Climate Change, Economics and Integrated Assessment...
Transcript of Climate Change, Economics and Integrated Assessment...
Climate Change, Economics and Integrated Assessment Models
G Cornelis van Kooten
Climate Change: Initial issues of interest
• Condemnation of climate ‘sceptics’ as deniers • Scientific consensus: Where does the 97% come from? Derogatory term: ‘deniers’• Rejection of near unanimous consensus regarding GMOs.
• Attribution of climate change solely to humans (anthropogenic) and solely to CO2 emissions (coal is THE target, but more recently all fossil fuels are targeted)
• Summary for Policy Makers (SPM): • Appears before the scientific report is completed
• Hype surrounding increase in number of extreme weather events: • extreme precipitation, droughts, hurricanes & typhoons, wildfires, winters without snow,
earthquakes (?), psychosis (?) • https://www.amazon.com/Rightful-Place-Science-Disasters-Climate/dp/0999587749/ (Roger
Pielke Jr. 2018)
• Fear of famine (food security), biodiversity loss (polar bear), disease (malaria), sea level rise, coral bleaching, climate refugees, etc.
• Driven by extremely well-funded environmental movement (billionaires) and government science funding (e.g., entire Environment Canada budget went to climate model at Uvic)
Roy Spencer: “Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People.”
Five questions that must be answered ‘yes’ for action on global warming to occur:
1. Is warming and associated climate change mostly human caused?
2. Is the human-caused portion of warming and associated climate change large enough to be damaging?
3. Results from climate models are used to guide energy policy. Do the climate models accurately predict climate change?
4. Would the proposed policy changes substantially reduce climate change and resulting damage?
5. Would the policy changes do more good than harm to humanity?
13
322
89
67
873444
470
Theme of 1126 Papers Investigated to Find Consensus on IPCC Position (# of studies)
Explicitly endorse consensus
Implicitly endorse but focus on impacts
Mitigation proposals
Methods
Paleoclimate analyses
Reject/doubt consensus
Natural factors
Unrelated to climate change but included
words "global climate change"
97% ??
No position on AGW
Explicitly endorse AGW
(>50%)
Explicitly endorse AGW, not
quantified
Explicitly reject AGW
(<50%)
Explicitly reject AGW, not
quantified
Implicitly reject AGW
The large green-shaded ‘No position on AGW’ was
subsequently ignored in establishing the 97% consensus
The 97% Consensus of Scientists who Support AGW
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Explicitly endorse AGW
(>50%)
Explicitly reject AGW
(<50%)
Implicitly reject AGW
Nu
mb
er o
f S
tud
ies
Still Consensus???
Another study found that there was no consensus whatsoever
Quotes from book by Spencer:
“Why don’t more papers tackle the thorny issue of determining how much warming is natural versus anthropogenic? For at least three reasons:
1. We cannot separate human from natural causes of warming (there are no human fingerprints)
2. We have only a poor understanding of natural causes of climate change.
3. We cannot compute how strong human-caused warming is from first physical principles (the climate sensitivity problem, discussed later).
In Chapter 13, “Why is Warming not Progressing as Predicted?,” Spencer addresses the big problem of IPCC’s reliance on climate models:
“Climate models [in use today] probably over-predict warming because they[the models] produce too much positive feedback, which is necessary for high climate sensitivity. The small amount of direct warming from a doubling of CO2 (a little over 1oC) is magnified by about a factor of three in climate models due to warming-induced changes in clouds and water vapor, while the [actual] observations suggest there is little magnification at all.
“The positive feedback processes contained in climate models are very uncertain, yet are responsible for most (about 2/3) of the warming the models produce.”
cont…
“While the models are indeed mostly made up of fundamental physical principles that are pretty well established, it is these few poorly known feedback processes that determine how serious the global warming problem will be. Out of hundreds of thousands of lines of computer code making up the models, it could be that only a few lines of code representing very uncertain assumptions about the climate system are mainly responsible for producing too much [predicted] warming.
“This is why I call the climate research community’s defense of the current climate models as ‘bait and switch’. The well-understood basic physical principles the models are built on produce only about 1 deg. C of warming in response to 2×CO2 [a doubling of CO2], while the additional 2 deg. C of warming they produce from positive feedbacks is very speculative. They sell you on the well understood physics supporting the 1 deg. C of direct warming, but then switch to the full 3 degrees of warming the models produce as similarly reliable.
“How clouds might change with warming (cloud feedback) is particularly uncertain, a fact that is admitted by modelers. The climate models cannot include the actual physics of cloud formation and dissipation because computers are not nearly fast enough to be run with the fine detail contained in clouds. In fact, we don’t even understand some of the microphysical details of what happens in clouds, preventing us from modelling them even if computers were fast enough.”
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
1659
1665
1671
1677
1683
1689
1695
1701
1707
1713
1719
1725
1731
1737
1743
1749
1755
1761
1767
1773
1779
1785
1791
1797
1803
1809
1815
1821
1827
1833
1839
1845
1851
1857
1863
1869
1875
1881
1887
1893
1899
1905
1911
1917
1923
1929
1935
1941
1947
1953
1959
1965
1971
1977
1983
1989
1995
2001
2007
2013
2019
deg
rees
CCentral England Series (1659-2019)
Average: 9.27oC
Mark Steyn, Ross McKitrick, Steve McIntyre, and Anthony Watts on the same stage
https://youtu.be/FHUHsBnpCj8
Check about 31 minutes into the program where Anthony Watts talks about weather stations.
