 billion/yr by 2020, to help poorer countries adapt to changes in climate and to promote development of renewable sources of energy. 

Reforestation and Record-Keeping

The Durban Platform also included portions implementing other objectives presented in the Cancun Agreements, namely, protection and expansion of the world’s forests, and the documentation with verification of each nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Efforts Accomplished Leading up to the Durban Conference

Under China’s 12^th Five Year Plan (see this post), the country proposes many programs to reduce its energy intensity (energy use per unit of gross domestic product created).  It is planning a significant expansion of solar generation, albeit beginning from a quite low capacity in place currently.  Nevertheless the absolute amount of greenhouse gas emissions envisioned under the Five Year Plan continue to increase because of the installation of new fossil-fuel driven power generating plants under the Plan.

Australia recently passed a law implementing a cap-and-trade carbon tax on its fossil-fuel driven power and industrial enterprises.  It sets further goals for long-term reduction of emissions, 60-80% by 2050, and promotes development of renewable energy sources.

Conclusion

The Durban Platform embodies, on the one hand, the recognition by developing countries that the past history of emissions by now-industrialized countries cannot be reversed, and on the other hand, the recognition by developed countries that all nations of the world must be brought under a legally binding world-wide climate agreement.  Because of the persistence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see below), and the fact that emissions from one location or region pervade the entire earth, all nations of the world have to accept responsibility for limiting emissions in order to constrain warming of the planet.

The Durban Platform, of course, is only an agreement to negotiate a binding agreement.  The hard part begins now, if the timeline established at Durban is to be met.  Difficult bargaining lies ahead to establish targets for reducing emissions, especially from the countries with the highest emission rates, and the highest rates of growth of their economies and hence their demands for energy.

The delay until 2020 as the year in which the next regime for limiting emissions begins represents a serious setback to efforts to constrain atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases within environmentally acceptable limits.  The Cancun Agreements of 2010 explicitly acknowledged the finding of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that “climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet, and thus requires [it] to be urgently addressed by all Parties”; they must strive to constrain the average global rise in temperature to 2ºC (3.6ºF) or less.  The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere required to achieve this limit is 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO₂) equivalents.  Currently, with the concentration of CO₂ at about 392 ppm, the world-wide average temperature has risen about 0.7ºC (1.3ºF) above the temperature that prevailed before the industrial revolution began.  These numbers are significant because CO₂ persists in the atmosphere for 100 or more years (barring some reabsorption from reforestation), since there is no natural mechanism for shortening its lifetime.

The CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere can be envisioned as a bathtub containing CO₂, with the faucet adding more CO₂ each year, but with a drain that is essentially blocked, preventing CO₂ from draining out.  Each year’s CO₂ emissions raise the level of CO₂ in the bathtub.  It’s the overall level of CO₂ in the atmospheric bathtub that determines the extent of the warming of the global average temperature, not whether any year’s emissions are greater or less than the previous year. 

This is why the nine year delay in implementing significant limitations on emitting greenhouse gases is so critical.  Each year’s delay adds more CO₂ and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, which persist and make limiting the temperature rise within a desirable bound all the more difficult.  Furthermore, each year’s delay means that the countries of the world will continue installing new facilities that burn fossil fuels, and that will continue in their need for fossil fuels for their effective economic lifetime, 30-40 years or more.  Thus today’s actions along “business-as-usual” lines have detrimental consequences that persist for decades.

Under the Durban Platform, growth in emissions can continue unabated without sanctions (save for voluntary efforts to limit them) for the next nine years.  As a result, long-term world-wide average temperature resulting from higher greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will increase more than anticipated earlier.  Consequently many regions of the world will suffer more, and more severe, damages and harms due to extreme weather events brought on by the higher average global temperature.  Climate scientists fear that the delay in implementation of any new agreement will lead us to higher global average temperatures than the 2ºC goal established by the IPCC.  Keith Allott, the head of climate change policy at WWF-UK, stated “we must be under no illusion — the outcome of Durban leaves us with the prospect of being legally bound to a world of 4C warming. This would be catastrophic for people and the natural world….”

 

References

The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/11/global-climate-change-treaty-durban (accessed Dec. 11, 2011).

