Creating Trust and Transparency in Fossil CO2 Emissions Reporting

by Jocelyn Turnbull, Senior Scientist, GNS Science

Marcus Trimble and Margaret Norris using the GNS Science high-tech grass sampling method near the Kapuni plant in Taranaki. A GPS, a plastic bag and a marker pen are all that is required. And perhaps a pair of gumboots! Photo credit: Jocelyn Turnbull, GNS Science.

Last year, I wrote about how we can use atmospheric measurements to determine whether nations and industries are meeting their fossil fuel CO₂ emission reduction goals. With the Paris Agreement, the stakes have gotten higher, with most nations agreeing to reduce their emissions, and a recognized need for “trust and transparency” amongst nations in emissions reporting.

This week, GNS Science published a new research paper taking the concepts I talked about in my previous post, and turning them into a specific method that evaluates emissions from individual power plants to better than 10% accuracy. This is key because power plants are the biggest emission sources (the huge Taichung coal-fired power plant in Taiwan produces more fossil fuel CO₂ than all of New Zealand!). This makes them an obvious target for regulating and reducing emissions. 

In the past there have been considerable barriers to measuring emissions rates from power plants. Radiocarbon measurements that need to be used in this process are time-consuming and expensive. Additionally, the atmospheric models used to translate fossil CO₂ concentration measurements to emission rates from the power plant are most accurate when averaged over long time periods.

To remove these barriers, the scientists at GNS came up with the idea of using living grass as sample collectors. There is no special field sampling equipment required, and grass effectively collects a radiocarbon sample averaged over the many days it grows. A single grass measurement tracks a week or so of emissions and is a perfect complement to the optimal model averaging period. These innovations allow us to measure the power plant emission rate to 10% accuracy. This is a marked improvement over the ~20% reported by individual power plants (based on their methods). That ~20% also doesn't take into account any bias in the plants' self-reporting. 

Grass growing in farmland near the Vector Kapuni plant in Taranaki makes an ideal sampler for fossil CO₂ emissions. Photo credit: Jocelyn Turnbull, GNS Science.

This simple and low-cost method was developed using the Kapuni processing plant in Taranaki as a test case and can be readily applied around the world. 

Can Engineers Change the World? Energy Transition Engineering

Dr Susan P Krumdieck is Professor in Mechanical Engineering and Director of the Advanced Energy and Material Systems Lab, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.

Can technology solve the climate problem? Dr Krumdieck outlines her work on a new interdisciplinary practice called transition engineering: changing course one innovative project at a time.

Business leaders recognise that the biggest risk to their business is energy transition. The most popular concept of this transition involves a substitution of renewables for fossil fuels and development of elusive tail-pipe technologies like carbon-capture and storage. This concept is comforting and simple. But it is also profoundly wrong. There is no way to achieve an energy transition without completely reworking every aspect of our infrastructure, industry and economy to vastly reduce energy demand. Changing the global economy to nearly eliminate the use of fossil fuels is a “wicked problem” – a problem with no known solution. This is why the new field of energy transition engineering is emerging. 

Can engineers change the world?

Family and the Fossil Carbon Safety Margin

by Dr. Susan P. Krumdieck, Professor in Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury

In my previous blog, I translated the current language of the 2^oC climate change target into an engineering concept of a global warming “failure limit” associated with carbon fuel production.  For this part of the analysis, I will use the units more commonly used by the media – GtCO2 – which means the cumulative emissions failure limit to maintain temperature rises below 2^oC is around 3000 GtCO2 with a probability greater than 66%.

Suffice it to say that a 2^oC temperature rise would pose an unacceptable risk to our civilization and most of the world ecosystems. That seems quite a dramatic claim, but there is pretty good certainty that the heat input involved in that 2^oC temperature change would be sufficient to melt global ice, raise the sea level and cause uncertainty enough to risk, alter, damage, or destroy 80-90% of the investment in real estate, infrastructure, agriculture and organization that humanity has made to date. It will also mean a mass extinction of species and climate chaos. By “climate chaos” I mean the occurrence of storms, droughts, high temperatures, low temperatures, rainfall, hail stone size, and tornado size that are “unprecedented” and can’t be managed by historical hazard mitigation measures.

I wanted to make this personal by considering the history of CO2 emissions against the human scale of seven generations of my family. As an engineer, I don’t think of safety limits as “targets.” Failure to reduce fossil fuel production to nearly zero in my lifetime will mean unacceptable hardship for people I know. So how did we get to this point?

Fossil Carbon Safety Margin

by Dr. Susan P. Krumdieck, Professor in Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury

To me, as an engineer and a person with a family, the language of climate change action – for example setting “targets” for emissions – seems to be dangerously at odds with the science.

It seems obvious that the engineers of the world have a lot of work to do in changing everything that uses fossil fuel to use much less to no fossil fuel. However, this discussion is not really taking place. 

The science is clear, so I wanted to look at how we might use the language of engineering to understand the way forward. The latest IPCC Fifth Assessment Report gives conclusive modelling and science observation that profoundly affects every person on the planet. However, the general population doesn’t seem to understand the message. 

On the road to climate progress, “We’ll always have Paris.”

by Catherine Leining, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research Trust

This week, 195 countries reached the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.  It breaks new ground by bringing developed and developing countries under a common legal framework for achieving “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Detailed rules will require further negotiation, but for New Zealand, the agreement ticks some critical boxes, notably:

• collective effort toward meeting the global temperature goal, 
• reporting provisions that support transparency, 
• the options to use forestry and carbon markets to deliver upon NDCs, and 
• acknowledgment of the need for food security.  

Achieving this outcome took years of preparation culminating in two weeks of highly intense negotiations.  In the spirit of dramatic but happy endings with a twist, this post highlights key features and policy implications of the new agreement – framed by classic quotes from “Casablanca.”

“Play it again, Sam.”
The Paris Agreement builds on many precedents, extending beyond the scope of the Kyoto Protocol and reflecting outcomes from key conferences in Copenhagen (2009), Cancun (2010), Durban (2011) and Doha (2012). Its 12 pages cover the traditional suite of core issues and are complemented by a series of decisions to help give effect to the agreement and initiate more detailed rule-making. Among these decisions, Parties acknowledge the efforts to address climate change by non-government actors and the value of providing emission-reduction incentives through domestic policies and carbon pricing.

Of course, "Play it again, Sam" is not what Ingrid Bergman actually says, but it is the quote everyone remembers. In 2030, how will people remember the Paris Agreement?

“The fundamental things apply, as time goes by.”
The Paris Agreement defines three important aims:

1. Limiting temperature increases to “well below” 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, and pursuing efforts to achieve a 1.5 degree C limit,
2. Increasing the ability to adapt to climate change and foster climate resilience and low-emissions development without threatening food production, and
3. Making financial flows consistent with a pathway toward low-emission and climate-resilient development. 

Attempts to strengthen the global temperature goal fell short of some Parties’ hopes. Significantly for New Zealand, no sectors have been excluded from mitigation targets and forest conservation and enhancement are encouraged.

“Will I see you tonight?”  “I never make plans that far ahead.” 
The Paris Agreement establishes processes for ratcheting up mitigation ambition over time. Parties will be required to put forward progressively more ambitious NDCs every five years. Developed countries must include economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets, whereas developing countries have the flexibility to transition toward that form of target over time. The agreement provides for a “global stocktake” of progress and goals every five years starting in 2023.

The agreement also encourages all Parties to develop “long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies” by 2020. New Zealand could take up this invitation, creating collaborative processes designed to harness expertise, exchange sectoral perspectives and build cross-party support for the outcome.  Over the past two years, Motu’s Low-Emission Future Dialogue has identified a range of potential transitional pathways and stakeholder processes that could be useful for this effort.

 “Last night we said a great many things.”
The aspirational goals of the agreement have not (yet) been matched by countries’ mitigation targets.  Collectively, countries’ intended NDCs tabled to date would align with a pathway to 2.7 degrees C.  In the supporting decisions, Parties identify a mitigation gap of 15 gigatonnes of GHG reductions needed by 2030 to stay on track for 2 degrees C.

While the Paris Agreement will be legally binding, countries’ NDCs themselves sit outside of the agreement and will be enforced through national legislation or policy. This was a requirement for ratification by some countries (notably the United States). The consequences for non-compliance with the Paris Agreement will be facilitative, not punitive. As a result, whether countries actually deliver on their NDCs will depend on domestic political will and international peer pressure. In New Zealand’s case, the NDC is not inscribed in legislation, and it will be interesting to see how the government reflects the obligation in the budget.

To help increase mitigation ambition pre-2020, Parties have encouraged voluntary cancellation of surplus Kyoto units by both Parties and non-Party stakeholders.  Five EU countries set an example by cancelling 635 million Kyoto units.  Other countries, including New Zealand, are relying heavily on surplus units from the first Kyoto commitment period to help meet their 2020 targets.

“Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.”
Couched in language about "voluntary cooperation" through the use of "internationally transferred mitigation outcomes," Article 6 opens the door to using carbon markets with international emissions trading to help countries meet their NDCs.  The agreement also provides for development of a new mechanism to contribute to mitigation and sustainable development.  Reductions:

• must be independently verified, 
• cannot be double-counted across NDCs, 
• must be additional to what would happen otherwise, and 
• must deliver “an overall mitigation in global emissions.” 

A share of proceeds from transactions will cover administration and support vulnerable countries with adaptation.  Both public and private entities can participate. What this means in practice will depend on future rules.

Article 6 offers important opportunities for New Zealand to help achieve part of its NDC through overseas mitigation at lower cost through international linkages with the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS) and participation in the new international market mechanism.  New Zealand led a Ministerial Declaration on Carbon Markets in which 17 additional countries pledged to support development of standards and guidelines to ensure the environmental integrity international market mechanisms used to support NDCs.  The government’s upcoming review of the NZ ETS will need to account for both the opportunities and uncertainties around the treatment of carbon markets in the Paris Agreement.

“If that plane leaves the ground and you’re not with him, you’ll regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.”

An important new global agreement has taken flight, and whatever its shortcomings, 195 countries are on board.  Under current targets, the Paris Agreement will not deliver a safe climate.  However, its framework opens the door to that outcome – if people rise to the challenge. This will require mitigation actions by governments, businesses and households amounting to more than a “hill of beans in this crazy world.”  Future generations deserve no less.

“Here’s looking at you, kid.”

Clearing the air on methane

by Zack Dorner

Agricultural emissions, caused in part by lots of cows and sheep burping, are responsible for around half of all of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. New Zealand faces “unusually high costs to cut greenhouse gas emissions” due to the large number of livestock in the country, or so the government is continuing to argue. With Suzi Kerr, I’ve just released a Motu Working Paper looking at methane emissions from NZ agriculture, which comprise 30% of NZ’s agricultural emissions (with 18% being from nitrous oxide), so it seems timely to look at some of the issues regarding methane, and hopefully clear the air on this confusing and complicated topic!

New Zealand’s 2030 climate change target: We can do better

By Catherine Leining, Policy Fellow, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research

On 7 July 2015, the New Zealand government tabled its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to global mitigation effort for the period post-2020.  It has pledged an emission reduction target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 (equivalent to 11% below 1990 levels by 2030), contingent on the rules for land-sector accounting and access to carbon markets. 

The government has not yet specified an emission budget for the period from 2021 through 2030. 

New Zealand’s proposal falls short of the global ambition needed to deliver the agreed two-degree temperature goal at least cost: countries should reduce their emissions by 40-70% below 2010 levels by 2050 on the way to a zero-net-emission global economy by the end of the century.  It also falls short of the targets recommended by a strong majority of submitters during the government’s recent consultation process (as shown in the summary of submissions). 

The proposal falls within the target range which the government had pledged conditionally in Copenhagen in 2009 – a reduction of 10-20% below 1990 levels by 2020 – but a decade appears to have slipped through the cracks.  The government’s rationale is that because we already have a high level of renewable electricity generation and biological emissions from agriculture contribute to almost half of our emission profile, we lack cost-effective domestic mitigation opportunities.

Ironically, the government’s announcement occurred on the same day when the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate released its latest report identifying ten key opportunities for climate action that would generate economic benefits and deliver up to 96% of the global emission reductions needed by 2030 to keep the world on a two-degree pathway.  The list is practical, energising and relevant to New Zealand:

1. Accelerate low-carbon development in the world’s cities
2. Restore and protect agricultural and forest landscapes, and increase agricultural productivity
3. Invest at least US$1 trillion a year in clean energy
4. Raise energy efficiency standards to the global best
5. Implement effective carbon pricing
6. Ensure new infrastructure is climate-smart
7. Galvanise low-carbon innovation
8. Drive low-carbon growth through business and investor action
9. Raise ambition to reduce international aviation and maritime emissions
10. Phase down the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).

These recommendations highlight the shortcomings of the government’s announcement. 

What’s missing from the government’s INDC is a firm commitment backed by policy to decarbonise the New Zealand economy in line with global effort to limit temperature rises below two degrees. 

What’s missing is a bold call for collaboration across government, business and civil society to deliver transformational low-carbon innovation with broader benefits for our economy, and to help other countries to do the same. 

Instead, the announcement suggests heavy reliance on overseas carbon markets until technology improvements in agriculture and transport become more widely available sometime after 2030.  It provides no policy direction to inspire and guide business investment.  It also fails to address the significant increase in net forestry emissions projected during the target period. 

According to the Ministry for the Environment, compliance with New Zealand’s 2020 target will be achieved with “no change to existing policy settings” and “at no additional costs on households, businesses or government” primarily through forestry activities and surplus units acquired through the carbon market.  However, this continuation of business as usual domestically through and beyond 2030 will not prepare the New Zealand economy to thrive competitively under increasingly stringent global carbon constraints.

While the INDC defines the lowest level of commitment the government is prepared to make, it fortunately does not limit what we can actually do as a country.  The government has pledged further consultation on its longer-term mitigation policies.  Hopefully, this INDC can be used as the launching point for more in-depth, cross-stakeholder discussions on why and how New Zealand should shift strategically toward a low-emission economy. 

New Zealand’s journey toward a low-emission future: Today’s climate change landscape

By Catherine Leining, Senior Policy Fellow, Motu

Note: Motu has just published three Motu Notes on climate change issues prepared as background papers for its Low-Emission Future Dialogue. The first in the series presents an overview of the climate change challenges facing New Zealand and the current policy context.  This information is highly relevant because in 2015 New Zealand will need to present its post-2020 emission reduction commitment - referred to as an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution - under a new international climate change agreement currently under negotiation. The paper's executive summary is provided below.  The full paper is available here. 

In the coming decades, New Zealand will face important choices shaped by both the risks and opportunities created by climate change. This paper provides an overview of the current climate change landscape from which New Zealand is starting the next stage of its journey toward a global low-emission future. The key findings are:

Climate change science, emission trends and mitigation scenarios The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reinforce the case for significant reductions to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Under business-as-usual growth in emissions, the global mean surface temperature in 2100 could increase by 3.7^oC to 4.8^oC compared to pre-industrial levels. A least-cost pathway to limit temperature increases to not more than 2^oC above pre-industrial levels would involve reductions of 40–70 percent below 2010 levels by 2050 on the way toward a zero-net-emission global economy. A key objective should be limiting cumulative emissions, and delaying action significantly increases the costs of mitigation.

How much CO2 are humans producing, anyway?

By Jocelyn Turnbull, Senior Scientist, GNS Science

Jocelyn Turnbull collecting air samples

downwind of the Kapuni natural gas plant

in Taranaki in October 2014. 

Photo credit: Jessica Mills, GNS Science

With the historic news that China and the USA have agreed to limit their greenhouse gas emissions and the progress at the latest round of climate talks just finished in December 2014, it is worth thinking about how we determine what those emissions actually are, and how we will know if they (and we!) are meeting emission goals.

We know what the current emission levels are because governments and industry have agreed to report them.  For the energy sector, industries and governments track usage of coal, oil and natural gas, and governments tally up the totals and report them to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, following a detailed set of guidelines.  As far as we know, those reports have been made in good faith, and reports undergo international peer review, but in a future where we agree to regulate emissions, how can we establish greater trust and be more confident that other nations are meeting their obligations?

The role of anthropogenic climate change in the 2013 North Island drought

By Luke Harrington

A report released September 29^th 2014 by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society has addressed the causes of sixteen individual extreme weather events which occurred around the world in 2013, and specifically examined the role of anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change in each case. The report, “Explaining Extreme Events of 2013 from a Climate Perspective”, was compiled by 92 scientists worldwide and found a mixture of results when detecting a ‘climate change signal’ in an extreme event. The Guardian provides a good summary of the results here.

I was the lead author on an article within the report which focused on the North Island drought from the summer of 2013. The New Zealand Treasury estimates the drought cost the economy at least NZ$1.5 billion, with associated impacts expected for at least two years following the event. The role of our analysis was to understand how the likelihood of this type of event has changed as a direct result of anthropogenic changes to the climate system – this includes both greenhouse gas emissions and, because of our Southern Hemisphere location, ozone depletion.

Reducing methane emissions - timing matters

By Luke Harrington

Recent climate modelling research has found that countries with high emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) should keep mitigation of carbon dioxide (CO₂) a top priority, and working to reduce methane emissions in isolation will not be any more effective than doing so in several decades time. In essence, “action on short-lived climate pollutants will not ‘buy time’ to delay action on carbon dioxide”, says co-author Professor David Frame, director of the New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute.

The Science of the ‘Trillion Tonne’ Limit

By Luke Harrington

A recent post by Catherine Leining, ‘The trillion tonne challenge: Think cumulatively, act immediately on infrastructure’, explores the significance of limiting our cumulative carbon emissions to one trillion tonnes, and how keeping to such a target might be approached. But where has this number come from? How is it calculated? And why is it such a significant realisation when it comes to defining mitigation targets?