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
1840
1843
1846
1849
1852
1855
1858
1861
1864
1867
1870
1873
1876
1879
1882
1885
1888
1891
1894
1897
1900
1903
1906
1909
1912
1915
1918
1921
1924
1927
1930
1933
1936
1939
1942
1945
1948
1951
1954
1957
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
Annual CO2 Emissions (Gt)
1840-2016
World USA China India EU-28
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1840
1843
1846
1849
1852
1855
1858
1861
1864
1867
1870
1873
1876
1879
1882
1885
1888
1891
1894
1897
1900
1903
1906
1909
1912
1915
1918
1921
1924
1927
1930
1933
1936
1939
1942
1945
1948
1951
1954
1957
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
Annual CO2 Emissions (Gt)
1840-2016
USA China India EU-28
Role of Humans
• IPCC attributes climate change solely to human causes. Section A (“Understanding Global Warming of 1.5oC”) of the Summary for Policy Makers: “A.1 Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C.”
• Temperatures have risen by about 1oC since pre-industrial times, so one can only conclude that humans have been responsible.
• Causes of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age unexplained, although anthropogenic CO2 emissions clearly not responsible.
• Infamous hockey stick
Five warnings of disaster due to climate change (all bogus):
1. Warming causes declining human birth rates (Morning Consult).
2. We have “12 years left to live” because of it (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—and lots of her acolytes in and out of Congress).
3. Warming causes more tornadoes (Ocasio-Cortez, Al Gore, and others).
4. Warming causes Indian tigers to eat more people (website “The Conversation”).
5. Warming is causing mass extinctions. (see here)
Total Wildland Fires and Acres (1926-2019)Source: National Interagency Wildfire Centerhttps://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Nu
mb
er o
f w
ild
fire
s
Acr
es b
urn
ed
Acres Fires
CANADA
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Appears that fire suppression might play bigger role than climate change
REST OF CANADA
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010
All hurricanes
Severe hurricanes
Total and Severe Hurricanes Impacting the United States, 10-year Moving Average, 1851-2018
(Source: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html)
Period Average Period Average
1851-1900 0.54 1951-2018 0.56
1851-1950 0.61 1976-2018 0.49
1851-1975 0.62 2000-2018 0.53
1951-2000 0.56 Entire period (1851-2018) 0.59
Average Annual Hurricanes of Categories 3, 4, or 5 Impacting the United States, 1851-2018
Source: Calculated from NOAA data
Decadal Precipitation Trends in the UK, 1780-2017(No trend toward greater or lesser precipitation events)
Contributions of Economists to:
• Instrumental temperature reconstructions
• Paleoclimatic temperature proxies
• Hockey stick (hide the decline)
• Modeling
• Emission scenarios
• Validity of climate models
• Cost-benefit analysis & precautionary principle
• Economic policy to control CO2 emissions
• Conclusions
How does one create a temperature series free of contamination?
• How does one correct for contamination from socioeconomic development when averaging across all weather stations in a region? Globally?
• How does one homogenize weather station temperatures to obtain gridded temperatures that are unaffected by socioeconomic or non-climatic factors?
Global weather stations
• There are 22,231 stations that report average daily temperatures
• Of these, 8,152 report the daily maximum and minimum temperatures
• Stations are provided in the next slide
• Global Historic Climatology Network (GHCN) (7280)
• US Historic Climatology Network (USHCN) (1221)
• National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
• NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC)
# of stations providing:
Data Source Mean temp Max/Min temp
NCAR’s World Monthly Surface Station Climatology 3,563 0
NCDC’s Max/Min Temperature Data Set 3,179 3,179
Deutscher Wetterdienst’s Global Monthly Surface
Summaries Data Set2,559 0
Monthly Climatic Data for the World 2,176 0
World Weather Records (1971-80) 1,912 0
World Weather Records (1961-70) 1,858 0
U.S. Summary of the Day Data Set 1,463 1,463
U.S. Historical Climatology Network 1,221 1,221
Climatological Database for N Hemisphere Land Areas 920 0
Australian National Climate Center's Data Set 785 785
North American Climate Data, NCDC 764 764
Bo-Min's Data Set for the People's Republic of China 378 0
USSR Network of CLIMAT stations 243 0
Daily temperature & precipitation data for 223 USSR
stations (NDP-040)223 223
Global Historical Climate Network Monthly Temperature Sources
# of stations providing:
Data Source Mean temp Max/Min temp
Two long-term databases for People's Republic of China
(NDP-039)205 60
ASEAN Climatic Atlas 162 162
Pakistan's Meteorological and Climatological Data Set 132 132
Diaz’s Data Set for High-Elevation Areas 100 0
Douglas’ Data Set for Mexico 92 0
Ku-nil’s Data Set for Korea 71 71
Jacka’s Data Set for Antarctic Locales 70 0
Monthly Data for the Pacific Ocean/Western Americas 60 0
U.S. Historical Climatology Network (Alaska) 47 47
Muthurajah’s Data Set for Malaysia 18 18
Hardjawinata’s Data Set for Indonesia 13 13
Fitzgerald’s Data Set for Ireland 11 11
Sala’s Data Set for Spain 3 0
Al-kubaisi’s Data Set for Qatar 1 1
Al-sane’s Data Set for Kuwait 1 1
Stekl’s Data Set for Ireland 1 1
GHCN Monthly Temperature Sources (cont)
Keepers of the Climate Data
• Surface Data
• Hadley Centre: UK Meteorology Office and Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK
• North American Space Agency and Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA – GISS): group formerly led by James Hansen
• National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
• Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) – established 2011
• Richard Muller
• Satellite Data
• NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and University of Alabama at Huntsville (Spencer and Christy)
