Archive for the ‘Carbon price’ Category

Business and carbon pricing

At the UN Climate Summit last September, the World Bank and others put the carbon pricing – or perhaps more correctly carbon valuation – discussion squarely back on the agenda, first with a Statement on Carbon Pricing signed by over 1000 companies and 70 governments and then with a series of side events and meetings which also carried through to COP20 in Lima. The World Bank is now building on their initiative throughout 2015 as we head towards COP21 in Paris.

One important aspect of the initiative is the role of business and the way in which companies handle the carbon pricing (carbon valuation) agenda internally. This stems from another part of the World Bank initiative which was initially launched by the UN Global Compact, the Business Leadership Criteria on Carbon Pricing. The criteria are designed to encourage companies to incorporate an internal carbon price (value) within the business, advocate for  carbon value generally and communicate on progress. The first of these has led to some interesting discussions in various forums, with a range of views emerging as to what an internal carbon price (value) does and how it is applied.

Some observers have concluded that an internal approach operates as a true proxy cost of carbon emissions within the business that is applying it, such that the business behaves as if it were subjected to an external carbon tax operating at the same price. This would be done in the absence of such an external price driver, therefore acting as a stand-in for the lack of government action. To some extent, wishful thinking is operating here, with some believing that internal carbon pricing can lead to widespread emission reductions as a major business led initiative. But this is not what is happening or what is meant by an internal carbon price.

Rather, the internal “carbon price”, also referred to as a “shadow carbon price”, “carbon price premise” or “carbon screening value” is normally a mechanism used to manage the future regulatory risk that parts of the company or a future project may be exposed to. For example, if a certain investment is to be made, that investment is then tested against a variety of future conditions, which could include an eventual cost incurred by the expected emissions of carbon dioxide. Although the project may not immediately be exposed to such a price, the development of climate legislation over the life of the project may create such an exposure, which in turn could threaten the future viability of the asset. The application of a screening value applied when the investment proposal is being assessed allows the investor to reconsider the project, change the scope, modify the design or simply accept the level of risk and proceed.

The practice of applying an internal carbon price (value) in this manner is one of many steps that a company may take as it prepares for a world in which a real cost on carbon emissions becomes an external reality. The World Bank has developed a series of case studies on these preparatory measures and these have been published very recently in a report titled “Preparing for Carbon Pricing, Case Studies from Company Experience: Royal Dutch Shell, Rio Tinto, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company”. The report was prepared by the Washington based Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) under the auspices of the Partnership for Market Readiness, a World Bank initiative.

Preparing for carbon pricing

These case studies illustrate the benefits of incorporating climate change policies into corporate strategies; analyzing risks and opportunities in an environment of new public policies; and engaging effectively with relevant stakeholders—including governments. The case studies also show how carbon assets are traded and what systems are being constructed to monitor, report, and verify company level GHG emissions.

Fifty shades of grey?

The tension was building throughout the week, but finally just before Valentine’s Day weekend the negotiators in Geneva completed the first draft of a Paris negotiating text and released it at the end of the eighth part of the second session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP). Contained within this 86 page document, replete with perhaps 400 or so carefully worded options to select from and 1,234 square brackets, is supposedly the necessary political recipe for addressing the climate issue over the coming decades. Or were we presented with the greyness of diplomacy and compromise, which may be the best that can be managed for now, but doesn’t incorporate the necessary toolkit to drive down emissions in the decades to come?

The text certainly contains sufficient versions of one important overarching requirement; that being the need to reach net zero emissions at some point in the future. In the context of the level of greenhouse gas emissions, the word zero appears in the text seven times, from a non-specific reference of “net zero greenhouse gas emissions in line with the ultimate objective of the Convention“, to the highly ambitious proposal for “zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases in the period 2060–2080“. I discussed this at some length in my previous post, with the conclusion that an end of the century net zero emissions objective is perhaps achievable, but much earlier than this looks unlikely. Even a timeframe of 85 years will require enormous effort, including extensive use of carbon pricing and the widespread deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS). This view received quite a number of comments on The Energy Collective. My post wasn’t to argue that nothing would happen or that no progress could be made, but to point out the difficulty of rapidly slowing down and turning a system that has such enormous momentum. All of the suggested technologies that filled the comments section will almost certainly play a role, but the challenge is the time it takes to do all this. My own experience in the energy industry tells me the timeframe is decades, not years. In my view, the text now taking us forward to Paris doesn’t present the necessary conditions for a strong response, but it is only part of the story and much more will be revealed over the coming weeks and months as the INDCs (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) are also published. This text seems to be more about achieving some diplomatic harmony around the climate issue and at least trying to get everyone marching to the same tune.

