Tag: Climate Change

Release of Latest IPPC Report Spurs Calls for Action from Business Leaders

 

On September 25, 2013 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis, the first part of its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Six years in the making, the 2,200 page report was developed by 209 lead authors, citing more than 9,000 scientific publications in their analysis of key physical and scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change.

The report confirms that human influence is the dominant cause of observed warming. Scientists now state with more certainty than ever before, that it is extremely likely (95% probability) that human activities, particularly combustion of fossil fuels and changes in land use, are responsible for the 0.85ºC increase in average global temperatures that has occurred since 1880.

There has been a reduction in the rate of atmospheric temperature increases over the past fifteen years which the IPCC attributes to the absorption by the oceans of a large amount of heat, and sequestering a third of the greenhouse gas emissions. This is by no means good news, since warmer waters expands leading to rising sea levels, sea temperatures also significantly influence climate patterns and an increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in ocean waters contributes to acidification with negative impact on aquatic ecosystems. The report concludes that “human influence has been detected in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes.”

The report lays out four different potential scenarios for global temperature rise over the course of the century, ranging from 0.3 ºC to 4.8ºC. In the immediate decades, all four scenarios follow a similar trajectory, showing a low sensitivity to curbing emissions in the short-term. But if current trends continue, the effects of cumulative emissions will be difficult to mitigate due to the long half-life of greenhouse gases and their continued impact on the climate long after emissions subside.

The AR5 is the first IPCC report to define a “carbon budget” – an estimate of the maximum amount of human caused emissions that can be released in the atmosphere before we experience warming greater than 2ºC – the indicative threshold beyond which extensive global environmental and socio-economic damage is expected. That carbon budget is 1,000 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), of which approximately half has already been emitted. Based on carbon-intensive trajectories, this means that the world has just 30 years until it has used up its carbon budget. If we exceed this budget, the chance of staying within 2ºC of warming looks far less promising.

What does this mean for business? In short, climate change brings with it greater risks and investment challenges:

• More frequent extreme weather events: Higher temperatures and more extreme weather are among the most apparent business risks. At the World Economic Forum in 2013, financial experts named climate change as one of the top three business risks. From raging wildfires to severe flooding, extreme weather events can imperil operations throughout a company’s supply chain. Rising sea levels will also threaten shorelines. According to the IPCC, sea levels have likely risen nearly twice as fast as previously reported. More than 1 billion people worldwide, along with many financial centers, are located in low-lying coastal communities. According to the OECD, average flood losses in major cities around the world could exceed $52 billion per year by 2050, and possibly go as high as $1 trillion without additional protection. At the other end of the spectrum, some regions will be faced with greater water scarcity rather than flooding. In the Carbon Disclosure Project’s 2012 Global Water Report, 53% of respondent companies reported that they have experienced water-related detrimental impacts in the past 5 years (up from 38% in 2011), with costs as high as $200 million for some companies.

• Risks to energy infrastructure: Extreme weather also poses a threat to energy and electricity infrastructure by potentially disrupting production, delivery, and storage of energy. Many power sources depend on water and decreased water availability due to changing precipitation trends may threaten operations.

• Investment risks: Climate-related economic disruption also compounds risks to global investments. A 2011 Mercer study warned that climate change could increase investment-portfolio risk by 10 percent over the next two decades. The IPCC’s carbon budget may have implications for fossil fuel companies, which are traditionally among the higher grossing investments. Since their value is based on proven reserves, there is a risk of devaluation if a significant portion of the reserves are left untapped in order to keep within the carbon budget.

• Insurance risks: Extreme weather events are already having an impact on the insurance industry. As damage from extreme weather events increases, insurers are faced with either hiking rates or refusing to provide coverage in disaster-prone areas. Ultimately, increased costs will be passed onto businesses and consumers.

While climate change presents clear risks to business, smart responses can deliver economic benefits as well. In a 2010 report by the UN Global Compact, more than 86 percent of businesses named responding to climate change as an opportunity. This is reflected in the actions of many multinational corporations, which are already taking steps to reduce risks and lower their greenhouse gas emissions. Whether it is driving emission reductions throughout the supply chain, investing in renewable energy or phasing out the use of carbon intensive materials, companies are choosing to act.

