A Bunkerhead is born

This week's topic was Bunker Fuels. What fuels? Bunker fuels refer to the fuels used for maritime and aviation transport. Due to rising short-haul flights and demand for cruises and shipping of products, the emissions from bunker fuels are rising fast. Some statistics claim the increase from aviation emissions is in the 80th percentile just in the past 10 years! Basement-bargain airfares and travel packages has increased demand for shorter trips tremendously, and also increased the need for growing fleet sizes. In fact, aircraft fleets are increasing far faster than technological improvements on fuel efficiency.

Bunker fuels are not currently included in emissions accounting because at the time of writing the Kyoto Protocol, no one was sure of how to deal with them. They are supposed to be managed by the United Nations-run International Marine Organization (IMO) and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), but both groups have shown no mitigation efforts, and very little progress on sorting out accounting rules.

There are a few proposals on the table for how to deal with these fuels. They all are based on a similar framework: a cap is placed on the emissions allowed from the entire sector, regardless of which country owns the ship/plane, what route is taken, where it ends up, or where it started, or what it's carrying. The cap is intentionally set to be lower than the current emissions, because the intent is to encourage the industry to reduce emissions. Credits or offset allowances can be bought by the industry through emissions trading schemes such as the Clean Development Mechanism, or the European Union's Emission Trading Scheme. Some proposals involve placing a levy, either on the fuel purchased, the passenger ticket price, or the passenger emissions per kilometre. The levy, and/or the revenue from buying emissions credits can fund any of the following;

• technological advances in fuel efficiency
• adaptation efforts in developing countries
• other mitigation efforts, such as renewable energy.

The nice thing about these proposals is that they can work within pre-existing mechanisms that everyone has already agreed to - namely, the Joint Implementation, the Clean Development Mechanism, and regional Emission Trading Schemes (ETS) such as that in the EU. The latter becomes tricky with international flights, however. If it is part of a regional ETS, the international flights from outside the region would need a different set-up to be a part of it, and would all have to agree to be part of it. Mechanisms would have to be discussed as to where the credits are purchased from, how many should come from the affected regional ETS, and how it will be distributed. The US, for example, is not supportive of international aviation bunker fuels being mitigated through the EU ETS, possibly because of the consequences of some of these issues.

From the youth perspective, we encourage governments to place a levy on short-haul flights and endorse mitigation under a sectoral approach to help fund developing country efforts at adaptation. Funds should also be allocated to mitigation efforts, such as investment in rail transportation, and bunker fuel efficiency improvements. I don't think the discussion on bunker fuels will be particularly lively or heated this December, but I'll keep my ear open for it, because I do find it an interesting problem, and one that can make qutie a significant difference on international transportation emissions!

A tiny show of pride

This post is a bit unrelated to the climate change negotiations, but something I'm proud of and wanted to share.

This week, the CTV Media circulated an article about the "greening of our campuses", or how environmental sustainability is becoming an important part of students' post-secondary institution choices. Of course, the University of Guelph was featured, but it actually earned this recognition this time.

The article highlighted how students took the lead by working with the administration, instead of against it, to initiate the Energy Conservation Retrofit Initiative. I have to say that this is a subtle, but very personal statement because at the risk of sounding self-important, it was "my" idea. (I use quotations because, as you'll read below, I can't take full credit for the success.)

A bit of history:
During my undergrad years, I was involved in the Renewable Energy Group. Our main campaign was to try to get the University of Guelph's administration to agree to do a complete energy-efficiency overhaul of the university. We had successfully convinced them to do a pilot project on one major energy-consuming building. The pilot was so successful that we thought we had succeeded in demonstrating its effectiveness and cost savings. We had economic, environmental, and social arguments well-researched and presented to prove that it was the best investment of our tuition-dollars. Yet we were constantly met with inaction and excuses. We wrote letter campaigns, held tense meetings with the VPs and the President, and participated in other typical "Activist" activities, to no avail.