National Public Radio (US): http://www.npr.org/2011/12/11/143532103/global-deal-reached-in-wee-hours-of-climate-talks (accessed Dec. 11, 2011).

Natural Resources Defense Council, blog:  http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/what_must_global_warming_negot_2.html (accessed Dec. 12, 2011).

Natural Resources Defense Council, blog: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/important_progress_at_global_w.html (accessed Dec. 11, 2011).

Natural Resources Defense Council, blog: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/congrats_australia_law_passed.html (accessed Dec. 12, 2011).

USAToday: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/story/2011-12-10/united-nations-climate-conference/51782606/1 (accessed Dec. 11, 2011).

© 2011 Henry Auer

New Evidence for Warming of the Globe While Policymakers Contend with Each Other in Durban

Labels: Durban conference, Kyoto Protocol, UNFCCC, IPCC, CO2, greenhouse gases, global warming, climate change, emissions, climate models, climate projections

Summary:  The UNFCCC negotiations in Durban are now halfway through the two week schedule for the meeting.  China has proposed terms for agreement, to take effect after 2020, that the developed nations, including the U. S. and the European Union, find unacceptable.

In the face of this contentious situation, there is new evidence for a worsening of the world’s climate.  More CO₂ was emitted during 2010 than ever, since start of the Industrial Revolution.  Based on climate models, a new scientific paper projects that large areas of the Northern Hemisphere will warm by 2ºC (3.6ºF) by 2040, within the lifetimes of many living today.  To the extent this occurs, the consequences would be severe.

Introduction.  This year’s international meeting for negotiating a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol is convened in Durban, South Africa from Nov. 28 to Dec. 9, 2011.  The Kyoto Protocol and all follow-up meetings are under the auspices of the U. N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) .  The Kyoto Protocol (see this post) was finalized in 1997, and is scheduled to expire at the end of 2012.  It covers only “developed” countries, including the U. S., but the U. S. Senate rejected the treaty so that the U. S. in fact is not bound by its terms.  Upon ratification by a sufficient number of subscribers, the Kyoto Protocol went into effect in 2005.  Under its terms, most participating states undertook to reduce man-made greenhouse gas emissions below their emission levels of 1990 by 8%, during the commitment period, 2008-2012.

The Kyoto Protocol excluded developing countries of the world from its terms. At that time developing countries had very low levels of economic activity, and emitted very small amounts of greenhouse gases (principally carbon dioxide).  Since then, however, the principal developing countries, such as China and India, have expanded dramatically, and have become major contributors to man-made greenhouse gas emissions.  China overtook the U. S. in total amount of emissions around 2009, and now emits the most of any country on earth.

The Durban Conference.  Over the years that annual meetings have been held under the UNFCCC, the objective had been to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, to take effect as soon as Kyoto itself terminated.  It is now clear that this will not be accomplished (see this recent post).  Reuters reports on 5 December 2011 (accessed December 5, 2011) that, after the first week of negotiations at the Durban conference, the highest emitters of greenhouse gases, China, India and the U. S., cannot agree on the critical features of a new arrangement. 

In the past, China’s position was that the terms of any new accord be based on carbon intensity, i.e., the amount of greenhouse gas emitted per unit of economic activity (e.g., gross domestic product), rather than the absolute amount of emissions.  As measured in this way, China’s greenhouse gas intensity was trending lower year-by-year, while still pouring more and more absolute amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  The Chinese, and other developing countries, feel they should not be bound by limits to be placed on absolute amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, as this would restrict them from achieving a higher standard of living.  Furthermore, developing countries object to being placed under future restrictions because of the past history of greenhouse gas emissions from the industrialized countries of the West.

Reuters reports that in recent days at Durban, China has expressed willingness to engage in a legally-binding arrangement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to take effect in 2020.  But, the agency reports, the Chinese failed to confirm this in a subsequent news conference, and has imposed other conditions.  First, it would require that other major emitters of greenhouse gases likewise be bound by any accord.  Second, it insists that funding for a Green Climate Fund, agreed to at last year’s meeting in Cancun, Mexico, be in place, at the agreed level of $100 billion per year by 2020, to help impoverished and other developing countries adapt to the changes being wrought by warming of the planet. 