Industry comments in response to the IPCC report highlight the urgent need for action for more, see ‘Experts React’. Nick Robins, head of the Climate Partnership at HSBC, commented that: “The IPCC report provides firmer foundations for policy action. For the world’s capital markets, climate change is an issue of strategic risk management … Our research shows that India, China, Indonesia, South Africa and Brazil are the G-20 nations that are most vulnerable to climate risks. We expect the succession of IPCC reports into 2014 to provide a renewed impetus to policy and business action through to the finalization of negotiations in December 2015.” Head of Swiss Re’s sustainability program in the Americas, Mark Way, also said: “When a body like the IPCC concludes that with 95% certainty mankind is causing climate change we would be foolish not to listen. And yet we are still not listening closely enough. The transition to a low carbon economy and a more climate-resilient society cannot be thought of as options, they are necessities.” Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres (a US-based organisation which presses for greater sustainability and environmental awareness in the business sector) summed it up nicely: “The IPCC report’s conclusion is unequivocal – climate change is happening and it’s disrupting all aspects of the global economy, including supply chains, commodity markets and the entire insurance industry. Business momentum is growing to innovate new strategies and products to manage climate risks and opportunities. But scaling these efforts to levels that will slow warming trends will require stronger carbon-reducing policies globally.”

The IPCC will release three more parts to the AR5 report in 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Mitigation of Climate Change; and a Synthesis Report. For more information on the current report, see IPCC Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.

 

Update on China: China Steps into Leadership Role as it takes Action on Climate Change

 
In his first comments as China’s prime minister, Li Keqiang recently laid out a vision of a more equitable society in which environmental protection trumps unbridled growth and government officials put the people’s welfare before their own financial interests.  While the Prime Minister was short on specifics, his comments represent an encouraging acknowledgment of some of the pressing issues facing China.

Traditionally, China has been used as a carbon scapegoat and excuse for inaction by countries such as Canada and the U.S., whose per capita emissions are much higher.  However the tables are turning with China beginning to take a leadership role in addressing climate change.  China’s emergence as a climate leader means that Canada and other countries can no longer point their fingers at China as an excuse for not taking action to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions.

China to roll out Cap & Trade in 2013

As the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, China is preparing to gradually roll out cap-and-trade pilot programs in seven major cities and provinces starting in 2013.  This initiative is part of a larger goal to reduce carbon intensity – or the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of economic output – by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2020.

In November 2011, the Chinese government decided to implement cap-and-trade pilots in two provinces and five cities (including Shanghai, Beijing and Shenzhen) beginning in 2013 with the final goal of implementing a nationwide exchange program by 2016.  In less than two years, officials have designed and started to implement seven trading trials that cover around one-third of China’s gross domestic product and one-fifth of its energy use.  If successful, the schemes could demonstrate that an emissions trading system will be an effective way for China to manage its greenhouse gas emissions.  In addition, China’s activities may spur policy makers in other countries such as the US to act.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance previously estimated that the regional pilots would cumulatively cover 800 million to 1 billion tonnes of emissions in China by 2015, meaning that the market would become the world’s second largest after the European Union.  It has been reported that at the beginning, regional and city-wide markets will remain separate with unique rules and criteria. For example, some of the markets will cover factories and industrial operations exclusively, while others will focus on power generation or non-industrial sectors.

The first trades took place in September 2012 in Guangdong province, when four cement-manufacturing companies invested several million dollars to acquire carbon pollution permits (allowances). The Guangdong scheme is expected to cover more than 800 companies that each emit more than 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year across nine industries, including the energy-intensive steel and power sectors.  These firms account for more than 40% of the power used in the province.  The Guangdong carbon market alone will regulate some 277 million tonnes of CO2 emissions by 2015.

China plans to open six further regional emissions-trading schemes in 2013, in the province of Hubei and in the municipalities of Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Chongqing and Shenzhen.  It plans to expand and link them until they form a nationwide scheme by the end of the decade. A nationwide scheme could then link to international markets.

Until now, China’s experience with carbon trading has been limited to the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol.  While China’s political system could let a carbon market grow faster than anywhere else because changes can be implemented quickly, the carbon market faces challenges in China.  In particular, China needs to develop and enforce proper legislation and regulations to measure, report and verify carbon emissions from industrial sites.  It also needs to build an effective framework to oversee the reporting and trading of carbon credits.

At this stage, the most urgent issue that needs to be addressed is how China collects and analyzes data on carbon emissions.  The credibility of China’s statistics on energy use and carbon emissions has been questioned partly because of the large discrepancies between numbers calculated using top-down data and numbers calculated using bottom-up data.  Without accurate numbers, the first transaction of the Guangdong trading scheme was based on expected future carbon emissions, rather than historical data.  Improved statistical methodology and political action will be required to boost the reliability of carbon emissions data in China.  China will also need specific laws to ensure transparent reporting and strong enforcement to prevent fraudulent or misleading claims about carbon emissions.

Chinese Carbon Tax on the Horizon

On the climate front, the Chinese government appears to be on the verge of taking a critical step which has been demonized by politicians in Canada and the USA – that is, implementing a carbon tax.  Although the carbon tax is expected to be modest, China plans to also increase coal taxes.

According to Jia Chen, head of the tax policy division of China’s Ministry of Finance (MOF), China will proactively introduce a set of new taxation policies designed to preserve the environment, including a tax on carbon emissions.  In an article published on the MOF web site in February 2013, Jia wrote that the government will collect an environmental protection tax instead of pollutant discharge fees, as well as levy a tax on carbon emissions.  The local taxation authority will collect the taxes, rather than the environmental protection department.  The article did not specify the level of carbon tax or when the new measures will be implemented.  In 2010, MOF experts suggested levying a carbon tax in 2012 at 10 yuan per tonne of carbon dioxide, as well as recommended increasing the tax to 50 yuan per tonne by 2020.  These prices are far below the 500 yuan (US $80) per tonne that some experts have suggested would be needed to achieve climate stability.

It is not anticipated that China’s plan will have a significant impact on global climate change, although the tax may have some beneficial impact within China itself, where air pollution is a serious problem.  A paper from the Chinese Academy for Environmental Planning suggests that a small tax could still raise revenue and provide an incentive to reduce emissions, thus bolstering China’s renewable energy industry.

To conserve natural resources, the government will push forward resource tax reforms by taxing coal based on prices instead of sales volume, as well as raising coal taxes.  A resource tax will also be levied on water.  In addition, the government is also looking into the possibility of taxing energy intensive products such as batteries, as well as luxury goods such as aircraft which are not used for public transportation.



 



	


	





	

		
		
Canada Missing out on Growing Global Environmental Market
	


	
	
	

		
 

Despite the slow recovery of the global economy and a lack of political will for addressing environmental and climate change issues, a report by the Environmental Business Journal estimates that the annual value of the global environmental market was $866 billion in 2011, up 4% from the year before. While the US, Western Europe and Japan remain the three largest and most mature environmental markets, growth in the global environmental market in 2011 was led by Africa (up 10%), followed by the Middle East and the rest of Asia (both up 9%). In terms of business sectors, the largest is solid waste management, followed by water utilities and treatment. Recycling, green building, energy efficiency and other areas under the resource recovery and clean energy categories are all growing at faster rates than the overall economy in most nations.


In Canada, there is a large untapped potential for environmental markets.  A report released by Sustainable Prosperity in November 2012 estimates that Canada’s combined environmental marketplace is worth between $462 million and $752 million annually.  The wide gap between the high and low estimates is due to a lack of transparency and the definition of “environmental market”. In the report, an environmental market is defined as a market having a buyer, a seller and the exchange of an environmental attribute.  57 markets were covered in the report and it is anticipated that the value of the Canadian environmental marketplace will increase as new programs such as Quebec’s greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system develop. Sustainable Prosperity’s analysis indicates that markets addressing biodiversity and habitat conservation, water quality, water quantity, climate change, and air quality can provide environmental benefits inexpensively if they are well-designed markets. For investors, they also represent an opportunity for exposure to a new and growing asset class.  These markets may represent a significant financial sum as a whole, but most of the individual ones are small and underdeveloped in terms of their infrastructure and scope. Greater certainty in terms of environmental policy and regulatory flexibility to allow for the increased use of markets would help attract the necessary capital from the private sector to expand and grow Canada’s environmental marketplace.




