According to a recent survey, 87% of New Zealanders have at least some level of concern about the impacts of climate change on society. The government is currently consulting on how we want to translate climate concern into a target for reducing New Zealand’s emissions after 2020.
Rather than offering mitigation proposals, the government’s discussion document addresses the national context for setting a target and has a strong focus on the costs that accompany ambition. But looking at the underlying modelling by Infometrics and Landcare Research reveals more about the cost story in the discussion document than first meets the eye. It also highlights the importance of discussing pathways alongside targets.
First, the modelling excludes important mitigation opportunities and benefits for New Zealand. The authors of both studies are transparent about the limitations of their methodology (although these are not explicit in the discussion document). For example, they exclude mitigation from the forestry sector, the potential for transformational technology changes (e.g. electric vehicles and improved batteries), and the value to society of co-benefits to human health, the environment and New Zealand’s international standing (e.g. clean-green branding) as well as avoided climate change impacts.
Second, even with these exclusions, targets ranging up to 40% below 1990 levels have a relatively small impact on underlying economic growth – if New Zealand can invest in lower-cost mitigation in other countries. For example, Infometrics found that under 2030 targets ranging from -5% to -40% relative to 1990 levels with a global carbon price of NZ$50 and access to the global carbon market, across the 2020s:
- Average annual growth in GDP would be shaved from 2.2% (with no target) to 2.1% (across all targets modelled)
- Average annual growth in RGNDI[1] would be shaved from 2.4% to 2.3%
- Average annual growth in household consumption would be shaved from 2.3% to 2.1%.
Under a -10% target with a global price of NZ$50, 80% of reductions would need to happen offshore. More ambitious targets at the same global price would require even more offshore investment. If New Zealand had to achieve its target only through domestic action, it could not even achieve a reduction target of 10% below 1990 levels at a domestic price of NZ$300 per tonne. This would have more significant impacts on our international competitiveness and GDP. The high cost of domestic-only action is consistent with the findings from a simpler model developed by Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
Landcare Research reached similar conclusions, although its modelling showed slightly smaller target impacts on GDP and RGNDI and greater domestic mitigation for a given carbon price.
What are the implications for our target decisions?
Helping other countries to reduce their emissions is likely to be an important part of New Zealand’s optimal contribution to global mitigation. However, we need to think carefully about what we can and want to achieve strategically through domestic action.
First, investing in offshore mitigation has domestic costs. Infometrics estimated that every $1 million spent to purchase mitigation units overseas would cost the economy $1.8 million from declining terms of trade and reduced efficiency by our export industries. This does not take into account other lost co-benefits from investing domestically.
Second, while investing in offshore mitigation can buy us time for emerging technologies to mature and support poorer countries with lower-emission development, it won’t shift New Zealand to a zero-net-emission economy. The IPCC advises that to achieve a least-cost pathway limiting temperature rises below 2 degrees Celsius, global emissions should decline to 40-70% below 2010 levels by 2050 and should approach zero net annual emissions by 2100. Under current policies, New Zealand’s gross emissions are projected to be 36% above 1990 levels by 2030 and net emissions (with forestry) could be on the order of 159% above 1990 levels. New Zealand will need to join the rest of the world in finding a pathway to zero net emissions.
Third, reducing New Zealand’s emissions could produce strategic benefits if we are smart about how we do it. Benefits could include improvements to human health and biodiversity, better air and water quality, technological innovation, new business opportunities, more efficient production, improved energy security and reputational benefits from demonstrating leadership at home.
In order to achieve those benefits, we need to move beyond incremental thinking and embrace transformational opportunities that are not reflected in the modelling. In the context of future transformation:
- Mitigation costs become an investment with powerful economic, environmental and social returns.
- Emission reduction targets are not the end we seek but one of many indicators of the progress we are making toward achieving a high quality of life with a zero-net-emission economy.
- Our choice of targets should reflect our strategic direction for the future and not more of the same.
Here in New Zealand, we have the ingenuity, the natural resources and the economic opportunities we need to stop polluting the atmosphere with carbon. Joining ambitious global action is essential if we want to preserve our quality of life for our children and their children. Transitioning wisely to a zero-net-emission economy will help safeguard our long-term energy security, competitiveness and international reputation. It is also a matter of national pride. Given what we would stand to lose, the cloak of free riding would be a poor fit for New Zealand.