But returning to the text itself, the other area that needs considerable support and diplomatic effort is seeing a carbon price emerge within the global energy system. The phrase “carbon pricing” gets two mentions in the 86 pages of text, but there are many options presented on the “use of markets”. To some extent, “markets” is UNFCCC code for a carbon price, but not in all cases. It can also mean the further development of market mechanisms (such as the CDM) and the ability for developing countries to sell credits from these mechanisms to developed countries as a means of securing clean energy investment. While many variations around this theme are presented, there is no proposed language in the current text that really sets out to establish a full global carbon pricing regime – although Option 4 on page 17 perhaps comes closest by trying to resurrect something that operates along the lines of the Kyoto Protocol. A global carbon market seems to be a step too far for most countries at the moment, even though it is an essential part of the solution set. Rather, a proxy based approach is being proposed through multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, which hopes to see a global market develop over time through the linkage of various national and sub-national emissions management approaches and the interchange of the domestic units, quotas and allowances on which they are based. In the World Bank model, this would be governed by an exchange rate mechanism. This week also saw the UK House of Commons Energy & Climate Change Committee launch a report on the linking of emissions trading systems. The report concluded that;

Any agreement reached at the UNFCCC COP 21 in Paris at the end of 2015 should promote the use of carbon markets and facilitate the future linking of emissions trading systems.

One final reality check on the paris text is that nowhere in the 86 pages is CCS mentioned. While the UNFCCC is always very careful about featuring a specific technology and understandably so, the clear advice from the IPCC 5th Assessment Report was that 2°C cannot be reached without it, at least not within reasonable cost bounds. The IPCC does get mentioned 23 times.

In contrast with the events in Geneva, BP published their Energy Outlook 2035 which showed both overall energy demand and demand for fossil fuels rising in the outlook period (see chart; source: BP). The corresponding rise in energy system emissions is also given, reaching some 40 billion tonnes per annum by 2035. This is in contrast to the IEA 450 Scenario which argues for a fall in emissions to nearly 20 billion tonnes by 2035. However, the outlook does include a rising carbon price through to 2035, when it reaches some $40 per tonne CO2. Judging from the data presented, the main impact of this seems to be to bring coal growth to a near halt, but that’s all. The BP analysis presents a very different outlook to the one we need to stay within the 2°C threshold agreed by governments at the Cancun COP back in 2010. It also argues for a clear and robust outcome from Paris, although the current text doesn’t point in that direction.

BP Demand to 2035

BP Emissions to 2035

What can really be done by 2050?

The calls for action are becoming louder and bolder as the weeks continue to countdown towards COP21 in Paris. Perhaps none have been as bold as the recent call by The B Team for governments to commit to a global goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and to embed this in the agreement to be signed at COP21 in Paris.

The B Team is a high profile group of business and civil society leaders, counting amongst its number Richard Branson (Virgin Group of Companies), Paul Polman (CEO of Unilever) and Arianna Huffington (Huffington Post). The team is not just looking at climate change, but the even larger challenge of doing business in the 21st Century; shifting from Plan A which requires business to focus on profit alone, to Plan B which encompasses a more holistic set of objectives around financial performance, sustainability and business as a force for good to help solve challenging social and environmental goals. It is perhaps the next big step forward in what was originally termed “sustainable development”.

Without wanting to question the broader motives of The B Team, I do challenge their view that the climate issue can be resolved in just 35 years. For some this may sound like a long time, but it is the span of just one career. In fact it is the span of my career in the oil and gas industry from when I started work in Geelong Refinery in Australia in 1980. At least in one industry today, IT, everything has changed in that time, but that is not true elsewhere. In 1980 there were no personal computers in Geelong Refinery; today it probably can’t run without them, although the distillers, crackers and oil movement facilities being run by them have hardly changed and in many instances are precisely the same pieces of equipment that were running in 1980. In almost every other industry, the shift has been gradual, perhaps because of the installed base which of course wasn’t an issue for personal computing and mobile telephony. I suspect that this is true in Mr Polman’s own industry (household products) and it is certainly true in Mr Branson’s. In 1980 I flew on my first trip to London on a 747 and today I am in San Francisco, having arrived here on a 747, albeit a slightly longer, more sophisticated, efficient and larger capacity one than the 1980 model, but still a 747 burning many tons of jet fuel to get here. During his time in office which started with the election in 1980, Ronald Reagan replaced the existing Air Force One 707 with a 747 which still flies today but which Mr Obama has just announced will be replaced with a 747-8. Those planes will likely fly for some 30 years, as will all the other planes being built today, with many just entering the beginning of their production runs (787, A350, A380), rather than heading towards the end as we might be with the 747 series. There are also no serious plans for the jet engine to run on anything other than hydrocarbons for the foreseeable future (i.e. 50+ years) and even the attempts to manufacture bio-hydrocarbon jet fuels are still in their commercial infancy.