• Remote Sensing System in Santa Rosa, California
More on surface temperature data
• As of 2010, 7,350 weather stations globally, plus 14 ships: only 6,257 stations are actually used to determine global climate information
• ARGUS buoys less than decade old
• 1,221 high-quality weather stations in U.S., one-fifth of the global total
• Two balloon series for tropics
• Most other stations are located in Europe, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Russia and parts of Asia
• Most of the globe is poorly covered
Effect of Weather Station Numbers on Average Global Temperature, 1950 – 2000
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Aver
age
an
nu
al
tem
per
atu
re (
deg
C)
Nu
mb
er o
f st
ati
on
s ('
000
s)
Year
Average temperature
Stations
Numbers of Weather Stations by Location, 1950 – 2000
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Nu
mb
ers
of
Sta
tio
ns
Year
Suburban
Urban stations
Rural stations
Quality of USHCN Stations
Climate Reference Network Rating
# of Stations % Description
CRN1 19 2% No heat source within 50 m
CRN2 76 8% No heat source within 30 m
CRN3 142 15% No heat source within 15 m
CRN4 578 61% Heat source within 10 m radius
CRN5 133 14% Poorly sited
Weather Station Location and Relation to Temperature
temperature
rural urban
Weather station location
∆T
∆T
Average Annual and Ten-Year Moving Average of Temperatures in Central England, 1659-2010
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
1660 1685 1710 1735 1760 1785 1810 1835 1860 1885 1910 1935 1960 1985 2010
Deg
CLittle Ice Age
Average Annual Global Temperature Anomaly, GISS and Hadley CRUT3 Temperature Series, 1850-2010
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010
An
om
aly
(d
eg C
)GISS
CRUT3
(red line)
What about satellite data?
• Satellite Data
• NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and University of Alabama at Huntsville (Spencer and Christy)
• Remote Sensing System in Santa Rosa, California
• Satellite data are not contaminated
• Problem (?): Observations only available since December 1978
-0.5
-0.3
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.918
80
18
84
18
88
18
92
18
96
19
00
19
04
19
08
19
12
19
16
19
20
19
24
19
28
19
32
19
36
19
40
19
44
19
48
19
52
19
56
19
60
19
64
19
68
19
72
19
76
19
80
19
84
19
88
19
92
19
96
20
00
20
04
20
08
20
12
20
16
NOAA Surface vs Satellite Data Global Averagte Anomalies
Surface Satellite
-0.5
-0.3
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
Tem
pera
ture
an
om
aly
NOAA Surface and Satellite Data, 1978-2018
Surface Satellite
Flat line last 20 years
Contamination from Non-climatic factors
• HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM (land only) temperature product are supposed to be free of non-climatic factors, but McKitrick & Michaels (2004, 2007) and de Laat and Maurellis (2004, 2006) found that population growth, changes in per capita GDP, coal consumption (which increased particulates as well as CO2) explained rising temperatures
• As much as half of the rise in temperatures since 1980 is due to non-climatic factors
• Not found in the satellite data or an ensemble of temperature data from climate models for the same period
van Kooten, G.C., 2013. Climate Change, Climate Science and Economics. Dordrecht, NL: Springer. Chapter 2. (Available free to students through UVic’s SpringerLink.)
IPCC Response
“McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) attempted to demonstrate that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused much of the observed warming. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes …, which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant. In addition, observed warming has been, and transient greenhouse-induced warming is expected to be, greater over land than over the oceans …, owing to the smaller thermal capacity of the land” (IPCC 2007, Chapter 3, p.244).
Also see: http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/ross.gatekeeping.pdf
THE HOCKEY STICK CONTROVERSY
Brian Fagan:MWP: 800 – 1300LIE: 1300 – 1850
IPCC 1990 Report:
Why is the Medieval Warm Period Problematic?
• Cannot be attributed to human influence as this was a period well before the industrial age
• If the MWP existed, then it needs to be explained. What caused it to happen?
• Requires climate models to mimic the warm period, as well as the subsequent cold period
• Problem: It is assumed that the climate has historically been in equilibrium and that it is now out of equilibrium because of human activities
This is the assumption built into current thinking about climate:
The Hockey Stick
Temperature Proxies• Consider tree ring data. Tree ring width is correlated
with temperature as long as there is sufficient precipitation
• Calibration period: What effect does temperature have on tree rings? Estimate the following response function:
Rt = β0Tt + β1Tt–1 + β2Tt–2 + … + δiZi,t + … + εt
• Climate scientists tend to estimate simpler version:
Rt = β Tt + εt
• Verification Period: We want to check whether the calibration is correct.
• Data on tree rings or ice cores available from 1850-2000
• Calibration period might be 1940-2000
• Verification period is then 1850-1939
• To determine temperatures from tree rings requires the following transfer function:
Tt = γ0Rt + γ1Rt–1 + γ2Rt–2 + ξt
• It is also possible to estimate the response function and thus derive the transfer function as:
Tt = (1/β)Rt + (1/β) εt
Deriving Paleoclimatic Temperatures
• In practice, every tree ring, ice core and lake bed series that is considered somehow to be statistically valid leads to a paleoclimatic temperature series. The result is a whole bunch of what have been labeled “spaghetti graphs”
• Principal component (PC) analysis is then used to find a single temperature series that “best represents” (accounts for the greatest variation in) the spaghetti graphs. This series is then plotted as the paleoclimatictemperature series.