According to Reuters, the U. S. special envoy for climate change, Todd Stern, characterized China’s conditions as not acceptable.  He said “all the major players are going to have to be in with obligations and commitments that have the same legal force.  That means no conditionality, no condition of receiving the financing….”  The Climate Commissioner of the European Union (EU), Connie Hedegaard, likewise was skeptical, saying “The question is if China will be legally-bound. That would be interesting…."  The EU is already embarked on an emissions reduction roadmap, with the goal of reducing man-made greenhouse gas emission by at least 80% by 2050 (see this earlier post).

At this time, funding of the Green Climate Fund could also be problematic in view of the poor state of the global economy.  In setting this funding as a condition for going forward, it is felt that China may be setting up a situation that may make ultimately reaching an agreement more difficult.

India is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases among developing countries, as it, too, proceeds rapidly on a path of economic growth.  Its Environment Minister, Jayanthi Natarajan, insisted on December 5, 2011 on “equity” among nations in order to reach a climate agreement, according to IBNLive (accessed December 5, 2011).  This consideration mirrors that of China.  Sunita Narain, India's leading environmentalist, stressed that the developed countries of the world should bear the burden of reducing, rather than continuing to increase, their carbon emissions.

Worsening State of the Warming of the Planet

In the face of the contentious atmosphere facing negotiators at Durban, recent findings show that the climate continues to develop worsening patterns of greenhouse gas effects.  The New York Times reports on December 4, 2011 (accessed December 5, 2011) that the rate of accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere rose 5.9% during 2010, citing the Global Carbon Project, an international group of climate scientists.  According to them, the incremental burden of greenhouse gases added in 2010 was the largest since the start of the industrial revolution in the middle of the nineteenth century.  Burning of fossil fuels for energy and for manufacture of cement are the principal man-made sources of greenhouse gases, and a majority now is emitted by developing countries such as China and India.  The growing rate of greenhouses gas emissions is worrisome to scientists, since these trends suggest it will be ever harder to limit the warming of the planet to levels that do not cause severe harm to the earth’s environment.

Manoj Joshi and coworkers carried out regional projections on the surface of the earth of when the regional temperature might be expected to reach 2ºC (3.6ºF) higher than the level that prevailed before the start of the industrial revolution (Nature Climate Change 1, 407–412 (2011); published online October 23, 2011).  Although many climate projections predict that the world-wide average temperature could increase by 2ºC by about 2060, this work finds that many regions across the Northern Hemisphere could reach that threshold by as early as 2040, well within the lifetimes of many living right now (see the graphic below).

As colors change from bright red to blue, the year predicted for the regional temperature to increase by 2ºC grows further distant from the present, from 2010 to 2100.

Source:  © 2011 Nature Publishing Group  http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n8/full/nclimate1261.html

It is seen above that many regions of the Northern Hemisphere are foreseen to warm by 2ºC by 2030 (Siberia, Saharan Africa), and others by 2040 (Europe, southern Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, Canada and Alaska).

Conclusion

Scientific evidence is growing that human actions lead to abnormally high accumulations of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere.  The consequences of the resulting warming of the earth’s temperature are likely to be severe and dire.  Greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere pervade the entire planet; although emitted locally, they persist in the atmosphere and affect the globe worldwide.  In the face of this growing danger, the policy makers of the world’s nations have to overcome national interests and coalesce about a solution that embraces all nations and benefits us all.

© 2011 Henry Auer

Worldwide Emissions of CO2: Background for the Durban Conference

Summary.  Energy use by developing countries of the world increased dramatically between 1972 and 2008.  During this period energy use by the developed countries increased at a far lower rate. 

The U. S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), in recent reports, project energy use by developing countries to continue to grow at very high rates through 2035, while use by the developed countries is projected to grow much more weakly, in the absence of new climate policies to limit energy use.  In an IEA scenario intended to keep atmospheric CO₂ concentration below 450 parts per million, most CO₂ emission is committed due to facilities already in service; only the few facilities to be placed in service are available to mitigate CO₂ emission.  The IEA warns that effective policies to limit energy use and CO₂ emission should be operating by 2017 in order to avoid emergency expenditures on a much larger scale for infrastructure at a later date.