So why would we think that everything can be different in just 35 years? There is no doubt that to quickly and decisively solve the climate issue and have a better than even chance of keeping the surface temperature rise below 2°C that we need to do this, but that doesn’t mean we can. To start with, there has to be tremendous political will to do so and to be fair, this is clearly what The B Team is trying to foster by making the call. But political will isn’t enough to turn over the installed industrial capacity that we rely on today, let alone replace it with a set of technologies that in some instances don’t exist. The development and deployment of radical new technologies takes decades, with the energy industry able to make that change at about half the rate of the IT industry. Even the latter has needed nearly 50 years to invent (ARPANET in 1969) and extensively deploy the internet.

We are now seeing real progress in the sale of electric cars, but even there the numbers don’t stack up. To completely outpace conventional vehicle manufacture and replace the entire legacy stock of on-road vehicles will take about 50 years, assuming a ramp up of global electric car production of at least 20% p.a. every year until all internal combustion engine manufacturing is phased out. While this might be conceivable for personal transport, the progress on finding an alternative for heavy transport, including ships, is slow.

For medium to heavy industry that relies almost completely on hydrocarbon fuels for high temperature operations in particular, there are no easy alternatives. Electricity could be an option in some instances, but almost all operations today choose coal or natural gas. For smelting, coal is essential as it provides the carbon to act as a reducing agent for the chemical conversion of the ore into a pure metal.

Perhaps the area in which rapid progress will be seen is electricity generation, where a whole range of zero emission technologies exist. These include wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, nuclear and carbon capture and storage. But even with complete success in this one area, we shouldn’t forget that electricity is less than 20% of the current global final energy mix. This will surely rise, but it is unlikely to reach 100% in 35 years given that it has only moved from 11% to 18% the last 35 years.

Shell’s own New Lens Scenarios show that significant progress can be made between now and 2050, but not in terms of a massive reduction in emissions, although that process is clearly underway in the Mountains Scenario by then (see below). Rather, the time to 2050 is largely filled with the early deployment of a range of new energy technologies, which sets the scene for rapid reductions to net-zero emissions over the period 2050-2100. Another critical development for the near-term is a complete global policy framework for carbon pricing. Even assuming big steps are made between now and Paris in even getting this into the agreement, the time for implementation is a factor that must be recognised. With a fast start in Paris, the earliest possible date is 2020 in that this is when the global agreement kicks in, but even the EU ETS took 8 years between initial design and full operation, similarly the CDM alone took over 10 years to fully institutionalize. Expanding full carbon pricing globally in the same period is challenging to say the least.

NLS Emissions to 2100

The aspiration of the B Team is laudable, but not really practical. The Paris agreement should certainly be geared around an end-goal of net-zero emissions but the realistic, albeit still aggressive, time span for this is 80+ years, not 35 years.

 

Talking about climate change

  • Comments Off

From the rarefied atmosphere of the Swiss Alps to a small London theatre, there has been a lot said about climate change over the last couple of weeks.

The World Economic Forum held its annual retreat at Davos, with climate change high on the agenda. Much of the discussion was about building additional momentum towards a UNFCCC led agreement in Paris at the end of this year. Business leaders, politicians and other prominent people from civil society reiterated the need for a strong outcome. World Bank President Jim Yong Kim was more specific and called on leaders to “break out of the small steps of business as usual and provide that structure, first and foremost by putting a price on carbon”. The call for more emphasis on carbon pricing has been a strong World Bank theme for a year now.

While there was good talk emanating from Davos, in Brussels the scene was very different. The EU Parliament ITRE Committee (Industry, Research and Energy) was apparently not listening to the calls from Davos and instead ended up with “no opinion” on the important proposals required to support the carbon price delivered by the EU ETS, through the early implementation of the proposed Market Stability Reserve (MSR). The “no opinion” outcome was the result of not supporting the need to start the MSR early and use the 900 million backloaded allowances as a first fill, but then rejecting an alternative proposal on how the MSR should be taken forward. The only silver lining in this otherwise dim cloud is that the debate is about the proposed structure of the MSR, rather than whether an MSR should be present at all. Nevertheless, it is disappointing that some industry and business groups in Brussels did not seem aligned with the recognition that many of their member CEOs were giving to the carbon pricing discussion in Davos just a few hundred miles away.  The proposals for the MSR now have to go to the important ENVI (Environment) Committee in Parliament as well as to the Member States, where there is cause for optimism that they will adopt a position in favour of a stronger MSR reform.