Then I attended the "oikos International Winter school" in St. Gallen, Switzerland to become an 'agent of change' and improve sustainability in our universities. The program included reputable speakers including a senior executive of Ikea, the European Policy Officer of World Wildlife Fund, a university president, and senior managers and executives from major businesses and banks. Their main message was

"don't fight the system, work within it."

We did interactive role-play workshops on multi-stakeholder meetings and negotiations, and learned how to facilitate discussions with management staff to have the desired outcomes when dealing with opposing viewpoints.

The lessons were invaluable. I came back to the University of Guelph with a whole new perspective on how the Renewable Energy Group should approach the administration on the topic of the energy retrofit.

Upon my return, I suggested that we propose a similar multi-stakeholder committee made up of Administration, Physical Resources and Operations, and student representatives. The proposal was adopted, and we formed the Energy Conservation Working Group, chaired by the school's Sustainability Coordinator. Following that, the Central Students' Association spearheaded a referendum campaign targeted at students to encourage the support for a $10/semester levy to support the energy retrofit. Funds would be matched by the administration, and would be bolstered by staff and faculty funds through voluntary pay-roll deductions.

The Pay-Off:
The referendum passed by 63%. Students agreed to contribute $4.3 million over 12 years. This incredible support snowballed further support; staff and faculty began offering their own contributions. The following year, the Graduate Students' Association ran their own Energy Retrofit referendum, which also passed. The administration lived up to their word and matched the funds. In the first year of the campaign, we raised over $400,000. The first project was decided upon by the ECWG to be the Energy Lighting Retrofit of the Library - a high-traffic space that was in need of some significant energy conservation measures. The $950,000 lighting retrofit is now complete, with a $200,000 per year payback. Not too shabby!

In the end, a multitude of factors lined up to kick the initiative into high-gear, including student support, staff support, the energy of the student government at that time, and partnership opportunities with the local utility companies. But I still like to believe that the multistakeholder, non-confrontational, cooperative approach that I proposed in 2006 was the tipping point. Maybe that's just my ego talking. :)

Read more at: http://globecampus.ca/in-the-news/globecampusreport/lean-green-campus-machines/

Adaptation, Technology, and Financing Climate Change

On tonight's policy call, two members shared with us their research on issues pertaining to adaptation, technology transfer to developing countries, and financing climate change adaptation.

These three topics, though riddled with complexities, are intimately linked. All of them require the assistance of Annex 1 - or developed, industrialized countries - to assist poorer nations to adapt to climate change, either through finance mechanisms (e.g. taxes on emissions trading, % of GDP to climate change) or by sharing technology.

There is a huge gap in the predicted funding required for countries to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, and the amount of money that current mechanisms can provide. The UNFCCC estimated that adaptation costs will range between $28 - 67 billion per year by 2015. The UNDP suggests this range is closer to $50-86 billion annually. The current mechanisms are only expected to generate $80-300 million - an order of magnitude less than required - per year between now and 2012.

This huge gap is no small challenge. No developed country is willing to part with much of their cash. Canada, for instance, has pledged only $16 million to the Least Develoepd Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund, which is a small contribution relative to other countries' contributions. They also refuse to spend any public funds on Clean Development Mechanisms, which are adaptation projects in developing countries that are funded by Annex 1 countries, in exchange for earning the carbon credits generated from the project. So for example, if India were to build a wind farm, Canada could fund the wind technology and installment, and claim the carbon credits generated by replacing coal energy with wind for Canadian emissions accounting.

On the technology side of things, the picture is no prettier. Technology transfer may have been believed by some to be a easy solution to a complicated problem. There are economists out there who feel that technology will continue to evolve to meet our needs and solve our challenges (known as the "Cornucopian" view). However, an article in Nature several months ago was cited in tonight's call that discussed the IPCC's vast underestimation of how quickly we are able to develop new technologies to bridge the gap and help nations adapt to climate change. Technology advancement would have to happen at "a massive rate" to catch up to the IPCCs projections. Unfortunately, this might be one challenge that technology can't develop fast enough to solve.