At the time of this writing, about 1 week before the 2011 U. N. Durban conference on climate change, a news report states that major rich countries of the world have determined that a new climate agreement cannot be negotiated and implemented any sooner than about 2020.

Rich nations delay climate agreement.  On Nov. 20, 2011, the Guardian (UK) published a report (accessed Nov. 21, 2011) that the richest countries of the world have abandoned the goal of negotiating a climate change treaty that would have gone into effect in the present decade.   (This news item appeared just as this writer was completing his draft of this post.)  This news emerges just one week before the worldwide UNFCCC meeting is scheduled to begin in Durban, South Africa.  The report states that the UK, European Union, Japan, U.S. and other rich nations, with the acceptance of the UN, all agree to delay a treaty.  The new timeline envisions a treaty finalized by 2016, entering into force in 2020.  This delay represents a serious setback for mitigation efforts, having serious effects, or worse, on vulnerable regions and populations across the globe.

Bloomberg BusinessWeek reports that the U. S. will require stringent, reciprocal terms for all emitters including China for any treaty taking effect after 2020.  One objective at the Durban conference will be to extend the Kyoto Protocol, which does not include the U. S. or China, to 2020.  Another goal is to proceed to implement (nonbinding) commitments made last year at the Cancun conference.

Introduction. Climate scientists the world over (working under the United Nations as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)) have reached a consensus that the long-term average of the temperature of the earth has increased since the start of the industrial revolution due to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases. The IPCC further predicts that the earth’s average temperature will continue to increase in this century, leading to a variety of serious, potentially harmful, extreme weather and climate events.

Agreements reached at the 2010 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Cancun, Mexico, drew from the IPCC.  The agreements acknowledged that “climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet, and thus [must] be urgently addressed by all [194] Parties [to the UNFCCC]”, and that the parties must strive to constrain the average global rise in temperature to 2ºC (3.6ºF) or less.

The previous post on this blog summarized the present status of actions taken since the conclusion of the Cancun conference, and outlined some outstanding policy issues.  In this post we expand on prior worldwide greenhouse gas emissions history, and examine expected future emissions in considerable detail.  This background establishes the major concerns affecting negotiations on the policies directed toward mitigation of the increased global average temperature.

Selected historical data from the International Energy Agency (IEA). The following graphic illustrates historical data for fuel-derived energy in Asia, excluding China but including India, from 1972 to 2008.  The overall growth over this period was about 340%.

Mtoe: million tonnes of oil equivalent.  From bottom to top the bands are: purple, coal and peat; blue, oil; green, gas; yellow, nuclear energy; navy blue, hydroelectric energy; orange, combined renewables and waste fill fuels; and red, combined geothermal, solar and wind energy.

Source: IEA; http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/12TPES.pdf

The corresponding graphic for China is shown below.  Two features distinguish 

                         Source: IEA

this diagram from the one above for Asia excluding China.  First, the vertical scales show that China consumes much more energy than all the rest of Asia.  Second, there is a distinct upward break in China’s energy usage at about 2001, which originates entirely from coal.  China vastly expanded its coal-based electricity generating capacity over the last decade, with about 80% of its electricity generated from coal-fired plants.  In the 29 years from 1972 to 2001, energy supply increased about 180%, while in the short period from 2001 to 2008 the energy use grew steeply, by about 90%.

In contrast to the rapidly developing countries of Asia, the total energy supply for the developed countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD; includes, for example, the U. S., Europe, Japan and Australia) grew much more slowly, as seen in the graphic below. 

                                    Source: IEA; http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/28TPES.pdf

In these countries the principal fuel is oil rather than coal.  The increase over the entire period shown is about 50%.  The energy supplied is much larger than the combined supply for all of Asia in the first two graphics.

Projected energy use and emission of CO₂. 

The U. S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) issued its report, International Energy Outlook 2011  (designated IEO 2011 here), on Sept. 19, 2011.  The report presents historical worldwide energy usage data to 2008 and forecasts worldwide energy usage from 2008 through 2035.  The projections in the graphics below use the IEO 2011 Reference case scenario, which assumes that no new national or international policies govern energy use beyond those in place in 2011.