One business group did give very strong support to the MSR proposals, the UK and EU based Corporate Leaders Group (CLG). This organisation started its life 10 years ago, which means it is also celebrating a landmark birthday along with the EU ETS. The CLG sits under the Cambridge University Institute for Sustainability Leadership, with the Prince of Wales as its patron. This is a group that has been talking about the need for a robust carbon price in the EU for many years and backing that talk up with strong advocacy in Brussels and various Member State capitals. Birthday celebrations were held in London to mark the occasion, with the Prince of Wales in attendance. The CLG was a step ahead of the World Bank with its own Carbon Price Communique back in 2012. While the World Bank effort has garnered greater support than the original CLG effort, it is worthy of recognition that the current push for this important instrument had its roots in the business community.

Despite the important talk in Brussels and Davos, the real talk on climate change came from a small theatre in Sloan Square, London. Climate change might seem like an odd subject for the London theatre scene, but nevertheless there it was. Chris Rapley, former head of the British Antarctic Survey, more recently the head of the Science Museum and now Professor of Climate Science at University College London, staged an engaging one man show to talk about the climate. This wasn’t the Inconvenient Truth with its high profile narrator and 200 odd PowerPoint slides, but more a fireside chat about paleo-history, the atmosphere, trace gases and the global heat balance. Here was a man who had spent the majority of his life studying this issue, from field measurements in Antarctica to computer analysis of satellite observations and his message was very clear; we are in trouble. There was no alarm, no hysteria and no predictions of an apocalypse, but just a softly spoken physicist explaining his job and describing with great clarity what he had learned over the course of some forty years of hard work. The audience was engrossed by the monologue and the gently changing backdrop of graphs and charts that seemed to envelop the speaker.

Chris Rapley 2071

This production is a unique approach to communicating the climate change issue to a new audience. It is small in scale, but it will get people thinking about the subject and hopefully discussing it in less partisan terms. The show, 2071, has now completed a second short run in London but may be destined for some other venues. I would highly recommend it.

Ten years of the EU ETS

This month the EU Emissions Trading System is ten years old – which in itself is quite an achievement as there were those at the start who said it wouldn’t last and any number of people over the years who have claimed that it doesn’t work, is broken and hasn’t delivered. Yet it stays with us, continues to be the bedrock of the EU policy framework to manage CO2 emissions and despite issues along the way, is now likely to receive a significant overhaul in time for 2020 when a new global deal on climate change should kick-in.

Check-under-the-hood

The ETS started life as a relatively short draft Directive (EU ETS Draft Directive 2001) back in 2001 and has expanded since then with appendages such as the linkage Directive and the 2008 Energy and Climate package (e.g. NER300) and will likely expand again with the proposed addition of the Market Stability Reserve. But the simple concept of a finite and declining pool of allowances being allocated, traded and then surrendered as CO2 is emitted has remained and despite various other issues over the years the ETS has done this consistently and almost faultlessly year in and year out. The mechanics of the system have never been a problem.

The one issue that has plagued the ETS has been the price – from some arguing it was too high at the start to many now concerned (including me) that the surplus of allowances and consequent low price has stopped all direct investment in emission reduction projects.

10 Years of the EU ETS

With investment as a goal, the heyday of the system was 2007-2008 when Phase II was underway and confidence was rising that a long term carbon price signal had emerged in Europe to guide decarbonisation efforts going forward. There was plenty of evidence that this was really the case. Fuel switching to gas was gathering pace, innovative projects were being considered in many industrial facilities and when the European Parliament agreed the NER300, some 20 CCS projects were initially tabled with the Commission for consideration. After all, at a CO2 price of ~€30 that meant ~€9 billion  of project funding and sufficient support for the operational cost of CCS. But as the price fell to a low of <€4 in April / May 2013, everything evaporated. The ETS became more of a compliance formality than an investment driver.

Last week I participated in a lunchtime seminar on the Future of the ETS held within the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Unlike some lunchtime events I have attended over the years, this one was packed, with standing room only. There is real and genuine interest amongst many MEPs to reform this instrument and return the CO2 price to its rightful position as the key market signal to drive change in the energy system. After all, there are plenty of good reasons to do this, starting with the most important reason of all – it’s the most economically effective way of doing the job.

The seminar focussed primarily on the proposed Market Stability Reserve (MSR), which is an intended pool of allowances that can be drawn on in the event of excessive tightness in the allowance supply / demand balance or added to when a surplus prevails. The conceptual design of this mechanism now seems to be largely agreed, but the operating parameters are still being negotiated between Member States. Most importantly is the question of a “first fill” of allowances and the intended start date of the process. Given the significant surplus that now exists, it makes sense to do the “first fill” with the 900 million allowances withheld from auctioning under the backloading initiative and to start the MSR much earlier than 2021 (i.e. 2017) so that it can continue to absorb the current overhang.