Some Problems
• Sometimes second, third, fourth PCs are chosen
• To determine PCs, one subtracts means of each series, but climate scientists appear to have subtracted the means of the instrumental record (rotated the data about the recent means, not the means of the entire series)
• Inclusion of the bristle cone pine series in ALL reconstructions
• Other statistical problems have been identified by Wegman and others.
A Comparison of the McIntyre-McKitrick Historical Temperature Reconstruction (blue line) with the Original MBH Hockey Stick (red line), 10-year Moving Average
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
1410 1450 1490 1530 1570 1610 1650 1690 1730 1770 1810 1850 1890 1930 1970
Vari
ati
on
(d
eg C
)
Year
MM correction
MBH98
Source: http://www.climateaudit.org/data/MM05.EE/emulation.txt
Hide the Decline
• Likely one of the greatest tricks of scientific deception in order to rig results in favor of an ideological position.
• Richard Muller of UC Berkeley indicates on YouTube that he would never again read anything the climate scientists involved would write or the journals in which their papers appeared.
• The ‘trick’ came to light in ClimateGate emails, those involved tried to (and continue to) circumvent FOI requests for the data, there have been several controversial investigations, and a number of lawsuits are pending.
Hide the Decline: Original Data
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
1440 1490 1540 1590 1640 1690 1740 1790 1840 1890 1940 1990
Va
ria
tio
n
Jones et al 1998 Briffa 2000 Briffa et al 1998
Hide the Decline: Truncate Original Series and Add Weather Station Data
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
1440 1490 1540 1590 1640 1690 1740 1790 1840 1890 1940 1990
Va
ria
tio
n
Jones et al 1998 Briffa 2000 Briffa et al 1998 HadCRUT
Contributions to climate modeling
Special Report on Emission Scenarios
• No surprise: The IPCC provides the emission scenarios that go into climate models
• Report produced in 2001 and used as basis for the analyses in the 2007 and subsequent IPCC Reports
• Six integrated assessment models (IAMs) are used to develop the emission scenarios, with the IPCC telling the modelers what to assume
Six integrated assessment models
• Asian Pacific Integrated Model (AIM): National Institute of Environmental Studies, Japan
• Atmospheric Stabilization Framework Model (ASF): U.S. consulting firm
• Integrated Model to Assess the Greenhouse Effect (IMAGE): Institute for the Environment (RIVM) and Central Planning Bureau (CPB), The Netherlands
• Multiregional Approach for Resource and Industry Allocation (MARIA): Science University of Tokyo, Japan
• Model for Energy Supply Strategy Alternatives and their General Environmental Impact (MESSAGE): International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria
• Mini Climate Assessment Model (MiniCAM): Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), U.S.
Economic Structure• Each model has exogenous assumptions regarding:
• Population growth
• GDP growth
• Technological change
• Natural resource base
• Some models employ constrained optimization subject to constraints
• Others are pure simulation models• Production and consumption of goods/services are exogenous as a
fixed proportion of population or income; in some, these are endogenously determined by supply and demand
• Models may or may not link to other models
• Number of sectors in models differ; all have an energy sector, but some focus only on energy and details about this sector vary across models
Special features of emission scenarios
• Models not permitted to include any actions (policies) to reduce CO2 emissions
• Assumptions about the rate of technological change (emissions of CO2 per person or $GDP) provided
• Population growth assumptions given
• Economic growth exogenous not endogenous:
• Assumptions about rate of growth in each economy
• Developing countries expected to grow significantly AND per capita incomes of poor and rich countries converge
• UN development policy requires economic growth and convergence
Four Storylines
• A1: rapid economic growth, global population peaking halfway through the 100-year forecast period, rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies; social and cultural ties lead to rapid convergence in incomes – elimination of regional disparities
• A2: world continues to be highly heterogeneous; convergence in per capita incomes and reduction in fertility rates are slow, global population continues to grow throughout the 21st century; technological change and adoption are not homogeneous across regions
Four Storylines (continued)
• B1: Regional convergence in incomes and fertility rates; technological change and adoption rapid; population peaks mid century and then declines; structures of economies change from material to services and information; major developments in clean and resource-efficient technologies; global cooperation in solving economic, social and environmental problems; more optimistic than the A1