The first graphic illustrates historical (up to 2008) and projected (after 2008) total energy consumption worldwide, showing yearly consumption for OECD and non-OECD countries of the world.  Two factors are important in this and the next following graphic.  First, since most energy will continue to be derived from

Historical (1990 to 2008) and projected (2015-2035) annual worldwide consumption of energy, using the Reference scenario.  Btu, British thermal unit (the heat required to increase the temperature of 1 pound of water by 1ºF). Source: EIA; http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/howard_09192011.pdf

fossil fuels during the projected period, the sharp rise in total worldwide energy use each year translates to a corresponding increase in annual emission of CO₂.  Second, since both of these graphics present data for annual energy use, they likewise represent the corresponding annual rate of emission of CO₂. Energy use by the non-OECD countries surpassed that of the OECD countries at about 2006.  The projected growth in energy use by the non-OECD (developing) countries, including China and India, is much higher, about 90% from 2008 to 2035, than the corresponding growth by the OECD (developed) countries, about 18%.

A complementary view of the same information is shown in the bar graph below.  As stated in the caption, China and India, which are included

Historical (1990 to 2008) and projected (2015-2035) annual worldwide energy consumption for: pale green, non-OECD (developing) countries of Asia; dark green, other non-OECD (developing) countries; blue, OECD (developed) countries, for the years shown.

Source: EIA; http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/howard_09192011.pdf

in the pale green bars for non-OECD Asia, are responsible for fully half of the increase in the world’s energy use. Non-OECD Asian countries are projected to increase their energy use by about 110% between 2008 and 2035, in the Reference case.  The use of energy by the other non-OECD countries grows slightly less strongly over this time, and the OECD countries’ use of energy grows by only 10%.

EIA projects that in 2035 under the Reference Scenario, 80% of the world’s energy demand remains filled by fossil fuels.  Renewable sources of energy grow by 2.8% per year, fulfilling about 15% of energy demand by 2035.  Thus, as fuel use increases between 2008 and 2035, the corresponding annual rate of emission of the greenhouse gas CO₂ likewise increases, under the Reference scenario.  This is broken down in the graphic below.

Annual emissions of CO₂ historically up to 2008, and projected for decadic years between 2015 and 2035, in billions of metric tons of CO₂ released. Non-OECD Asiatic countries (developing countries including China and India; pale green), non-Asiatic, non-OECD countries (other developing countries; dark green), and OECD countries (developed countries; blue).

Source: EIA; http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/howard_09192011.pdf

As the caption shows, annual CO₂ emissions for Asian developing countries increase by about 75% between 2008 and 2035.  The annual rates for the other two categories increase much more slowly.

In the Reference scenario annual emissions of CO₂ are projected to grow drastically between 2008 and 2035.  Each year’s emissions are added to the atmospheric CO₂ content already present.  Thus each succeeding year will see the addition of larger and larger amounts of CO₂ to the atmosphere, worsening the increase in the long-term global average temperature we are already experiencing.

The International Energy Agency published its World Energy Outlook 2011 (WEO 2011) on Nov. 9, 2011.  It includes projections based on three scenarios.  The Current Policy Scenario (CPS) assumes no additional emissions policies implemented beyond those already in place in 2011.  This inaction is projected to lead to an increase in long-term global average temperature of 6ºC (10.8ºF) by 2035.  The intermediate New Policies Scenario includes policies intended to reduce emissions, but not by enough to stabilize atmospheric CO₂ levels. It is projected to lead to an increase in long-term global average temperature of 3.5ºC (6.3ºF).  The 450 Policy Scenario (450 PS) implements strict controls on new emissions that are intended to stabilize the atmospheric CO₂ concentration at 450 parts per million; this is the level deemed adequate to keep the increase in long-term global average temperature within 2ºC (3.6ºF) above the pre-industrial level.

The IEA graphic below compares projections of Total Primary Energy Sources by global regions for two scenarios, CPS and 450 PS. It is seen that, compared to

Comparison of total world energy use under the CPS and the 450 PS. Historical data for 1990 and 2008, and projected results under the two policies for 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2035.  Blue: OECD+ (OECD countries plus others in the European Union; developed countries); Green: OME, other major economies (Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russian Federation and Middle East; developing countries); Purple: OC, other countries(world excluding OECD+ and OME countries; developing countries); Orange: Intl. bunkers, international air and marine transportation.