Recalibrating the EU ETS and having it fit for purpose as other countries implement their UNFCCC INDCs (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) to also reduce emissions will offer the EU a true competitive advantage in a challenging global economy. It will allow the EU to achieve similar or even greater reductions than others, but at lower cost.

Carbon pricing in 2014

While there was a great deal of focus throughout 2014 on the road to Paris and the UNFCCC process that is taking us all there, the real developments of the year were around carbon pricing. But it wasn’t all smooth sailing.

From my own perspective, going through the discipline of producing an e-book on the climate issue helped me think through the real rationale for a carbon price. I had always looked at it through the “Pigouvian Tax” lens (a pricing correction for a negative externality), which is certainly a good one, but it doesn’t really frame the issue in terms of resource extraction economics and the stock nature of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. My slightly different take on all this is explained in my book and is based on a simple relationship between resource availability and eventual warming of the climate system. I concluded that;

Extraction economics and warming

In short, the eventual temperature rise is directly linked to the size of the global fossil fuel resource base (in GtC) multiplied by some extraction fraction which in turn is a function (f) of the difference between the price of energy and the extraction cost. In a world of sunk infrastructure costs, the marginal extraction cost might be very low, which either means that the energy price has to fall very low to limit temperature rise or another factor has to be introduced to shift the extraction economics, i.e. a cost for emitting carbon dioxide from energy use, or what is now simply called “a carbon price”.

Extraction economics and warming with carbon price

Not surprisingly then, putting a price on carbon is arguably the most important step that can be taken to limit warming. Trying to drive the price of energy down with alternatives is another option, but success is less than assured.

While the carbon pricing story has long been recognised, it is nevertheless proving difficult to implement. In the UNFCCC process it has been getting almost no airtime at all, at least until 2014. This was the year that the World Bank picked up the story in big way and by the time of the September UN Climate Summit in New York managed to have it solidly on the agenda. This was supported by their Statement on Carbon Pricing, signed by some 70+ governments and 1000+ companies. The World Bank effort picked up where the UK Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change had taken the issue two years earlier with its Carbon price Communique.

Nevertheless, while the fact that a good portion of the UN Climate Summit and its multitude of side events was about carbon pricing and therefore deserves applause, the difficulty of translating well-meaning macro level support into granular policy implementation remains both very challenging and time consuming.

The unfortunate event of the year was the repeal of an active carbon pricing framework by the Australian government, particularly after the decade of effort and political capital that had gone into establishing it. Although Australia isn’t large in terms of global emissions, as a leading resource producer and developed economy it tends to punch above its weight in terms of external influence. Fortunately this event was eclipsed by a much bigger development that came a bit later in the year and may well be the one that sets the scene for real action on emissions in the 2020s. China announced that a single national carbon pricing system would be implemented from 2016, presumably replacing the multiple trials now underway. This system would mature over the following years such that it will be fully operational from 2020, which is when the expected Paris agreement will also become operational.

Mexico also established a modest carbon price in its economy and the Chilean government approved a pricing system from 2018 within the power generation sector. Korea proceeded with its plans for an emissions trading system, agreeing to a formal start this January. Discussions hotted up in North America, with Oregon and Washington considering pricing and Ontario in Canada also starting to think about possible options. The Quebec-California link, formalised in 2013, went into operation.

Another noteworthy event of the year was the shift in stance by the European Institutions and Member States on the role that government needs to play once carbon pricing markets and mechanisms are established. As the price in the EU ETS has fallen over recent years, many have argued that the market should be left to correct over time. But with a structural surplus showing no sign of disappearing, that view is changing. With the support of the Commission the EU Parliament approved the backloading of allowance auctioning to later in the current ETS Phase (i.e. from 2014 to 2018-2020) and is now in the process of developing and gaining approval for a permanent mechanism, the Market Stability reserve, to do a similar job. Timing is of the essence and the EU Institutions and Member States need to implement such reforms as soon as possible, and no later than 2017, to incentivise real investment in lower carbon technologies over the next decade.

Bringing all this together and catalysing the development of a global carbon market remains on the the “to-do” list, with the UNFCCC in a prime position to take the lead as part of the Paris process – but more on that another day.

Slowly but surely the map is changing colour, although much remains to be done. Carbon pricing remains contentious, both in its implementation and ongoing management.