Before we can make informed decisions about interim targets and costs, we need meaningful discussions across central and local government, businesses and communities about New Zealand’s strategic pathway choices to achieve zero net emissions. Discussing target costs without pathways is like budgeting for a trip from Auckland to Wellington without first considering the full benefits and costs of travelling by bike, car, bus, train or plane.
Whatever your views on smart climate action for New Zealand, I encourage you to submit those views to the government before 3 June. The government’s submission form is available here. Further reflections on New Zealand’s pathway choices are available in this blog post. I also invite you to share your suggestions for New Zealand's target and pathway on this blog.
Wellingtonians may be interested in attending the following events:
- The government’s final public consultation meeting. This will be held on 25 May 2015 at Rydges Hotel, 75 Featherston Street, starting at 7:00 pm.
- A special event by the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies at Victoria University titled “A Fair Share? Constructing New Zealand's Post-2020 Climate Change Target.” This will be held on 26 May 2015 at the Pipitea Campus, Law School, Lecture Theatre 2 (GBLT2), starting at 6:00 pm.
[1] Real gross national disposable income. Infometrics explains this is considered a better measure of economic welfare because it accounts for changes in the terms of trade and the effect of income flows not directly tied to trade.
Note: Through Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, I have just published two Motu Notes on climate change issues prepared as background papers for Motu's 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 3.7oC to 4.8oC compared to pre-industrial levels. A least-cost pathway to limit temperature increases to not more than 2oC 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.
International negotiations The climate change negotiations are struggling to deliver a comprehensive agreement that will achieve this pathway. However, substantial mitigation activity is underway through national, bilateral, regional and private-sector initiatives. Whether implemented through a central agreement, a regime complex or economic drivers, more stringent global constraints on GHG emissions are likely in the future.
New Zealand’s emission profile Unique among industrialised countries, New Zealand’s emission profile is dominated by biological emissions from agriculture (46 percent) and energy (42 percent). From 1990 to 2012, New Zealand’s gross emissions (excluding forestry) rose 25 percent and its net emissions (including forestry) rose 111 percent. Although New Zealand is a small emitter in absolute terms, accounting for less than 0.2 percent of global emissions, our per capita emissions were fifth highest among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries in 2011.
New Zealand’s emission reduction targets New Zealand met its target for the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (limiting net emissions on average over 2008–12 to gross 1990 emissions) with a surplus equivalent to 90.1 million tonnes of CO2eq (carbon dioxide equivalent). This was due largely to Kyoto accounting of forest sinks and purchases of overseas Kyoto units. The following targets are in place for the future:
- Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), New Zealand has a non-binding unconditional target to reduce its net GHG emissions to 5 percent below 1990 gross emission levels by 2020. It maintains a conditional 2020 target pledge of a 10–20 percent reduction below 1990 levels.
- The government set a 2050 target to reduce net GHG emissions to 50 percent of gross 1990 emissions. This is not binding under domestic legislation.
New Zealand’s emission projections Under current policy settings, New Zealand’s net emissions are projected to increase 129 percent by 2020 and 159 percent by 2030 relative to 1990 levels. Gross emissions are projected to increase 29 percent and 38 percent, respectively. It is not clear how the New Zealand government plans to meet the 2020 target, particularly given harvesting expectations and New Zealand’s standing outside the Kyoto framework.
New Zealand’s mitigation policy New Zealand’s mitigation policy was designed to expose producers and consumers to the international price of emissions and enable them to contribute to global mitigation under the Kyoto framework. It was not designed to impose hard limits on domestic emissions or achieve specific sectoral outcomes. As international emission prices have collapsed, so too have incentives for domestic mitigation in New Zealand. New Zealand has now removed itself from the Kyoto framework, and will need to adapt its domestic policy settings accordingly.
Other domestic mitigation action New Zealand’s businesses, research institutions and non-governmental organisations are engaged in a range of activities supporting climate change mitigation. Most activities fall into three categories: shifting the New Zealand economy toward green growth, mitigation research, and advocacy. A 2012 opinion poll showed a strong majority of public support for more action on climate change, but the perception of climate change as an urgent or immediate problem declined between 2008 and 2012.
If we assume that in the coming decades most countries will support constraints on global GHG emissions to prevent dangerous human impacts on the climate system, then we can also assume that for New Zealand to maintain or grow its political and economic advantages in a low-emission world, it will need to contribute to global mitigation efforts by both reducing its domestic emissions and supporting mitigation by other countries.
The seriousness of the potential environmental, economic and social impacts of climate change demands a shift from incremental change to transformational change in efforts to reduce emissions. The catalyst for that shift currently is missing in New Zealand. Continuing to lock our policy, infrastructure, economic activity and behaviour into high-emission pathways could leave us with stranded assets and slow the uptake of the innovations that would make us more successful in the longer term.
Perhaps if we look at the current climate change landscape with fresh eyes, we can see beyond the barriers to the opportunities for New Zealand. How might we take action to reduce our emissions, not because we have to but because we want to? How might domestic mitigation align with our development and resource management objectives and improve our quality of life? How might we enable rapid innovation across sectors and across the supply chain? How might we stimulate economic growth by increasing public and private investment in mitigation and capitalising on emerging markets in low-emission products and services? How might we engage with producers, consumers and shareholders to drive lasting behaviour change? How might we shift from incremental thinking to transformational thinking about climate change, and outgrow the perception that New Zealand is too small to make a difference?
New Zealand has a proud history of bold projects and new ideas. The challenge before us is how we can harness creativity, connectivity and flexibility to chart an exciting and hopeful pathway toward an attractive low-emission future for New Zealand.
Note: This post was first published on the blog New Zealand's Low-Emission Future.
Over the holidays, a gracious lady from Tonga shared with me the story of Tu’i Malila, the “Little King.” This Madagascar radiated tortoise was presented as a gift to the King of Tonga by Captain Cook in 1777 and he lived until the age of 188, dying in the mid-1960s. This tortoise had bridged the human eras of sea exploration and space exploration. I wondered if Captain Cook had any inkling how long his gift would endure and how much the world would change over that time.
I’ve been reflecting on how the choices we make each day about climate change represent our gift – or our burden – to future generations. They don’t have a say in what they will inherit from us, they can’t vote for today’s visionary leaders and they can’t remind us to change our habits. The collective impact of what we emit now will extend well beyond the typical climate change modelling threshold of 2100, which lies within the lifetime of today’s children.
It can be harder to want to reduce our emissions today when we personally face the costs but not the climate consequences of our choices. As a thought experiment, would we behave differently today if we expected to reincarnate into the future climate we are creating – and if the “climate karma” we accumulated during this lifetime determined in which climatic zone we lived next? I have to admit that I probably would behave differently, and my heart is not comfortable with my answer. Perhaps the Golden Rule that has evolved across cultures and faiths can be extended: “Emit unto others as you would have them emit unto you.”
I am a huge fan of living in the present. Doing anything more becomes overwhelming. But I also want to maintain awareness of my long-term impact so that my present constitutes a worthy present – my gift – to future generations. My goal for this year is to live as if climate karma counts!
For personal inspiration, I am turning to Kālidasā, an Indian poet who wrote in the fifth century.
Look to this day: for it is life, the very life of life. In its brief course lie all the verities and realities of existence. The bliss of growth, the glory of action, the splendour of achievement are but experiences of time.
For yesterday is but a dream, and tomorrow is only a vision; and today well-lived, makes yesterday a dream of happiness, and every tomorrow a vision of hope. Look well therefore to this day; such is the salutation to the ever-new dawn!
Happy new year!
I read an inspiring story recently about Dr Donald Berwick, former CEO of the US Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI). His research showed that hospitals were repeatedly making avoidable mistakes that were costing patients’ lives. Although he only had a tiny staff and limited resources, he decided that things needed to change. At a convention of US hospital administrators in 2004, he set out a challenge: saving 100,000 lives in the next 18 months. He spoke to the heart of why change was needed, identified six clear, manageable interventions and launched a campaign to enrol hospitals in making the necessary changes. He knew it would be hard for hospitals to admit they were routinely making mistakes and change standard practices, but he made it easy for hospitals to join and provided mentoring, information sharing and feedback. Eighteen months later, they had prevented an estimated 122,300 avoidable deaths (Heath and Heath 2010).
