Kevin Anderson Isak Stoddard Jesse SchrageZennström Professor in Climate Change Leadership Deputy Director CEMUS & CSD CCL Coordinator CEMUS & CSDCEMUS & CSD, Uppsala University
web: www.cemus.uu.se
twitter: @KevinClimate
Pathways to fossil free futures in Järfälla Kommun
Paris, carbon budgets & 2°C mitigation
Foto: Tina Rohdin
Outline of the presentation
The Järfälla Report
Conclusions and main results
From Paris to Sweden: a carbon budget for Sweden - Kevin
From Sweden to Järfälla: a carbon budget for Järfälla - Jesse
Pathways to a fossil free future in Järfälla - Isak
Discussion and questions
The Järfälla Report – Context
Temperature commitments enshrined in the Paris Agreement
Requirements resulting from the Swedish Environmental Goals Commissions work - the Swedish Climate Law
Consequences for the environmental plan of Järfälla Kommun
The Järfälla Report - Outputs
• Carbon budget for Järfällakommun
• Associated emission reductions required
• Pathways to a post-carbon future in line with the climate commitments in the Paris Agreement
The Järfälla Report - Questions
1. Can Järfälla Kommun work with the 1.5 degree target?
2. If not, why?3. Are there examples of how a
municipality can work with the 2°C target and make their fair contribution to delivering on the temperature commitments in the Paris Agreement?
Conclusions and main results
Current global CO2 emissions will exceed Paris 2°C in ~18 years
Sweden & Järfälla need ~15% CO2 reductions per year for 2°C
… and support poor countries develop zero-carbon societies
Järfälla Municipality can lead the transition to a fossil free society
From Paris to Sweden’s carbon budget
Foto: Tina Rohdin
From Paris to Sweden’s carbon budgets
Our Paris commitments
Importance of carbon budgets
Translating 1.5 & 2°C into Global carbon budgets
Estimating Sweden’s fair carbon budgets
Why is our analysis different to the Climate Change Law
The Paris Agreement established our commitments
Paris – an important diplomatic triumph
… hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursueefforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C
…to undertake rapid reductions in accordance with best science
…on the basis of equity,
Paris – an important diplomatic triumph
Backdrop to Paris (& latest IPCC reports)
The mitigation message has changed little in twenty seven years
Annual emissions now ~60% higher than in 1990
Even in Sweden our lifestyles remain high-carbon
… very little change since 1990 once aviation & shipping are factored in
Backdrop to Paris (& latest IPCC reports)
in terms of temperature rise (e.g. 2°C)
A focus on 2030, 2050, etc. has no scientific basis
It is carbon budgets that matter
Thinking of this graphically…
Foto: Tina Rohdin
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
CO2
emiss
ions
(GtC
O2/
yr)
Car
bon
diox
ide
emis
sion
s
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
It’s not what happens in 2045 that matters
Car
bon
diox
ide
emis
sion
s
2045
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
CO2
emiss
ions
(GtC
O2/
yr) but the carbon budget i.e. the area under the curve (e.g. for 2°C)
Car
bon
diox
ide
emis
sion
s
The Carbon Budget
.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
CO2
emiss
ions
(GtC
O2/
yr)
Car
bon
diox
ide
emis
sion
s
A
We emit additional CO2
A
If we delay stringent mitigation today
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
CO2
emiss
ions
(GtC
O2/
yr) which
must be compensated
later B
(if possible!)
Car
bon
diox
ide
emis
sion
s
A
B
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
CO2
emiss
ions
(GtC
O2/
yr)
with much higher rates of mitigation
Car
bon
diox
ide
emis
sion
s
A
B
Quantifying the Paris 2°C challenge
Foto: Tina Rohdin
1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Before Paris … 4°C to 6°C
1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
With Paris… national pledges add up to...
3°C to 4°C
1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
And to stay “well below 2°C”- the carbon budget remaining from 2017 is:- approx. 800 billion tonnes CO2 (i.e. 800GtCO2)
3°C to 4°C
2017
1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
2017 ~Zero CO2 by ~2050
1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
2017 ~Zero CO2 by ~2050
But Paris also has an important EQUITY dimension- wealthy nations need to transition to zero-CO2 ahead of poorer nations
So what are Sweden’s commitments under the Paris Agreement?
Foto: Tina Rohdin
Sweden has committed to make its fair contribution to reduce its emissions
in line with staying “well below 2°C” and “pursuing … 1.5°C”
The IPCC provide a range of carbon budgets for these temperatures
We derive very ambitious mitigation pathways for poorer (non-OECD) nations
Estimate the non-OECD carbon budget & subtract from the global budget
This gives an OECD carbon budget (i.e. from 2017 onwards)
Divide the OECD budget fairly to give a Swedish carbon budget
Sequential logic …
Very challenging mitigation for poorer nations
Apportioning global budgets to Sweden
NB: even v. ambitious mitigation by non-OECD exceeds 1.5°C budgets
Apportion remaining 2°C budget to Sweden:
Gives ~300 to 600MtCO2 from 2017
c.f. 2014 - Sweden emitted 44MtCO2 (territorial )
74MtCO2 (consumption-based)
Headline mitigation message for Sweden
… then,
mitigate 10 to 15% p.a. starting now
~75% reduction in CO2 by 2025
approaching full decarbonisation of energy by 2035
Assuming:
1) Sweden is to meet it’s Paris commitment2) & its policies are to have a scientific foundation
Headline mitigation message for Sweden
Source: Historical emmisions taken from miljöräkenskaperna (SCB).
So what of Sweden’s Climate Change Law?
Foto: Tina Rohdin
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Emis
sion
s MtC
O2
(not
GHG
)Series 2
Series 2
Historical CO2-only emissions (NVV)
According to the NVV projections
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Emis
sion
s MtC
O2
(not
GHG
)Series 2
Series 2
NVV projections (CO2 only)
According to the NVV projections
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Emis
sion
s MtC
O2
(not
GHG
)Series 2
Series 2
NVV projections (CO2 only)
NB: These EXCLUDE aviation & shipping (>10%?)
According to the NVV projections
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Emis
sion
s MtC
O2
(not
GHG
)Series 2
Series 2
Extrapolation of NVV projection
According to the NVV projections (with EM)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Emis
sion
s MtC
O2
(not
GHG
)Series 2
Series 2
Govt’ zero GHG by 2045
According to the NVV projections (with EM)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Emis
sion
s MtC
O2
(not
GHG
)Series 2
Series 2
Sweden’s fair Paris contribution to 2°C
According to the NVV projections
The UK Govt’s proposed ‘2°C’ pathway
Fair 2°C budgets & pathways for the UK
The UK Govt’s proposed ‘2°C’ pathway
Why is the Politics so different to the Science?
The Swedish government does not have explicit carbon budgets (yet?)
i.e. Sweden’s climate change law is more politics than science
The implied carbon budgets in the Climate Law are highly inequitable
i.e. there’s no allowance for poor nations to take longer to move to zero-CO2 energy
Sweden is very likely relying on “negative emission technologies” (NETs)?
i.e. untested technologies intended to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere for the next 100 years to avoid economically & politically challenging mitigation today?
From Sweden to Järfälla’s carbon budget
Foto: Tina Rohdin
Apportioning budgets to municipal level
• All aviation and shipping• Electricity production• Industrial needs• Transportation needs• does not include CO2 by consumption of goods & services outside of Sweden
A fair and transparent distribution?
• Population - the so-called "egalitarian principle“• Earlier emissions determine future emissions - the so-called grandfathering
• Higher emissions give higher emission reduction requirements - 'polluter pays'.
• Ability to pay for emission reductions - Payability
The four principles for calculating carbon dioxide budgets can be based on:
Apportioning global budgets to Jarfälla
NB: not all apportionment regimes are appropriatei.e. - take into account dependence with other regions bordering Järfälla
- quality of life maintained by the emissions of other municipalities and regions
Remaining 2°C budget for Järfälla (Based on ‘Grandfathered’ principle):
Gives ~423 to 900ktCO2 from 2017
c.f. 2016 - The municipality emitted 73ktCO2
Implications of working with this budget
This budget includes the CO2 from:
• Your heating (Municipal and households)
• Electricity production
• Transport needs (both public and Private)
• Consumption of goods and services produced in Järfälla…
• … But also in other municipalities in Sweden
Järfälla takes responsibility for CO2 related to activity of its citizens.