• B2: solutions to economic, social, environmental problems are not addressed globally, but locally or regionally; global population rises throughout 21st century, but slower than in A2; technological change is less rapid but more diverse than in B1 and A1; a more environmentally friendly set of assumptions
Year A1F1 A1T A2 B1 B2
Global population (×109)
1990 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
2020 7.6 7.6 8.2 7.6 7.6
2050 8.7 8.7 11.3 8.7 9.3
2100 7.1 7 15.1 7 10.4
Global GDP (1012
1990 US dollars)
1990 21 21 21 21 21
2020 53 57 41 53 51
2050 164 187 82 136 110
2100 525 550 243 328 235
Ratio of rich to poor per capita incomes
1990 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1
2020 7.5 6.2 9.4 8.4 7.7
2050 2.8 2.8 6.6 3.6 4
2100 1.5 1.6 4.2 1.8 3Average global per capita income ($US1990)
1990 3,962 3,962 3,962 3,962 3,962
2020 6,974 7,500 5,000 6,974 6,711
2050 18,851 21,494 7,257 15,632 11,828
2100 73,944 78,571 16,093 46,857 22,596
Average per capita income of poorest countries ($US1990)
1990 246 246 246 246 246
2020 930 1,210 532 830 871
2050 6,732 7,677 1,099 4,342 2,957
2100 49,296 49,107 3,832 26,032 7,532
Assumptions Regarding GDP and Population for Selected IPCC Emission Scenarios
Assumed Rates of Technical Change in Energy Use for Selected IPCC Emission Scenarios
Year A1F1 A1T A2 B1 B2
Final energy intensity (106 Joules per US$)
1990 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7
2020 9.4 8.7 12.1 8.8 8.5
2050 6.3 4.8 9.5 4.5 6
2100 3 2.3 5.9 1.4 4
Primary energy use (1018 Joules per year)
1990 351 351 351 351 351
2020 669 649 595 606 566
2050 1431 1213 971 813 869
2100 2073 2021 1717 514 1357
Share of coal in primary energy (%)
1990 24 24 24 24 24
2020 29 23 22 22 17
2050 33 10 30 21 10
2100 29 1 53 8 22
Share of zero carbon in primary energy (%)
1990 18 18 18 18 18
2020 15 21 8 21 18
2050 19 43 18 30 30
2100 31 85 28 52 49
Year A1F1 A1T A2 B1 B2
Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels (tonnes×109)
1990 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
2020 41.1 36.7 40.3 36.7 33.0
2050 84.7 45.1 60.5 42.9 41.1
2100 111.1 48.0 106.0 19.1 50.6
Cumulative 7803 3806 6501 3626 4253
Carbon dioxide from land use (tonnes×109)
1990 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
2020 5.5 1.1 4.4 2.2 0.0
2050 2.9 0.0 3.3 -1.5 -0.7
2100 -7.7 0.0 0.7 -3.7 -1.8
Cumulative 224 227 326 -22 15
Cumulative carbon dioxide TOTAL (tonnes×109
= 1Gt)
1990-2100 2189 1068 1862 983 1164
Expected Emissions of Carbon Dioxide for Selected IPCC Emission Scenarios
How well do models predict?
• McKitrick & Christy sought to answer this by comparing model generated data for the mid and lower troposphere (the region most sensitive to climate change) with 60 years of actual data from two balloon data series
• Finding: Temperatures from climate models are 2-4 times higher, depending on model and location (lower or mid troposphere), than the observed data; differences statistically significant at 99% level
McKitrick, R. and J. Christy, 2018. A Test of the Tropical 200‐ to 300‐hPa Warming Rate in Climate Models, Earth and Space Science 5: 529-536.
How scientific are model forecasts?
• Green and Armstrong (2007) examined extent to which predictions from climate models followed scientific forecasting procedures, as laid out by International Institute of Forecasters for example
• Conclusion: “those forecasting long-term climate change have no apparent knowledge of evidence-based forecasting methods”
• Important forecasting principles were simply ignored, including establishing cause and effect between CO2 and temperatures
Green, J.C. and J.S. Armstrong, 2007. Energy and Environment 18: 997-1021.
IPCC Response
• “In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent ‘story lines’ that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess” (Kevin Trenberth, IPCC Lead Author)
Equilibrium or Effective Climate Sensitivity (ECS) Parameter
• ECS is the temperature increase from a doubling of atmospheric CO2
compared to pre-industrial times
• IPCC reports state a likely range of 2.0˚C to 4.5˚C, with a best estimate of 3.0˚C
• Recall that we already have approximately 1oC warming to date
• Recent studies found much lower values of ECS, ranging from 2oC down to less than 1oC (in which case observed ECS to date is not solely caused by humans): one study finds ECS is closer to 0.5˚C.
• Mauritsen, T. & R. Pincus, 2017. Nature Climate Change 7(July 31): 652–655.
• Lewis, N. & J.A. Curry, 2015. Climate Dynamics 45: 1009-1023.
• Lewis, N. & J.A. Curry, 2018. Journal of Climate 31(August): 6051-6071.
Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity Parameter
• Pretis (2019) estimates values of ECS of 1.37-1.67 K in his main model, but finds a value of 2.16 K in his ‘preferred model’.
• He estimates TCR values of 1.24-1.38 K if f2×CO2 is assumed to equal 3.7 W/m2, and 1.15-1.28 K if f2×CO2 equals 3.44 W/m2, with his preferred model yielding the higher values.
• Similar values of ECS and TCR have been found by others based on observational data.