How does this story relate to climate change? Collectively our society is repeatedly taking avoidable actions which are changing the climate and causing harm. Like the hospitals at the beginning of the story, we have practical solutions with valuable benefits at our fingertips but we aren’t using them seriously yet. Fundamentally, the challenge of climate change is a challenge of people change. In government departments, businesses and households, our lack of willingness to change is the figurative “elephant in the room.”
In their book Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard, authors Chip and Dan Heath identify a simple model for changing behaviour: that of a rider trying to direct an elephant along a pathway. The rider (representing the analytical mind) needs clear direction, and must work in harmony with the elephant (representing emotional engagement), who must want to head in the right direction. The shape of the pathway determines where the rider and elephant can travel. How might we influence the rider, the elephant and the pathway to create climate change action in New Zealand?
The rider needs specific instructions on how to make a difference. Motu’s research on New Zealanders’ household consumption emissions suggests three priorities for consumers: housing utilities (roughly 25% of total consumption emissions per person), transport (26%) and diet (33%). Importantly, people can make a difference not just as individuals but also as political and organisational actors. We can vote for collective changes that we may not be willing to make voluntarily on our own. The rider will want to know if others are taking action too, or choosing to free-ride.
The elephant needs motivation to act. Here are three clear motivators we can start with:
- A positive vision for the future. Research suggests that people are more motivated by hopeful visions than disaster scenarios. Fear appeals cause overwhelm and disengagement. Hope appeals inspire interest and creativity. We can create and communicate a positive, hopeful vision for New Zealand’s future low-emission economy and a manageable transition for getting us there.
- Personal values. For some people, the “why” for reducing emissions will come from satisfying self-interest. This could mean saving money, gaining status, getting better-quality products and services, being energy-independent or building political leverage. In the long term, for the kind of transformation we are looking for, the “why” may need to come from redefining or transcending self-interest. We will need broad support for change even when the losses to some appear more immediate, more personal and easier to measure than the long-term gains to all. I hope that ultimately we will choose to take action because we understand that we are connected and interdependent, across countries, across ecosystems and across generations. My emission reductions and my votes may not directly help protect my house and my family today, but as part of collective effort they will help protect someone’s house and someone’s family for decades to come and that matters to me.
- Social networks. We are social creatures and we learn by copying others and seeking their approval. Likewise, when we model effective action, then others can learn from us. Each of us can be a leader, and we need to find ways to make our emission-reduction actions more collaborative and more visible.
Finally, we need to shape New Zealand’s pathway. Individuals who want to make a difference are constrained by today’s infrastructure, technology and policy. This is where market-based instruments like the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, research and development, business initiatives and government policies come into play. Motu’s programme on “Shaping New Zealand’s Low-Emission Future” is working to progress new possibilities through research, dialogue and international engagement.
To avoid dangerous temperature increases, we have to limit cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and move toward a zero-net-emission global economy. Business as usual won’t deliver an attractive future. To avoid repeating the mistakes of inaction on climate change, we need to address the head, the heart and the path by providing:
- clear information about practical solutions and proof of collective, effective action
- a positive vision and positive values reinforced by strong social networks
- broad and sustained public and political support for enabling infrastructure, technology, business action and government policy.
Let’s get the elephant out of the room and back on the road.
Reference: Heath, Chip and Dan Heath. 2010. Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard. New York: Broadway Books.
On 2 November 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Synthesis Report 2014 with the headline "Climate change threatens irreversible and dangerous impacts, but options exist to limit its effects." The report is a sobering reminder that limiting temperature increases below 2° Celsius relative to pre-industrial levels could entail reducing emissions by 40-70 percent of 2010 levels by 2050, and bringing net emissions near or below zero by 2100. It emphasises the clear benefits of near-term action given the inertia of economic and climate systems.
A White House report issued in July 2014 also highlights the costs of delaying action to reduce emissions. Two key findings were:
- Based on a leading aggregate damage estimate in the climate economics literature, a delay that results in warming of 3° Celsius above preindustrial levels, instead of 2°, could increase economic damages by approximately 0.9 percent of global output… The incremental cost of an additional degree of warming beyond 3° Celsius would be even greater. Moreover, these costs are not one-time, but are rather incurred year after year because of the permanent damage caused by increased climate change resulting from the delay.