Carbon pricing 2015

Carbon pricing 2014

Carbon pricing 2013

Carbon pricing 2012

Yes, Virginia, there is CCS

  • Comments Off

In 1897, Dr. Philip O’Hanlon, a coroner’s assistant on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, was asked by his then eight-year-old daughter, Virginia, whether Santa Claus really existed. O’Hanlon suggested she write to The Sun, a prominent New York City newspaper at the time, assuring her that “If you see it in The Sun, it’s so.” So with thanks and apologies to “Is There a Santa Claus?“, September 21, 1897, The New York Sun, staying true to the original text where possible and in the spirit of the festive season . . . .

Yes,Virginia,ThereIsASantaClausClipping

We take pleasure in answering thus prominently the communication below, expressing at the same time our great gratification that its faithful author is numbered among our friends:

Dear Editor—

I was at COP20 in Lima. Some of my friends in Lima said there is no CCS. But many big companies say, “It’s now a commercially available technology.” Please tell me the truth, is there CCS?

Virginia from Lima

Virginia, your friends are wrong. They have been affected by the scepticism of a sceptical age. They do not believe what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, can ask such questions. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, Virginia, there is CCS. It exists as certainly as amine separation, compressors and drilling rigs exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life energy and mobility. Alas! how dreary and warm might the world be someday be if there is no CCS! It would be as dreary and warm as if there were no wind turbines. There may be more extreme weather then, to further concern us in this existence.

Not believe in CCS! You might as well not believe in 100% renewable energy. You might get your friends to watch all the chimneys in case some CO2 escapes, but even if you did see some CO2 being released, what would that prove? Nobody sees CO2, but that is no sign that there is no CCS. The most real things in the world are those that tend to be hidden away. Did you ever see a vinyl-chloride monomer plant? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

VCM Process

You fret that the continued use of fossil fuels will damage the atmosphere such that even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived could not repair. But fear not, as carbon pricing develops so too will the deployment of CCS, such that we really can have net zero emissions by the end of the century? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No CCS! Thanks that this technology has now been developed. A decade from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 100 years from now, it will continue to make glad the CO2 level in the atmosphere.

Merry Christmas

See you in 2015, David.

With the choice of a high road and a low road from Lima to Paris, the Parties seem to have selected the dirt track off to the side, replete with rocks, obstacles, difficult terrain and an uncertain destination. However, the map they have crafted in Lima, while full of options and dead ends, does at least have some clear pointers to the outcome that is actually needed. The question is whether or not these are followed.

The Lima call for climate action turned out to be a hard won outcome, with the talks extending into Sunday morning as negotiators struggled to reach agreement over one issue in particular that has dogged the process since its very beginnings in 1992 – the respective roles of developed and developing countries. Many commentators believed that the negotiations in Durban in 2011 had, at least to some extent, relegated this issue to the history books.

In particular, Professor Robert Stavins of the Harvard Kennedy School in Boston, said in his 2011 report on Durban;

It focuses instead on the (admittedly non-binding) pledge to create a system of greenhouse gas reductions including all Parties (that is, all key countries) by 2015 that will come into force (after ratification) by 2020. Nowhere in the text of the decision will one find phrases such as “Annex I,” “common but differentiated responsibilities,” or “distributional equity,” which have – in recent years – become code words for targets for the richest countries and a blank check for all others.

In the aftermath of Lima, the flavour of differentiation has reappeared and even some of the words. The call for climate action now incorporates a clear reference to “common but differentiated responsibilities“, albeit with the addition taglines of “respective capabilities” and “in light of different national circumstances“. Professor Stavins was quick off the mark with an assessment of Lima, but still maintained that the intent of Durban remained;

. . . . the fact remains that a new way forward has been established in which all countries participate and which therefore holds promise of meaningful global action to address the threat of climate change.

It is difficult to agree with this given the recent negotiations. By contrast, Jonathan Grant of PWC referred to the final day of Lima as “trench warfare mentality”. While it is certainly the case that all countries are still required to submit INDCs of some description, the allowable range of options and structure to pick from has broadened considerably. Notably, Parties “may include” details such as quantifiable information and time frames, rather than the previous wording of “shall include”.

Adaptation planning is strengthened considerably, with this subject now highlighted in the opening lines of the Lima text and also referenced clearly in the context of INDCs. For developed countries this probably has little meaning in terms of their own actions, but for a number of developing countries this could be interpreted as a call for additional financial assistance from developed countries simply to build national infrastructure. The Loss and Damage issue also resurfaced with specific mention in the Lima text. These two apparent concessions may turn out to be a high price to pay for retaining some semblance of the Durban mitigation philosophy.

The intensity with which the developed / developing country issue erupted in the last hours of the Lima COP raises valid questions about the negotiations over the coming year. Leaving this particular issue still looking for a solution in Paris itself may be a burden too great for those final days, but it could also be that no matter how much effort is put into solving it in the interim, it will nevertheless emerge again in the last hours in 12 months time simply because negotiations tend to do things like this.