 



	


	





	

		
		
UN Climate Talks Conclude with an Agreement on the “Doha Climate Gateway”
	


	
	
	

		
 

The United Nations’ annual global climate negotiations – or Conference of the Parties (COP) 18 – took place in the City of Doha, Qatar from November 26 to December 8, 2012.  As the country with the highest per capita emissions in the world at 50 tonnes per person, Qatar was an interesting choice of venue.  Negotiations ran a day over schedule, but concluded with an agreement on the “Doha Climate Gateway”.  According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the agreement marks the beginning of discussions on a legally binding international agreement to cap emissions at scientifically acceptable levels (restricting warming to a two degree Celsius increase in global average temperature).


At COP 17 in Durban, South Africa, the parties agreed to create a treaty by 2015 which would come into force by 2020. The objectives at COP 18 were to move the collective agreement forward at an appropriate rate to meet the 2015 deadline.  Following the talks, the parties agreed to the following:


1.       The Kyoto Protocol was officially extended for a second commitment period from January 1, 2013 to 2020. A number of previous signatories, including Canada, have withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol, which now covers only 15% of the world’s emissions. Its primary participants are the European Union, Norway and Australia.


2.       The final text of the agreement “encourages” developed nations to pay $10 billion a year to 2020 to help developing nations access clean energy and implement climate change adaptation measures. The agreement is not legally binding and does not ascribe blame to developed nations for “loss or damages” experienced as a result of events related to climate change.


Developing countries and observers expressed disappointment with the lack of ambition in outcomes in terms of mitigation and finance by developed countries, but most agreed that the conference had paved the way for a new phase of focusing on the implementation of the outcomes from negotiations under the ad hoc working groups.


An important achievement outside of COP was that 25 members of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition agreed to significantly reduce emissions of short-lived pollutants, including soot, methane and ozone, and excluding carbon dioxide. It is estimated that this agreement could reduce the expected temperature increase by 0.5 degrees Celsius by 2050, a fraction of the four to six degrees forecast by the end of the century if we stay on the current emissions path.


COP 19 will be hosted by Poland in 2013.




 



	


	







	

		
		
More than 100 of the World’s Leading Companies Call for a Clear Price on Carbon
	


	
	
	

		
 

Shell, Unilever and more than 100 of the world’s largest companies recently released a statement calling upon lawmakers around the world to put a “clear, transparent and unambiguous price” on carbon emissions in order to address the climate challenge and help manage the business risk associated with climate change. The statement (available online), which is due to be presented to European Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard in Brussels, calls for clarity to open channels for investment in infrastructure projects and its authors explain that in many cases, companies do not consider goals to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The letter notes a key lesson from existing carbon pricing systems – without a sufficient carbon price signal, companies will have no incentive to invest in low-carbon projects or technology.


A price on carbon emissions must be core to policy objectives in order for the business community to deliver substantial GHG emission reductions and help the world meet the UN goal of containing the global temperature increase to two degrees Celsius. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), almost 80% of the emissions allowable by 2035 under a two-degree scenario are already locked in because of future GHG emissions from existing power plants, factories and buildings. By 2017, all the allowable emissions will be locked in if no action is taken, the IEA said.


The letter was coordinated by Prince Charles’s Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change, a group of companies brought together by Prince Charles and managed by the University of Cambridge. Other signatories include Bullfrog Power, Vattenfal, Alstom, Acciona, Skanska and Aviva.


The statement comes at an opportune time as Climate envoys from more than 190 nations are gathering in Doha from November 26 to December 7, 2012 for UN negotiations on climate change.




 



	


	





	

		
		
Race to the Bottom: Canada ranks 58 out of 61 in new Climate Change Performance Index 2013
	


	
	
	

		
 


In the newly released Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) 2013, Canada is ranked fourth from the bottom and slips behind USA, China and Russia.  In last year’s ranking, Canada was in 54th place before Russia and China.  The CCPI found that Canada still shows no intention of moving forward on climate policy, thereby leaving it as the worst performer of all western countries.  This is no surprise to those familiar with Canada’s federal government’s deliberate inaction on the issue of climate change, however Canada’s policy stand continues to perplex many.  The bottom three countries are Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kazakhstan, all of whom are highly dependent on oil and gas exports.