- An analysis of research on the cost of delay for hitting a specified climate target (typically, a given concentration of greenhouse gases) suggests that net mitigation costs increase, on average, by approximately 40 percent for each decade of delay. These costs are higher for more aggressive climate goals: each year of delay means more CO2 emissions, so it becomes increasingly difficult, or even infeasible, to hit a climate target that is likely to yield only moderate temperature increases.
The global case for near-term action is clear. What about the case for near-term action in New Zealand?
This issue has proven challenging for New Zealand so far. In addition to economic and climate inertia, New Zealand has faced a third important dimension: political inertia. This was the subject of Alister Barry’s 2014 documentary “Hot Air”. Using archival footage and retrospective interviews, the film traces New Zealand’s successive attempts to price and reduce greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. Across policy cycles from the government’s initial consideration of emission pricing to the choice of voluntary greenhouse agreements, consideration and abandonment of a carbon tax and agricultural emissions research levy, the monumental passage of legislation for the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS) and the subsequent decisions that reduced its impact, a similar story was repeated.
Attempts to shift New Zealand toward a lower-emission development pathway were resisted effectively by those with powerful interests in maintaining business as usual.
The film struck a personal chord for me because I was closely involved in much of this process as an official. I moved to New Zealand in 2003 to work for the government on the carbon tax and Negotiated Greenhouse Agreements with industry. After they were scrapped, I joined the team of officials who helped to design the NZ ETS – and watched as its ambition fell away. Then as a government negotiator, I worked to improve the Kyoto Protocol’s market mechanisms – to which the government will lose access after 2015 because it chose not to proceed with a second commitment period. Enormous effort was invested by Ministers, officials and stakeholders throughout these policy cycles. As each new wave of exciting possibilities approached a transformational crest, it hit a wall of opposition and receded back toward the ocean of policy tokenism and empty long-term targets.
Okay, perhaps that is too negative, and the film did downplay or overlook some areas where significant progress has been made. We do now have an operational nationwide multi-sector ETS in place. That is more than most countries – unfortunately now including Australia – can claim, and it is something meaningful to show for the last two decades of effort. We have learned a lot from this experience. Some New Zealand businesses have invested in reducing their emissions intensity, if not their absolute emissions, and are collaborating on green innovation through associations like the Sustainable Business Council, Sustainable Business Network and Pure Advantage. Although the emissions price in the NZ ETS is too low and uncertain right now to be effective, the underlying policy architecture is sound so if we wanted to get serious about reducing emissions, we could do so with manageable design adjustments.
So why hasn’t this happened?
One reason is that we have become attached to a story that New Zealand is too small to make a difference on its own and will suffer by exposing its economy to ambitious action ahead of its trade competitors. According to the Minister for Climate Change Issues, New Zealand’s climate change policy is about "waiting for, frankly, the rest of the world to get moving."
But there is a different, more compelling story to be told: the story of the potential gains from a meaningful New Zealand commitment to mitigation.
First, all emission reductions – whether from large or small countries – help to avoid global costs from future climate damages. The social cost of carbon – the present economic value of avoiding future damages from a tonne of emissions – has conservatively been estimated in a US government study at a central value of US$37 per tonne CO2, and could range up to US$109 per tonne or higher. These figures are expected to rise over time. Importantly, they are likely to be underestimates. (For more information, refer to Motu's blog post on the social cost of carbon.) Significant mitigation could be accomplished well below the social cost of carbon – indeed, some at negative financial cost.
Second, establishing an effective carbon price signal encourages earlier investment in less emissions-intensive capital, infrastructure and land use. This can help New Zealand to avoid a more abrupt and painful economic adjustment generating stranded assets in a future of global carbon constraints and changing consumer preferences for low-emission products and services.
Third, we could be doing more to incentivise low-emission innovation and capitalise on opportunities to export mitigation expertise to other countries, particularly those in the developing world. As an incubator of effective approaches to mitigation, New Zealand could help reduce global emissions and boost its economy at the same time.
Fourth, by modelling leadership we would be in a stronger position to advocate for mitigation by other countries.