The discussions in Poznan around adaptation, technology and finance should be interesting, as there are many discrepancies between what the Global South needs, and what the Industrialized North is willing to give. as this is not my area of expertise, there won't be much more on this blog about adaptation. However, I will endeavor to post any highlights here, and direct potentially interested readers to good resources later on.

Don't ask me about the elections...

I'm quite disappointed in the outcome of the elections, but it could have been worse. So I will avoid the topic all-together.

Guelphites reading this: if you are an avid cyclist, or cyclist-phobic motorist/pedestrian and you'd like to participate on the Bicycle Transportation Advisory Committee, you can find the City of Guelph's form here. Please be sure to apply by October 24th at 4:30 pm.

As outlined in the Vacancy Notice in October 10th and 17th's Guelph Tribune:

"The advisory committee will be responsible for providing advice and feedback to city staff on the Bicycle Trnasportation Plan for Guelph. The ideal candidate will:
- be familiar with the city's cycling routes and transportation policies
- provide critical and analytical input on matters pertaining to program, policy, and/or facility design and implementation
- provide fair representation of the community-at-large, either as a cyclist, or as a non-cyclist
- Engineering and/or Master Planning experience would be considered an asset."

You can leave a comment or email tdm@guelph.ca if you have any further questions. Visit www.guelph.ca/tdm for more information on the project.

You would have the joys of working with me on creating Guelph's first Bicycle Transportation Plan.

Climate Change and the Elections

Tomorrow is the big day where we once again (so soon?) get to have our opinion on who should be leading our country. I strongly encourage everyone to take the time to vote, no matter how busy or boring your day is, and vote for what you believe in.

In addition to all the typical key issues in the election (health care, economy, child care), I am also heavily weighing the candidates position on climate change. As someone who has seen and will see our government's actions first-hand at the international negotiating table, I want a leader for our country who will make decisions for the distant future, not just their elected term. Our Prime Minister should live up to their claims of leadership, and lead OECD countries in agreeing to policies and measures that will keep global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celcius. I want a leader who will agree to a range of 25-40% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to help us stay below 2 degrees. I want a PM who remembers that there is no economy without an environment to produce the goods that drive it - and with this in mind, signs negotations that protect the stability and robustness of our natural resources. Our PM should believe that they must take leadership in cutting emissions (in a fair, equitable way that will not destroy our economy, of course), and will not bully developing countries into taking on targets prematurely - as Canada has been known to do in the past. I, for one, want my kids to grow up in the same comfortable climate as I have, without worrying about devastating storms, rising sea levels, loss of fresh water, or excessively high food prices due to droughts and forest fires.

I, for one, will not be voting strategically. I will vote for who I think will best represent my community and my beliefs, morals, and values. Fortunately for me, many others in Guelph agree with me, and provided they don't all vote strategically at the last minute, we have a good chance of electing another Green Party member to Parliament. For every seat that gets elected, aParty earns money for further campaigning initiatives. For marginal parties like the Green Party and the NDP, this helps support them in continuing to fight for what their supporters believe in. It also gives them more opportunities to counter Conservative or Liberal bills that would otherwise get by uncontested.

I hope this message gets across to at least a few, and that they might consider the implications of their vote, both in the short term, and in the long term.

An Overview of LULUCF

In my previous post, I mentioned that the CYD has a policy team that will be researching and presenting via conference calls on various key policy issues that will be negotiated in Poznan. On Thursday, I gave an overview on the issue of Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry, called "LULUCF" for short. I thought I'd provide a brief recap of the overview for the blog, as this is one of the key issues that Canada has a stake in at the negotiations. I give huge credit to Chris Henschel's blog, www.climateforests.blogspot.com for his expertise and clear descriptions of the issue.

LULUCF has been a topic of hot discussion during the past 12 months as countries try to make sense of the highly complex rules and science around it. Currently, Canada and several other countries want to include LULUCF in the Kyoto Protocol because forests represent a large "sink" where CO2 is predominately absorbed instead of emitted - at least, that's what we used to think. But increasing scientific evidence points out that various forest management practices, natural phenomena (think Mountain Pine Beetle, forest fires), and agricultural practices are actually resulting in net EMISSIONS of CO2. This has partly led to a re-negotiation of how the rules for accounting for these emissions and sinks actually work, and how they can be improved for the next committment period when the Kyoto Protocol runs out in 2012.