The eighth edition of the annual CCPI, which was published at the Doha climate talks on December 3, 2012 by the Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe and Germanwatch, ranks the climate protection performance of the 58 highest emitters worldwide.  The first three ranks are actually empty, because no country on the list is pursuing a path that would achieve the goal of keeping the global temperature increase below 2 degree Celsius.  The CCPI names Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada and the US as the world‘s worst climate polluters; the same as in previous editions. The best international climate policy is credited to Mexico, Denmark, Switzerland and Norway, while Turkey, Japan, Canada and Iran hold the lowest places in this category.


For the first time, the index used deforestation data, which resulted in a rankings drop of countries with high forest emissions such as Brazil and Indonesia.  The two biggest emitters, US and China, still rank comparably low. The US climbed up in this year’s CCPI, but partly due to decreased emissions resulting from the economic crisis and its massive exploration of shale gas. The indirect emissions of shale gas are not taken into account in the CCPI, as only energy and forest emissions are included. With a shift towards renewables and greater efficiency, the US could climb up even more.  Jan Burck, one of CCPI’s authors, notes that China’s emissions levels has risen, but as its massive investments in renewable energies are expected to show an effect shortly, China’s emissions trend could slow down in the near future and lead to better results. The Climate Change Performance Index 2013 country table can be found here.


 





	


	





	

		
		
California Holds Successful First Auction of Carbon Allowances
	


	
	
	

		
 

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) held its first auction on November 14, 2012 for the purchase and sale of carbon allowances for its planned cap-and-trade regime. Mary Nichols, chairman of CARB, declared the auction a success:


“The auction was a success and an important milestone for California as a leader in the global clean tech market. By putting a price on carbon, we can break our unhealthy dependence on fossil fuels and move at full speed toward a clean energy future.  That means new jobs, cleaner water and air – and a working model for other states, and the nation, to use as we gear up to fight climate change and make our economy more competitive and resilient.”


The auction results were released to the public on November 19th (available online) .  A tonne of carbon for the 2013 vintage year sold for $10.09, which is slightly above the $10.00 price floor set by CARB. The highest bid was a whopping $91.13.  Also, there was three times the number of bidders at the auction than actual buyers, indicating a healthy and competitive market. Furthermore, 97% of allowances were purchased by regulated entities indicating that prices were not influenced by speculative buyers. Instead, it seems to indicate that regulated entities are looking to retire allowances for compliance purposes.  Perhaps most importantly, the auction sold out with all 23,126,110 2013 vintage year allowances being purchased, raising approximately US$233 million. This auction kicks off the largest carbon market in North America and the second largest in the world, behind the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme.


California’s partners in the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) – including British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Québec – are no doubt paying close attention.  Apart from Québec, which will launch its emissions trading system on January 1, 2013 with California, the success of California’s cap-and-trade program may spur the other WCI partners into action to implement a similar scheme.


 





	


	







	

		
		
B.C. and Federal Government take first step towards an Equivalency Agreement on Climate Change
	


				

				
On April 6, 2010, the federal Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, and B.C.’s Minister of State for Climate Change, John Yap, signed an Agreement in Principle on efforts to address climate change. This is the first step towards establishing a formal Equivalency Agreement under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999).

			

		
	
	

		

On April 6, 2010, the federal Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, and B.C.’s Minister of State for Climate Change, John Yap, signed an Agreement in Principle on efforts to address climate change. This is the first step towards establishing a formal Equivalency Agreement under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999).


Section 10 of CEPA 1999 provides for Equivalency Agreements where provincial or territorial environmental legislation has provisions that are equivalent to provisions in CEPA 1999. The purpose of an Equivalency Agreement is to eliminate the duplication of environmental regulations. Equivalency is based on the following criteria: (i) equivalent regulatory standards; and (ii) similar provisions for citizens to request investigations. This will mean that B.C.-based businesses will not have to deal with competing regulatory requirements, such as for greenhouse gas emissions reporting, when it comes to climate change regulation.


Throughout 2009, the federal government consulted with the provinces and territories on Canada’s climate change strategy. According to Minister Yap: “We are building a strong template for acting on climate change here in B.C. and it is great to have the ongoing support of the federal government as we move forward. Climate change is the challenge of our generation and we need strong partnerships like this one to devise solutions that help us meet our legislative commitments while creating new economic opportunities for British Columbians.”


For more information, please refer to Environment Canada’s news release: Link