Looking more positively at the Lima call for climate action, the 40 page annex, “Elements for a draft negotiating text“, throws up some interesting tidbits but also a host of negotiating options which will need to be resolved. Two tidbits of note are;

  1. The mention of carbon pricing in the text; “Acknowledging that carbon pricing is a key approach for cost-effectiveness of the cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions.
  2. The reference on several occasions of an end-goal of net-zero anthropogenic emissions; “Also recognizing that scenarios consistent with a likely chance of holding the global average temperature increase to below 2 °C relative to pre-industrial levels include substantial cuts in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century and net emission levels near zero gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent or below in 2100.

The carbon pricing mention is almost certainly the result of the recent tireless work of the World Bank in getting this critical subject back on the global agenda, but the reference is rather empty in that no strong follow-up text supports it. Rather, there are several vague references to the use of markets and mechanisms.

The “net zero” reference though is quite bold, in that even if this century sees a sharp reduction is emissions, a net zero goal is much more challenging. Residual emissions from agriculture, industrial processes, land use changes and some level of direct fossil fuel use will likely remain well into the 22nd century if not beyond that, which means at a minimum some large scale application of carbon capture and storage at some point in the future.

There was much more to Lima than just the last hours of tense standoff politics, but that is what the world will likely focus on in the coming days. The draft negotiating text sets out some clear options for the future, although if the weakest of these is picked in every instance the end result will have hardly been worth the effort. However, there is also text there that doesn’t have options, so that may well see the light of day in Paris. This is the case for some of the “net zero emissions” wording and also the need for Parties to “develop low emission strategies” and “maintain commitments / contributions / actions at all times“.

As such, there remain a few reasons to be hopeful.

Reality and distortions in Lima

Wandering the COP20 campus, listening to side events and hearing senior political, business and NGO representatives talk about the climate issue results in a mild reality distortion field impairing your judgement; you start to feel sure that we must already be on a new energy pathway, that global carbon pricing is just around the corner and that the Paris deal will deliver something approaching 2°C.

Then something happens to shatter that field and realisation sets in that there is still a long way to go before a truly robust approach to the climate issue emerges. On Tuesday evening the field was disturbed by tweets from a colleague at PWC @JG_climate reporting on negotiators squabbling over INDCs, with Brazil’s concentric differentiation approach causing some angst amongst a number of developed countries and the proposed text describing the nature of an INDC expanding by some thirty pages. This negotiation is far from over and the road ahead to Paris will likely be very bumpy. There will be a few dead-ends to watch out for as well.

Another reality hit home on Monday afternoon with the recognition that many people in the civil society groups here in Lima just don’t want to hear about the reality of carbon capture and storage (CCS). The Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSI) held an excellent and well attended side event on Monday afternoon which was initially mobbed by some 100+ demonstrators and their press entourage. The demonstrators crowded into the modest sized room and the hallway outside, waited for the start of the event and then promptly left as Lord Stern opened the side event with his remarks on the need for a massive scale-up of CCS. Arriving and then departing en masse allowed them to tweet that civil society had walked out on Lord Stern. The demonstrators were equally upset that Shell was represented at the event with my presentation on yet another sobering reality; 2°C is most likely out of reach without the application of CCS; also a finding of the IPCC in their 5th Assessment Report. They also took exception to flyers for my book which carries the same message.

CCS Event (small)

What was really concerning about this walk-out was that the younger people who made up the group would rather protest than listen and learn. Had they stayed they would have heard a remarkable story by Mike Monea of SaskPower who talked about the very successful start-up of the world’s first commercial scale coal fired power plant operating with carbon capture, use (for EOR) and storage. This technology needs some form of carbon pricing structure for delivery and in the case of this project the bulk of it came from the sale of CO2 for EOR. There was also a capital grant from the government. Importantly, SaskPower noted that a future plant would be both cheaper to build (by some 30%) and less costly to operate. This potentially points the way to a technology that can deliver very low emission base load electricity at considerably lower CO2 prices than the ~$100+ per tonne of CO2 that current desktop studies point to. That may also mean CCS appearing without government support sooner rather than later. Of course, the actual construction and delivery of second generation projects will still be required to confirm this.

A minor reality distortion arose from a question directed at me during the GCCSI side event. One audience member asked me about Shell’s membership of ALEC, a US organisation that operates a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America’s state legislators, members of the private sector and the general public.  ALEC doesn’t seem to think that a carbon price should be implemented in the USA, hence the question to me given Shell support for carbon pricing.  Responding to the Climate correctly reported on my response, which was along the lines of “. . that despite their position  on climate issues we still placed a value on their ability to convene state legislators”, but DeSmogBlog had their own interpretation of this. They reported on this under a headline which stated “Company ‘Values’ Relationship with Climate-Denying ALEC”.