While “Hot Air” tells one important piece of New Zealand’s mitigation story, it does not tell the whole story. First, across past policy cycles some meaningful progress has been made and the NZ ETS gives us a foundation to build upon across government, business and civil society. Second, if global net mitigation costs to hit a given target are going to increase 40 percent for each decade of delay, it becomes harder to maintain that a commitment to business as usual on climate change, locking us into a high-emission pathway, is in the interest of New Zealand as a whole or our relationship with global markets. Third, the story is far from finished. New chapters are waiting to be written and the pen lies in our hands.
In the international climate change negotiations, countries agreed to the global goal of limiting warming above pre-industrial levels to not more than 2 degrees C. According to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, to maintain a 66% chance of achieving that goal, cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions starting from the period 1861-1880 must remain below about 1 trillion tonnes of carbon (3.67 trillion tonnes of CO2). That drops to an even more restrictive budget when non-CO2 greenhouse gases are taken into account.
How are we tracking so far? By 2011, we had already spent half of the trillion tonne budget.
A paper by Harvey et al. (2013) published by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences sheds further light on this challenge. The authors used an energy model called EN-ROADS to simulate emission outcomes under a range of mitigation scenarios. They found that if we continued on our present course, we would cross the threshold by 2050 on an upward trajectory. This suggests that under business as usual by 2050, we would either need to have figured out how an estimated 9 billion people can thrive on zero net annual greenhouse gas emissions from that point onward or we would have committed ourselves to a future with very serious climate change impacts. If we held net annual emissions constant at today’s levels, we would buy ourselves only an extra decade beyond 2050 before exhausting the budget. Acting aggressively on energy efficiency and renewable energy combined would buy us two extra decades, and integrating a hypothetical game-changing energy technology would buy us a further five years.
Why don’t these ambitious scenarios take us further? The authors identify two key factors. First, the modelled rates of improvement in efficiency and renewable energy are swamped by the rates of growth in population and GDP combined with cheap coal. Second, because we are locked into energy-intensive infrastructure and capital stock turns over slowly, the uptake of new technologies would be too slow to significantly change cumulative emissions by 2050, although they would impact significantly on annual emissions by that time.
The problem of infrastructure lock-in is noted by the International Energy Agency in the 2011 World Energy Outlook. By as early as 2017, our existing long-lived infrastructure could lock us into our cumulative emission budget for 2 degrees C. The IEA reports, “Expressed another way, no new investment could be made after 2017 in new power generation, industrial capacity additions, new buildings, passenger and commercial vehicles, appliances, space heating and agricultural equipment unless it were zero-carbon. Any new emitting plant or facility installed after this point would require the early retirement of some existing plant or facility to create headroom for the new investment.” The IEA highlights the false economy of delaying investment in lower-emission infrastructure under a 2 degree C limit. For the power sector, the IEA finds, “In other words, for every $1 of avoided investment between 2011 and 2020, either through reduced low-carbon investment or adoption of cheaper fossil-fuel investment options, an additional $4.3 would need to be spent between 2021 and 2035 to compensate.”
Harvey et al. do leave us with a final scenario that is more hopeful. When the aggressive energy efficiency, renewable energy and new technology interventions are combined with a CO2 price of US$35 (~NZ$40 at a current exchange rate) per tonne starting in 2025 and a 50% reduction in emissions from land-use sectors and of more short-lived greenhouse gases, cumulative emissions remain below the trillion-tonne threshold through 2100, buying considerably more time for adjustment.
There are three key messages here.
- First, managing cumulative emissions is the end game. We will need more than weak annual emission reduction targets that defer ambition in order to deliver the cumulative emission reductions that will be needed by mid-century. 'Last-minute' solutions won't work.
- Second, we need to shift infrastructure investment toward low-carbon alternatives starting now if we want to avoid locking ourselves into a future of severe climate change impacts and/or major stranded assets. The fossil fuels that appear cheap today come with a hidden price tag. Effective emission pricing would help support this transition.
- Third, we need to figure out how to translate a finite limit on cumulative global emissions into effective actions by governments, businesses and communities. Today's investment decisions need to lay the foundation for transformational rates of change in the coming decades while still meeting human development needs. Globally, we need to pursue emission reduction opportunities from energy efficiency, renewable energy and new energy technologies as well as emission pricing and other measures. We need to fundamentally rethink how we define our goals, how we measure our progress, and how we incentivise global collaboration to shift emission drivers across the chain of supply and demand.