• If low values, then climate change is no longer a problem
• A low ECS and no significant increase in global temperatures over the past 20 years has caused the IPCC to warn about the potential catastrophe that a 1.5oC increase in temperatures might cause (prior they sought to restrict temperature increase to 2oC)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100
So
cia
l C
ost o
f C
arb
on
($
per t
CO
2)
3.1 oC
2.0 oC
1.0 oC
Path of the Social Cost of Carbon, 2015-2100, for Three Values of the Equilibrium
Climate Sensitivity Parameter, DICE Model (US$2005 per tCO2)
Cost-benefit analysis
Copenhagen Consensus: Cline’s (2004) use of DICE
Item Scenario
Optimal
carbon tax
Kyoto
Protocol
Value-at-risk
carbon tax
Benefits (×1012
) $271 $166 $1,749
Costs (×1012
) $128 $94 $458
Benefit-cost ratio 2.12 1.77 3.82
Annualized benefits (×1012
) $0.90 $0.55 $5.83
Annualized costs (×1012
) $0.43 $0.31 $1.53
Cline’s results (higher than other economists using DICE):
- Reduce emissions immediately by 35-40%; nearly 50% by 2100:
63% by 2200
- Optimal carbon: $35 (1990$) per t CO2 in 2000; $46/tCO2 in 2005,
$67/tCO2 by 2025, $100/tCO2 by 2050, $355/tCO2 in 2200
DESPITE THIS: Expert panel of 8 economists (3 Nobel laureates)
ranked global warming last of 10 global problems
POLICY RAMPSNordhaus (2008) Results: Costs ($2005) to prevent temperatures rising 2.3oC
• Relative to BAU emissions of greenhouse gases:• 15% reduction in 2010-2019
• 25% reduction in 2050
• 45% reduction in 2100
• Optimal carbon tax:• $9.50 per t of CO2 ($35 per ton of carbon) in 2005
• $25/t CO2 in 2050
• $56/t CO2 in 2100
• In terms of the price at the pump: 12¢ per gallon of gasoline in 2005 to 70¢ per gallon by 2100
• Optimal path of tax predicated on unmitigated damages of 3% of global output in 2100 and 8% in 2200
Other Approaches
• Goklany (2008, 2009) begins with IPCC emission scenarios
• He finds negative impacts of climate change are offset by rising incomes, so much that the overall climate impact is essentially negligible
• Goklany (2009) finds net biome productivity will increase as a result of climate change and that less wildlife habitat will generally be converted to cropland as a result of global warming (Sohngen et al. 1999 find the same thing).
IPCC Scenarios
Item A1F1 A2 B2 B1
1. Population in 2085 (×109) 7.9 14.2 10.2 7.9
2. Average global per capita
GDP in 2085 ($)a 78,600 19,400 29,900 54,700
3. Average per capita GDP in
2100, Industrialized countries
($)a
160,300 69,000 81,300 108,800
4. Average per capita GDP in
2100, Developing countries
($)a
99,300 16,400 26,900 60,000
5. Technological change Rapid Slow Medium Medium
6. Energy use Very high High Medium Low
7. Energy technologies Fossil fuel
intensive
Regionally
diverse
“Dynamics
as usual” High efficiency
8. Land-use change Low-medium Medium-high Medium High
9. Atmospheric CO2
concentration in 2085 (ppmv) 810 709 561 527
10. Global temperature change
in 2085 (oC) 4.0 3.3 2.4 2.1
11. Sea level rise in 2085 (cm) 34 28 25 22
12. Change in total mortality
in 2085 compared to
baselineb,c
–2,064,000 +1,927,000 –1,177,000 –2,266,000
13. Total population at risk
due to water stress compared
to baselinec
299,000 5,648,000 2,746,000 857,000
14. Average net global loss in
coastal wetlands by 2085
compared to baselinec
13% 9% 9% 10%
In the world of renewable energy nothing is what it seems. “Environmentally
friendly” turns out to be devastating to the natural world. “Cheap” is expensive.
“Local support” is found to be at a distance. “Sustainable” is, strange to say,
short lived and unaffordable. A “contract” is non-binding. “Secure” is actually
unreliable. Love is hate, black is white, and “Green” is a murky shade of brown.
….. Daily Telegraph, March 3, 2020
Further Copenhagen Consensus: Part II
• Gary Yohe argues that non-market values of the damages avoided are not sufficiently taken into account in IAMs
• He calculates the benefits of mitigating global warming by examining the reduction by 2080 in the number of people at risk from hunger, water scarcity and coastal flooding
• Using the DICE model, Yohe finds costs of mitigating climate change generally exceed benefits (see next table); when non-market values are added, however, he argues benefits greatly exceed costs.
• Again climate change shows up low on the list of global problems that should be addressed
Scenarios
Scenario description 1 2 3 4 5
Climate sensitivity 3oC 1.5oC 5.5oC 3oC 1.5oC
Carbon tax (/tCO2) $13.70 $1.40 $20.50 $27.30 $2.20
Tax starts in 2006 2006 2006 2016 2016
Number with less risk of hunger in 2080 (×106) 26 19 48 26 19
No. with less risk of water scarcity in 2080 (×106) 2,070 1,160 2,680 2,070 1,160
No. with less risk of coastal flooding in 2080 (×106) 74 16 76 74 16
High discount rate (3% social rate of time preference; DICE – effective 5% declining to 4%)a
Discounted costs (×1012) $12.73 $0.22 $19.23 $16.14 $0.73
Net present value (×1012) –$0.46 –$0.44 –$0.74 –$0.59 –$0.44
Per person cost to reduce risk of hunger $17,69 $24,444 $15,417 $22,692 $24,444
Per person cost to reduce risk of water scarcity $222 $379 $266 $285 $204
Per person cost to reduce risk of coastal flooding $6,216 $27,500 $9,737 $7,973 $27,500
Cost-benefit ratio (lower bound) 0.96 2.00 0.96 0.96 1.91
Low discount rate (0% social rate of time preference; DICE – effective 2% declining to 1%)a
Discounted costs (×1012) $110.81 $2.22 $141.52 $129.43 $2.33
Net present value (×1012) –$0.76 –$0.20 –$1.07 –$0.95 –$0.02
Per person cost to reduce risk of hunger $29,231 $1,111 $22,292 $36,538 $1,111
Per person cost to reduce risk of water scarcity $367 $17 $385 $459 $9
Per person cost to reduce risk of coastal flooding $10,270 $1,250 $14,079 $12,838 $1,250
Cost-benefit ratio (lower bound) 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Costs and Benefits of Mitigating Climate Change: Further Results from the DICE Model (US$1995)
Cost-benefit analysis & the precautionary principle
• William Nordhaus (and Richard Tol)• Low discount rate
• Damages = aT + bT2
• Policy ramp
• Nicholas Stern• Very low interest rate
• Very low costs and very high damages
• Immediate action is required
• Martin Weitzman• Interest rate similar to Tol and Nordhaus
• Fat tails
• High damages = exp(aT + bT2)
• Low carbon tax to fund a put-a-man-on-the-moon type of project
Consensus: Policy Ramp
• Economic researchers favor a policy ramp whereby a carbon tax is imposed, with the tax increased slowly over time.
• Advantages:
• Let the market decide
• Does not lock one into a ‘negative’ technology such as hydrogen vehicles (with infrastructure) that could discourage electric vehicles
Economic Policy: Strategies for lowering Atmospheric CO2
Economic Instruments for Addressing Climate Change
1. Carbon tax
2. Cap and trade
• Auction emission permits
• Grandfather emission permits
• A weaker version of cap and trade that allows certified emission reductions (CERs) from elsewhere (e.g., via Clean Development Mechanism, sink activities, etc.). Referred to as ‘credit trading’
3. Regulation
4. Subsidies (flip side of a tax)
Cap and Trade
• An emissions cap creates a rent
• Who collects the rent?
• Auction permits: government collects the rent much like the case of a carbon tax
• Grandfathered permits: large emitters collect the rent
• Rent-seeking behavior
• By large emitters who want a cap with grandfathered permits
• By financial intermediaries who earn a commission on every trade (the market could be $1 trillion)
Examples of emission permits to set against a firm’s or country’s emissions
• AAUs – Assigned Amount Units are emission permits in excess of what a country needs to achieve its Kyoto commitment
• RMU – removal unit for carbon sinks.
• tRMU – temporary RMU.
• CER – Certified Emission Reduction
• tCER – temporary Certified Emission Reduction
• ERU – Emission Reduction Unit is an earned credit for participation in joint implementation activities
• Other• REC – Renewable Energy Credit (California)
• tREC – transferable REC
• VER – Voluntary Emission Reduction
European Trading System(Only carbon market in the world)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Jun-05 Feb-06 Sep-06 May-07 Dec-07 Jul-08 Mar-09 Oct-09 Jun-10 Jan-11 Aug-11
€ p
er t
CO
2
European Allowances
CERs (thin line)
Carbon Taxes: Effects on Various Fuels, U.S., 2010
Coal Oil Natural Gas CO2 emissions 2.735 tCO2/t coal 0.427 tCO2/barrel 1.925 tCO2/m
3×10
3
Average price $45.50/t coal $70.69/barrel $423.78/m3×10
3
Carbon tax per unit of fuel $10 per tCO2 $27.35 $4.27 $19.25 $30 per tCO2 $82.05 $12.81 $57.75 $100 per tCO2 $273.50 $42.70 $192.50 % increase in price of fuel from carbon tax $10 per tCO2 60.1% 6.0% 4.5% $30 per tCO2 180.3% 18.1% 13.6% $100 per tCO2 601.1% 60.4% 45.4% Carbon tax as % of tax-adjusted fuel price $10 per tCO2 37.5% 5.7% 4.3% $30 per tCO2 64.3% 15.3% 12.0% $100 per tCO2 85.7% 37.7% 31.2%
McKitrick’s Optimal Tax• Optimal carbon tax rate derived by ignoring costs and minimizing
discounted present value of damages subject to the effect that carbon emissions have on a ‘state’ variable.
• State-contingent pricing rule that he derives is as follows:
τt = γ s(t)
τt ≈ optimal tax at time t; γ = marginal damage rate; et = current level of emissions
= moving average of emissions over k periods, where k is the number of periods required for CO2 to leave the atmosphere (or the half life of CO2residency in the atmosphere)s(t) = value of the state variable – temperature in troposphere where the first evidence of global warming is expected to appear.
t
t
e
e
te
Optimal tax rule
• Not a prescription for optimal policy (not an optimal policy ramp) but only a rule relating tax to temperature
• Marginal damage rate and k need to be known. Suppose:
• marginal damages = $25 per tCO2;
• 29,227 Mt of CO2 emitted globally;
• average emissions over k =50 are 17,835 Mt of CO2;
• HadCRUT3 temperature anomaly was 0.482oC.
• Solving tax rule gives γ = 31.65.
• Use this result to derive optimal taxes since 1850 given knowledge about CO2 emissions based on fossil fuel use. The graph is provided on next slide.
Optimal Tax Rate ($ per tCO2) to Address Global Warming, Annual (thin line) and Five-Year Moving Average (thick line)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010
Ta
x (
$ p
er tC
O2
)Only time tax exceeds $25 per tCO2 is 1998.
Advantages of McKitrick’s tax rule
• Costs ignored because the tax is a signal to emitters of CO2
• Information from tax trends is used by decision makers to judge the credibility of IPCC forecasts of climate change. Market decides the credibility of the science: those who decide wrongly incur costs that make them less competitive.
• Investors use trend in tax rates (i.e., market) to guide decisions, much like with other commodity prices that fluctuate over time.
• Tax rate appeals to two groups:
• those who fear catastrophic global warming because the tax will escalate rapidly with rising temperatures.
• those who do not believe in catastrophic anthropogenic climate change because, if their view is correct, the tax will either rise very slowly or not at all, or even fall to zero
Kaya Identity
E
C
Y
E
N
YNC
C = CO2 emissions, N = population, Y = GDP, E = energy use
Ways to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide:
1. Manage population;
2. Limit the generation of wealth (reduce GDP);
3. Generate the same or a higher level of GDP with less energy;
4. Generate energy with less CO2 emissions; or
5. Some combination of the first four factors.
Ways to reduce CO2 emissions
Rewrite the Kaya Identity as:
Emissions = Y × C/Y = GDP × technology
In 2006, C/Y was 0.62 tCO2 per $1000 GDP, down from 0.92 in 1980; France went from 0.42 to 0.30 in 20 years. For the UK to meet its climate target and go from 0.42 to 0.30 in five years requires 40 nuclear power plants of 1100 MW capacity.
“Japan's commitment in June [2009] to cut greenhouse gas levels 8 percent from its 1990 levels by 2020 was scoffed at for being far too little. Yet for Japan – which has led the world in improving energy efficiency – to have any hope of reaching its target, it needs to build nine new nuclear power plants and increase their use by one-third, construct more than 1 million new wind-turbines, install solar panels on nearly 3 million homes, double the percentage of new homes that meet rigorous insulation standards, and increase sales of ‘green’ vehicles from 4 percent to 50 percent of its auto purchases. Japan's new prime minister was roundly lauded this month [September 2009] for promising a much stronger reduction, 25 percent, even though there is no obvious way to deliver on his promise. Expecting Japan, or any other nation, to achieve such far-fetched cuts is simply delusional. Imagine … that at the climate conference in Copenhagen in December [2009] every nation commits to reductions even larger than Japan’s, designed to keep temperature increases under 2 degrees Celsius. The result will be a global price tag of $40 trillion in 2100, to avoid expected climate damage costing just $1.1 trillion, according to climate economist Richard Tol. … That phenomenal cost, calculated by all the main economic models, assumes that politicians across the globe will make the most effective, efficient choices. In the real world, where policies have many other objectives and legislation is easily filled with pork and payoffs, the deal easily gets worse.” (Lomborg, Washington Post, September 28, 2009)
Addressing Climate Change: 2010 Copenhagen Consensus Results
Rank and Solution Solution category
Individual Ranking
Values
Rank
Score
1. Cloud whitening research Engineering 15 15 13 14 8 65
2. Energy R&D Technology 13 12 11 13 13 62
3. Carbon storage research Technology 12 7 15 15 12 61
4. Stratospheric aerosol research Engineering 14 13 14 11 7 59
5. Planning for adaptation Adaptation 11 14 9 7 15 56
6. Research in Air Capture Engineering 10 6 12 12 9 49
7. Technology transfers Tech transfer 9 10 10 8 11 48
8. Expand and protect forests Forestry 5 11 8 9 14 47
9. Stoves in developing nations Cut black carbon 2 9 4 6 10 31
10. Methane reduction portfolio Cut methane 4 8 7 4 5 28
11. Diesel vehicle emissions Cut black carbon 3 4 5 5 6 23
12. $20 OECD carbon tax Cut CO2 8 5 6 1 1 21
13. $0.50 global CO2 tax Cut CO2 6 3 2 10 2 23
14. $3 global CO2 tax Cut CO2 7 2 3 3 4 19
15. $68 global CO2 tax Cut CO2 1 1 1 2 3 8
Worst options
Best options
Climate Policy
• July 2009 meeting of G8 countries in L'Aquila, Italy: • Limit increase in global average temperature to 2°C above pre-
industrial levels
• reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 50% and own emissions by 80% or more by 2050
• European Union had in place a ‘20-20-20 target’ (binding) –• 20% reduction in CO2 from 1990 levels by 2020
• 20% of energy to come from renewable sources
• Updated since Paris Agreement (2015): see next slide
• U.S. House of Representatives American Clean Energy and Security Act (passed June 26, 2009)• Cap-and-trade scheme
• Reduce CO2 emissions • 3% below 2005 levels by 2012
• 17% by 2020
• 42% by 2030
• 83% by 2050.
Climate Policy (cont)
• Paris Agreement:
• Drafted December 2015
• Came into effect April 2016 when signed by 195 countries/blocs
• NDCs : Nationally Determined Contributions
• European Parliament declared ‘climate emergency’ in November, 2019, prior to COP25 in Madrid (2019). COP26 to take place in Scotland in December, 2020.
• European Union 2030 climate & energy framework sets three targets for 2030:
• At least 40% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (from 1990 levels) (binding)
• At least 27% share for renewable energy
• At least 27% improvement in energy efficiency
https://ec.europa.eu/info/energy-climate-change-environment/overall-targets/2030-targets_en
Current: EU bureaucrats desire to pass an EU-wide “climate law” that would enshrine a legally binding target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, with Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions halved by 2030. Attempt to somehow appease eastern EU members.
Climate Policy (cont)
• Latest IPCC target
• Limit temperature increase to 1.5oC rather than 2oC agreed to in 2009
• Implies immediate action is needed
• UK set a net zero target by 2050 (June 2019 Climate Act) as recommended by the Committee on Climate Change, an independent climate advisory body.
• Currently 42% below 1990 emissions.
• Annual rate of emissions reduction must be 15 MtCO2e /year (3% of 2018 emissions)
• 50% higher than its previous 2050 target
• 30% higher than achieved on average since 1990
• BUT … how much is due to elimination of coal and movement of manufacturing off shore?
• U.S. has failed to pass binding climate legislation under both Democratic and Republican presidents. It is loss of sovereignty and freedom that prevents passage of binding legislation.