It’s also proving a challenge to gain acceptance for the reality of markets and the role they are likely to have in disseminating a carbon price throughout the energy system. This means that carbon market thinking is still struggling to gain a foothold in text proposals for Paris, with one negotiator commenting at an event I attended that “we don’t see much call for markets at this time“. Silence on markets is the preferred strategy for some Parties, with others taking the view that specific mention and some direction is a must. More on this at another time as the Paris text develops further.

The evenings in Lima have been filled with some excellent events. With so many people in town, dinner discussions are convened by the major organisations represented here, which results in great conversations, useful contacts and plenty of new ideas to think about. The Government of Peru have organised and run a very good COP, despite early concerns that there were initially no buildings on the site they chose for the event.

Brazil is back; but are they a decade late?

  • Comments Off

COP20 in Lima ended its first full week on a mixed note, but with some positive signs for the ongoing process. The detailed discussions on the role of carbon markets under the SBSTA ended in disagreement and postponement which was disheartening, but there remains hope that this key subject will still see the light of day under the ADP during the coming days. Curiously, China (and others) opposed deepening the market discussion at SBSTA because of a lack of guidance from the ADP itself, but according to the Earth Negotiation Bulletin they stated in the ADP when reflecting on the Paris Agreement non-paper (ADP.2014.11.NonPaper) that “sections on market and non-market approaches, and new market-based mechanisms could prejudge discussions under the Subsidiary Bodies”. They seem to be setting themselves up for their own private Catch-22 there. It was also unfortunate that those who will pick up the ongoing challenge posed by carbon emissions and climate change were reported on as follows; “YOUNGOs noted that markets have not delivered what they promised and called for a moratorium on markets.” Perhaps they have been reading Naomi Klein’s book “This Changes Everything”.

One document in particular that drew attention was a paper circulated by Brazil, detailing an idea they had proposed at the October ADP meeting. Brazil have a long history of creative intervention in the process, being the country that “invented” the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which over the decade of its operational life has delivered tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars (depends on your measurement definitions) of carbon finance to developing countries. It appears that Brazil is back to its creative best with a paper on “concentric differentiation”, which draws together both the concept of CBDR-RC* and the need for universal acceptance and eventual implementation of absolute targets as the route to atmospheric stabilisation of carbon dioxide.

The paper is best described by referencing a diagram included by Brazil (see below). Initially the INDCs** of various parties are scattered throughout the circles depending on their capabilities, with all developed countries starting in the middle. The crucial change to previous attempts at agreement is the inclusion of the proposal;

“developing country parties are expected to include in their respective NDC a type of economy-wide mitigation targets, leading to absolute targets over time”

This means that everyone migrates inwards as their capabilities allow, but that developing country parties at least start with an emissions goal, albeit intensity based, per capita based or based on a business-as-usual (BAU) deviation. Least developed economies start in the outer ring and are encouraged, but not required to present an INDC. Eventually all parties end up with absolute targets in the middle.

Brazil concept

This is a very encouraging proposal by Brazil and it also includes an extensive reference to markets, cap-and-trade, a reformed CDM and so on. But without wanting to take away from the importance of their thinking, it does raise the question of whether it is a decade or more too late. This is the proposal that should have come when parties were negotiating onward commitment periods of the Kyoto Protocol (KP), thereby giving that agreement new life and making it fit for purpose in the 21st Century. Almost all the necessary pieces were already in place, it simply (!! – nothing is ever that simple) required the addition of the middle ring and the provisions for promotion.

In KP language, the centre ring is the AAU (Assigned Amount Unit) world, now only home to the EU, Norway, Australia and Ukraine. Even Japan has left. The outer ring is the CDM world, which relies on financial flows from the inner ring. A renegotiation and addition to KP could have inserted the middle ring and promotion requirements and even developed a new carbon accounting unit for intensity based targets. With all three rings based on carbon units, the much needed “global carbon market” could have taken off relatively quickly. Such a design might have even brought back countries such as the USA given that its objections regarding developing country actions would have been addressed.

One aspect of the Brazil proposal that has some traction in the ADP is the idea that “backsliding” on INDCs won’t be permitted. In other words, once you have declared an INDC with an absolute target, that is where you stay.

The Brazil proposal is for the ADP and not for the KP; which means that parties will have to reinvent everything from scratch. But at least Brazil is there with its creative input leading the way. On to Week 2 in Lima where the Parties are at least into the process of negotiating text, rather than negotiating the procedures under which they would even consider text.

 

* Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities

**Intended nationally determined contributions