Source: IEA, 2011 Key World Energy Statistics; http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2011/key_world_energy_stats.pdf

current policies, adopting the stringent 450 Policy Scenario results in an overall projected decrease of 22% in total energy needed by 2035.  The largest reduction in energy use is from the large economies of the developing world (OME), about 23%; followed by reductions in energy use by other developing countries (OC), about 17%, and reductions by OECD+ (developed countries) of about 13%.

The IEA warned in WEO 2011, according to its press release, that the world will enter “an insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy system” unless it implements strong new policies to lower future emissions of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases.  The report points out that there is still time to act, but the time for implementing new policies is short.  Recent developments that signal  this urgency include the Fukushima nuclear accident which has deflated enthusiasm for nuclear energy, turmoil in the Middle East which creates instability in oil supplies and costs, and a strong increase in energy demand in 2010 which led to record high emissions of CO₂.

Fatih Birol, IEA’s Chief Economist, points out that as time passes without significant action to mitigate emissions, the world is becoming “locked in” to a high-carbon energy infrastructure.  Up to the point of changing policy, all preexisting energy-producing and –consuming infrastructure commits the world to continuing its carbon-inefficient energy economy.  This is illustrated in the following graphic, considering that 2010 is the year of commitment.  

Lock-in of annual CO₂ emissions from energy-producing and energy-consuming physical installations as of 2010, shown in the various SOLID colors.  Projected additional annual emissions from facilities newly installed after 2010, allowable under the 450 Policy Scenario, are shown in the HATCHED GREEN area at the top of the diagram.

Source: IEA, World Energy Outlook 2011; http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2011/key_graphs.pdf

This notion had been described earlier in a publication by Davis and coworkers in 2010, reported in an earlier post on this blog.  They pointed out that these physical installations have long service lifetimes, and that they continue to emit CO₂ annually according to their originally designed (inefficient) operating specifications.

In the graphic above emissions from committed infrastructure are projected to decrease year by year as the various facilities age and are removed from service.  Significantly, the graphic illustrates the maneuvering leeway in annual CO₂ emissions that are consistent with the 450 Policy Scenario, which is intended to ensure that the long-term average increase in global temperature is constrained to 2ºC (3.6ºF).  The IEA press release states

“Four-fifths of the total energy-related CO2 emissions permitted to 2035 in the 450 Scenario are already locked-in by existing capital stock…. Without further action by 2017, the energy-related infrastructure then in place would generate all the CO2 emissions allowed in the 450 Scenario up to 2035. Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.”

The leeway emissions are the only portions of the world’s energy economy available for manipulation to reduce overall CO₂ emissions.  

Discussion

Use of fossil fuels accelerated radically among developing nations such as China and India between 1972 and 2008, while use by developed nations, such as those in the OECD, rose much more slowly. 

In the absence of any change from current climate policies, the U. S. EIA envisions major increases in the use of fossil fuels among non-OECD nations, with more gradual increases among OECD countries, by 2035.  China and India are expected to be responsible for about half of the increase in energy use worldwide.  This results in major increases in emission of CO₂.  Developing countries in Asia, including China and India, would account for 75% of the increased emission of CO₂.

Generally similar conclusions are reached by the IEA.  Their 450 Policy Scenario, if implemented now, would lead to a decrease in annual energy usage by about 22% by 2035, referenced to the Current Policy Scenario.

The IEA warns that, in view of the large emissions burden imposed by existing energy infrastructure, a policy reflecting the objectives of the 450 Policy Scenario has to be agreed to by the world’s nations, and be implemented by 2017 in order to avoid much higher infrastructure expenditures in an emergency environment at a later time.

This writer would have concluded this post by urging the world’s nations to strive to finalize a climate agreement at the upcoming UNFCCC in Durban at the earliest opportunity.  However, the news report from the Guardian that many developed countries have delayed reaching such an agreement now precludes such a statement.  It is unfortunate that the nations of the world cannot come together to act in their own interests, and the interests of all peoples of the world, to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

© 2011 Henry Auer