To avoid lock-in to a high-emission future, we must think cumulatively and act immediately on infrastructure.
Sources:
Harvey, H., F.M. Orr, Jr., and C. Vondrich (2013). “A Trillion Tons.” In: Daedalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences 142(1), Winter 2013.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013). “Summary for Policymakers.” In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
International Energy Agency (2011). World Energy Outlook 2011. IEA, Paris, France.
I am a Person Who Does Too Much.
I know I am not alone. There is a whole industry producing self-help books, meditations and page-a-day calendars for people like me. I have them all sitting on my shelf without enough time to read them.
The pattern of overdoing was set very early in life in response to fear which proved very adaptable. In elementary school, my fear was rejection by my teachers. In junior high, my fear became not getting into college. I started studying for college entrance exams years early and stressed over every assignment. By high school, the fear extended to not earning a scholarship. College was then dominated by the fear of losing that scholarship. By the time I graduated, the fear had become job insecurity in a bad economy. As my career has matured, the fear has shifted to failing to make a real difference. Throughout my life, overdoing was supposed to deliver security. Of course, it never has.
Naturally I sought out a career that was custom made for overdoing: climate change policy. Here is a problem of monumental proportions with potentially devastating consequences and practical solutions with obvious co-benefits which society is largely ignoring in a form of global self-sabotage. Overdoing to the rescue! For the past 20 years, my work has been fascinating, rewarding and totally exhausting. I joke that my life would be just fine if only I had an extra twelve hours in the day. But even that would never be enough.
The pattern of overdoing persisted despite my best efforts. However, I had a breakthrough experience…or at least I hope so. Working with a compassionate healer, I brought fresh awareness to the drivers of my overdoing. I assigned each of them a persona:
- The Healer who wants to help people and the planet;
- The Inventor who wants to create something special and fears losing the inspiration;
- The Competitor who fears that someone else will do it first and do it better;
- The Taskmaster who believes that things must be done right now;
- The Scheduler who underestimates how long things will actually take;
- The Scholar who always wants to learn more; and
- The Student who still thinks she will flunk out of life if she doesn’t know the answer.
These parts of myself evolved to support me, but they no longer serve me when taken to extreme.
The breakthrough happened when the healer asked me, “So where is the part of yourself that ensures your self-care?” In my mind’s eye, I saw that part of myself huddled in a dark corner and overwhelmed by the domineering energy of the others. When I gently brought her into the foreground, she stood peacefully and then started to glow. She looked beautiful. A clear thought flashed in my mind: "The most important contribution I have to make in life is the gift of my very being, and my sacred light has to be protected above all."
What I took from this powerful experience is that only through balanced self-care can I achieve my life’s highest purpose. The simple truth is that there are limits to what I can do as one person. If I want to thrive, I have to be willing to live within the limits of being human or I will become so depleted that I will not be able to function.
Could there be parallels to the challenge of global sustainability? Our society has made its purpose, security and self-worth dependent on economic growth and we are driven by relentless fear that without continued growth, our needs will not be met. No amount of economic growth will ever be “enough” to make us feel safe and content but we still strive to reach that goal. By refusing to accept the true implications of unlimited fossil-fuelled growth, we will continue to deplete our ecosystems and overload our atmosphere to the point where they will not be able to function in the ways we currently depend on. Collectively, we are neglecting our self-care. In fact, we are in the process of destroying the very things that we seek: security, endless possibility and our ability to thrive as a global community.
We can choose a different way. With overdoing, the answer is clear: work smarter. With global productivity, the answer is clear: grow smarter. In both cases, wisdom lies in choosing quality of being over quantity of doing, focusing on fundamental needs and accepting limits.
I strongly believe in the principle that I can’t pass on what I don’t have. If I want to be an advocate for global sustainability then I need to be living sustainably myself. That has to include protecting the sacred light of my being through gentle balance. It also has to include minimising the environmental footprint from my life that will pass as my legacy to future generations. My heart is telling me clearly that in both cases, less really will be more.
I would love to hear others' reflections on the dimensions of personal sustainability.