The current discussions are looking at:
* how to re-assess how we account for emissions from the LULUCF sector,
* how to "factor out" the naturally-caused emissions from forest fires, etc,
* whether or not accounting and reporting should be mandatory in the next climate change agreement.
* how to decide on a baseline: should we compare to a base year, or to a "business-as-usual" scenario? Should the base year be the same as the committment period, e.g. 1990 for the period that ends in 2012?
* how should emissions/sinks be measured for carbon in harvested wood products (paper, construction materials, furniture, etc)?

Currently, the accounting rules leave opportunities for countries to claim more credits than may actually exist. The rules are also somewhat disadvantageous to countries, and do not provide an adequate incentive to countries to make them want to report their emissions. There is no agreed-upon baseline, and countries can only claim a certain percentage of their total national carbon sinks for LULUCF, which acts as a disincentive to countries like Canada with vast tracts of forest sinks. The negotations hope to level the playing field and create more clear and attractive accounting methodologies.

"Factoring-Out" is another hot topic for Canada, which has seen its boreal forests turn from a net sink of carbon during the time of original negotiation, to a net source of carbon after problems with forest fires and the mountain pine beetle epidemic. Canada and other countries are looking for ways to leave out these natural factors that contribute to emissions, and account for only those that result from human interference, such as clear-cutting, poor soil management techniques, etc.

Whether or not the accounting and reporting should be mandatory is a debatable issue for some countries, and a question that may not be easily answered in Poznan. I think most countries see the value in making it compulsory, but we'll see.

The baseline question is another contentious one. There are several different, highly complex and technical options out on the table. Some are riddled with loopholes, while others seem very fair and equitable. It will be interesting to see which option Canada supports, and how influential they can be at getting their way. The current proposal on the table from Canada seems to support comparing a "business as usual" projection to what actual emissions or sinks they experience over a certain committment period. Seems debatable, since they could frame "business as usual" to mean whatever will get them credits!

Finally, the question of harvested wood products has both good sides and bad sides. If the carbon is taken out of the forest, it is less likely to stay in the forest. However at the same time, it may be possible to calculate the emissions from the carbon in a given product at the end of its lifetime, to ensure transparent accounting. Canada is supporting accounting for Harvested Wood Products, though the details on how they will account for those emissions are unclear (to me) so far.

Right now, it is voluntary for countries to record and submit the emissions from this sector. It is not part of the national greenhouse gas inventories that Kyoto Protocol signatories must submit to the UN each year. This means that only countries that can claim a net SINK are reporting their emissions, and trying to earn carbon credits for trading purposes, and for lowering their emission reduction targets. Canada is one of these countries.

A very detailed and informative blog can be found at www.climateforests.blogspot.com if you have lingering questions about these issues. But this should have provided at least a basic overview of what we'll be watching for in Poland.

Canadian Youth Delegation 2008 is well underway!

It's almost mid-October, and after a few additions and subtractions, we now have our official Canadian Youth Delegation. This year's delegation comes from every corner of the country, represents Canada's cultural and historical diversity, and collects expertise and skills from a wide variety of educational backgrounds. We are again organized into three working groups: Media, Actions, and Policy. Our full-time coordinator this year is Maia Green from Vancouver, who is keeping tabs on all of us and ensuring our conference calls and communications run smoothly and efficiently.

Similar to last year, I will be coordinating the Policy Working Group with Caroline Lee from British Columbia. Together, we are working to provide a presentation each week on each of the critical policy issues that will be priorties in Poland. These issues include: mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer, financing, Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries (REDD), Canadian climate change policy, aviation bunker fuels, and CDM/Carbon-Capture and Storage/Nuclear energy.

Yesterday's conference call provided the Policy team with a background on LULUCF and REDD. