GHG emissions peaking and the pace of distribution of climate technologies

Shubha Ghosh at Syracuse University School of Law was a wonderful host for a symposium on April 25th on Technology & Policy Responses to Climate Disruption.  The agenda is available here. Video of the Symposium is available here:

• Panel 1 – https://youtu.be/R7XDW5B7NRc
• Panel 2 – https://youtu.be/qlUm4nfM6P8

I presented on Panel 2 on Policy Responses and, as has come to be the case, I tended to play the role of Cassandra, which may be getting me a bit of a reputation I suspect. In many ways, the presentation struggles with a core issue I also struggled with in my 2014 PhD and Book: what model of technology transactions and distribution (including intellectual property) should we adopt if we accept that we must peak global CO2 emissions within the next few years or, gods forbid, in the past year or two. I argue that current models for technology distribution are not up to the challenge and that scenarios for addressing climate change use far too optimistic projections for technology deployment.  I think the second part of my claim needs significantly more work and analysis of the economic models and scenarios, work which I am looking forward to doing, although it may end up beyond my grasp.  I think the first part of my claim is stronger because we have better information of CO2 peaking dates and on current distributions of climate technologies. On the next few blog posts and over the next month I’ll be re-examining the current data and basis for CO2 peaking dates and current distribution of technologies.  As a baseline, I’ll revisit below, what I had to say in my PhD 4 years ago.

In my PhD I argued that to keep warming well below 2 degrees, and to maintain the possibility of stabilizing at the safe level of 1.5 degrees within reach, it may be necessary for global emissions to peak by 2015.[1] At the least, the available projections of necessary reductions suggested that a peak of emissions would have to take place between 2015 and 2018, depending on the extent of cuts later in the lead up to 2050.[2]

On scope of technologies, in 2014 I argued that there remained some debate about whether the technology mix needed to address the scale of the climate challenge could be met with already existing, deployed and demonstration-ready technologies or whether new breakthrough technologies would be required. The IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) argued that existing and demonstration-ready technology would be sufficient, however, and the Fourth Assessment Report confirmed that conclusion with high confidence, from an overview of the range of scenarios for stabilization.[3] The Stern report suggested that it was possible to meet the climate change challenge using existing technologies[4], although the report did state that achieving stabilization at 450 ppm, which is consistent with a 1.5 – 2 degree Celsius goal, was not likely to be achievable with current and foreseeable technologies.[5]  The report foresaw that this would require a peak in 2010, which has clearly not been met. At the time the report argued that such a scenario would require[6]:

• Complete decarbonization of the transport sector;
• Increased and more effective implementation of carbon capture and sequestration;
• A total halt to deforestation.[7]

Pacala and Sokolow argued with more confidence that, generally speaking, existing technologies would be sufficient.[8]  Arguing the contrary, Hoffert et al. suggested in 2002 that existing technologies would be insufficient and that new breakthroughs would be required.[9]  As the assessments suggest that faster and greater reductions will be needed to meet the challenge of reducing GHG emissions by 80% by 2050, the arguments of those suggesting that new breakthroughs will be necessary seemed at the time to be increasingly persuasive. Taking into account that the necessary reductions suggested that a peak of emissions would have to take place between 2015 and 2018[10] the rapid deployment of existing technologies was a prerequisite for longer term action.[11]  In the longer term, technological breakthroughs may be required.

In 2014, I concluded that the key dates were 2015 – 2018 for peaking GHG emissions.  The scenarios I examined suggested that this could largely be done with existing technologies, but had to be accomplished within the following 3 – 13 years. It seemed unavoidable that the key short term challenge was to have a massive increase in technology flows and transactions, shifting the price point to turn climate technological products and processes more into commodities, at mass market prices.  We should not rely on the relatively slow-moving process of existing trade and licensing patterns to encourage transactions and technology diffusion.

Recommended Citation: Dalindyebo Shabalala, “GHG emissions peaking and the pace of distribution of climate technologies”, IP& (June 7, 2018, 03:00 AM)

[1] See p67, IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)] (Geneva: IPCC, 2007). See also p15, Baer, et al. The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World (Heinrich Böll Foundation, 2007).

[2] p67, IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report

[3] p65, IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report

[4] p193, Stern, N. et al. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)

[5] p201, Id.

[6] p201, Id.

[7] p193, Id.

[8] Pacala, S and, R Socolow, “Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next Fifty Years with Current Technologies”. 305 Science 968, (2004). See also p339, De Coninck, H et al. “International technology-oriented agreements to address climate change” 36 Energy Policy 335 (2008).

[9] Hoffert, M I et al., “Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet”, 298 Science 981 (2002). See also p1, Egenhofer, C et al. “Low-Carbon Technologies in the Post-Bali Period: Accelerating their Development and Deployment” European Climate Platform, report No. 4, December 2007.

[10] p67, IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report

[11] See p21, Baer, P et al. The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World (Heinrich Böll Foundation, 2007).