But if those are NOT taken into account…Then the carbon budget for the municipality will get smaller
Implications of working with this budget
Headline mitigation message for Järfälla
… then,
mitigate at 10-15% p.a. starting now
~75% reduction in CO2 by 2025
head towards full decarbonised energy by 2035
Assuming:
1) if Järfälla is to fairly contribute to the Paris Agreement2) & its policies are to have a scientific foundation
(quantify their responsibility within Sweden)
Scenarios for emissions reductions& pathways to a fossil free future in Järfälla and Sweden
Foto: Tina Rohdin
Järfälla’s Emission Reductions
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
2052
2054
2056
2058
2060
2062
2064
2066
2068
2070
2072
2074
2076
2078
2080
2082
2084
2086
2088
2090
2092
2094
2096
2098
2100
Järfällas utsläppsminskningar 2017-2100 för att möta 2°C målet (ktCO2)
Historiska utsläpp 15% / år 10% / år
Source: Historical emmisions taken from Emmisionsdatabasen (RUS)
Järfälla’s Emissions
Source: Emmisionsdatabasen (RUS)
Sweden’s emissions by sector
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Arbetsmaskiner
Avfall och avlopp
Electrictet och fjärrvärme
Industri
Nationell transport
Internationell transport
Jordbruk
Produktanvändning
Uppvärmning av hus
Sveriges CO2 utsläpp (i ktCO2) 2015 fördelade på sektorer
Source: Naturvårdsverket (calculated by SMED)
An illustrative example – Heating vs. intern Transp.
Source: Naturvårdsverket (calculated by SMED)
Gräv där du står…
Foto: Mikael Nasberg
Climate change leadership
Pathways to a fossil free future in Järfälla
Population of 74 000 (in 2017)
34% higher nighttime than daytime (commuting population)
Ongoing and planned construction Ambition to build 1000 new homes per year and population of 100 000 by 2030
Public transportation - metro station in Barkarby
Challenges and opportunities from a energy and climate perspective Decarbonized & fossil-free construction and transport
Decarbonizing Energy demand, Energy supply and other policy measures
Policies at municipal, regional and national level
What this means for Energy DEMAND
All new buildings to be at least passive-house standard
Retrofit existing buildings
Max CO2 standard for all new cars/electrification(e.g. 100gCO2/km; tighten 8% pa.)
Policies to drive behavioural change by hi-energy users(progressive metering tariffs, frequent flier levy, Personal Carbon allowances)
i.e. power down energy demand by 40-70% in 10-15 years
… behaviour and equity
~50% of global CO2 comes from ~10% of the population
… if the top 10% of global emitters
were to reduce their carbon footprint
to the level of a typical EU citizen
Global CO2 emissions would be cut ~33%
… behaviour and equity
What this means for Energy SUPPLY
Major electrification programme (transport, industry etc)
Much higher rated interconnectors
Roll out smart grid & community energy
Sustainably exploit renewable & very low CO2 energy
Indigenous biomass/biogas/P2G for intermittency
Other Policy measures
Rapid retirement of all hydrocarbon assets
CCS investment for cement/steel
Moratorium on airport expansion
Major investment and development of public transportation such as hi-speed rail (incl. sleeper trains), subways, trams etc.
Long term investment cycles (i.e. a low discount rate <3.5%, carbon accounting etc.)
Järfälla and the global climate transition
Unprecedented challenges
Avoid the unthinkable – aka business as usual
In real need of bold visions and leadership
Illustrative case studies and examples - Oslo
- C40
- Uppsala klimatprotokoll
- Transition Towns and Transition Network
- Sveriges Ekokommuner och klimatkommunerna
- Järfälla
Climate change leadership
Sweden: laggard or leader ?
Climate Change Law should be based on carbon budgets
Explicitly Informed by science and equity
‘Real’ mitigation – not highly speculative NETs etc.
Complement mitigation with increased support of global south
Build on Sweden’s ‘social contract’ & international reputation
and a message of hope to finish …
“at every level the greatest obstacle totransforming the world is that we lack theclarity and imagination to conceive that itcould be different.”
Robert Unger
web: www.cemus.uu.se
twitter: @KevinClimate
Tack för att ni lyssnade
Foto: Tina Rohdin
Kevin Anderson Isak Stoddard Jesse SchrageZennström Professor in Climate Change Leadership Deputy Director CEMUS & CSD CCL Coordinator CEMUS & CSDCEMUS & CSD, Uppsala University
Top Related