MFAT stakeholders meeting 16 th August, 2007 The threat of accelerating,

1. MFAT stakeholders meeting 16th August, 2007 The threat of accelerating, abrupt or rapid climate change: implications for LULUCF Peter Read Massey University Centre for Energy Research p.read@massey.ac.nz

2. based on IPS Seminar 3rd August, 2007 Policy near the tipping point: how carbon neutral NewZealand can lead a carbon negative world. Visit: ht tp://www.vuw.ac.nz/sog/events/downloads/Peter%20Read%20Seminar%203Aug%2007.ppt Peter Read Massey University Centre for Energy Research

3. UNFCCC – Art 3.3 • The Parties should take precautionary measures…. • Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage , lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as reason for postponing such measures …[which] … should be cost effective so as to ensure global benefits

4. Is there a threat ? Some controversial climate science (But note that the IPCC 4th Assessment Report [the best scientific information ?] is sanitized in its references to climatic instability – visit http://www.meridian.org.uk/Resources/Global%20Dynamics/IPCC/contents.htm ) http://w ww.meridian.org.uk/Resources/Global%20Dynamics/IPCC/contents.htm) And vide Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell D.W. Lea and M. Siddall, 2007. “Climate change and trace gases”, Phil Trans Roy Soc (A), 365, 1925-54. Ruddiman, W., 2003. “The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era Began Thousands of Years Ago”, Climatic Change, 61, 261-293. Controversial ? They disagree with each other ! [that can’t be good science, surely ??]

5. Surface Melt on Greenland Melt descending into a moulin, a vertical shaft carrying water to ice sheet base Quite a bit of basal lubrication here ! (PR) Source: Roger Braithwaite, University of Manchester

6. Conclusion: Earth’s climate is very sensitive to anthropogenic forcing “Most critically, researchers know relatively little about feedback effects that might enhance – or weaken – the pace and effects of climate change.”. “Key sticking points include the inability of global climate models to [re]produce the amount of sea level rise observed over the past couple of decades and whether ice flows at the bases of glaciers is accelerating or not. How volatile the Antarctic and Greenland glaciers might become in a warmer world is therefore pretty much guesswork” Nature, pp280-281, 8.Feb, 2007 So yes, the science is uncertain OK We (posterity and NZ Inc.) need a precautionary policy Noah built the Ark before the rain started

7. WHAT ARK? – CARBON REMOVALS Biosphere Carbon Stock Management [maybe enough – but maybe need albedo enhancement also] Read P., Lermit J., 2005. “Bio-energy with carbon storage (BECS): A sequential decision approach to the threat of abrupt climate change”, Energy. 30: 2654-2671. Read, P. and A. Parshotam, 2007. “Holistic Greenhouse Gas Management Strategy (with Reviewers’ Comments and author rejoinders)”. Institute of Policy Studies Working Paper 07/1, VUW //ips.ac.nz/publications/publications/list/7 Read, P., 2008 “Biosphere Management of Carbon Stocks.:Addressing the threat of abrupt climate change in the next few decades.” Forthcoming Editorial Essay in Climatic Change

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

9. Comparison of carbon removals (F) with emission reductions (Z) in mitigating the level of CO2 (in ppm) in the atmosphere A SRES-A2 Z SRES-A2 with a transition to zero emissions technologies between 2011 and 2035 F SRES-A2 with a transition to land improvement carbon removal technologies over the same period, with land use change complete by 2035 and technological progress to 2060 So: carbon removals is far more powerful than emissions reductions

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

11. Global implementation NOT a thousand plantations worldwide each 1 million Ha (3 in NZ) BUT • a million plantations worldwide each 1000 Ha (3000 in NZ) – and many other types of BCSM project – each serving local needs and providing sustainable rural development paths • Capacity building programme to train ~100,000 grassroots entrepreneurs with skills to engage commitment of farmers, communities, villages, etc., to initiate country-driven projects funded by energy consumers seeking sustainable best practice bio-fuel supplies • A framework of bi-lateral bio-energy partnerships in which South partners agree to objective sustainability criteria in exchange for investment, technology transfer and a shared hedge against peak oil, shared with North partner (e.g. NZ and selected Pacific Island partners).

12. Implementation in New Zealand Royal Soc says 3m Ha low return land in NZ Plant 150,000 Ha p.a. for 20 yrs from 2011 to establish a 20yr rotation “normal” forest (better get busy propagating seedlings next year ! ) Assume zero growth for 4 years and 10 tons C per Ha p.a. for 20 yrs =~ 37 t CO2 captured per Ha p.a. from 4th year Then 37 x 150,000 = 1.5 Mt CO2 in 2015, ) 3 Mt CO2in 2016, ) 4.5 Mt CO2in 2015 etc… ) see handout ……till 22.5 Mt CO2in 2029 ) for details and 24 Mt CO2 in 2030 ) This gives ~900Mt CO2 permanently stocked in the normal plantation forest by 2030 NZ Business As Usual emissions 2010-2030 average ~42Mt p.a. 2012-2030 20 yrs x 42 Mt p.a. = 840mt CO2BINGO – carbon neutral NZ !! (by 2022) Carbon negative if all those other emissions reductions policies work OK From 2033 there is an annual crop of 320 tons / Ha x 150,000 Ha = 48m tons p.a. Say 24 m tons timber for more wooden houses, etc And ~ 24m.t. x 16GJ/ton = ~400PJ bioenergy raw material p.a. for ever (around half NZ demand for primary energy)

13. A problem Forestry is the most powerful technique available for near term carbon removals Yet the previous Minister has totally stuffed up Government dealings with the forestry sector Carbon Removal Vouchers (see below) puts the job in the hands of firms at the point of policy obligation – energy firms and other emitters (livestock farmers, Fontera, meat processing firms?) It’s an investment not a cost And they can go overseas if NZ land is too valuable in food production Resulting low domestic carbon price eases impacts on competitivity-at-risk sectors and low income households Avoids pork-barrel politics of grandfathering and/or stealth tax by auctioning

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

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

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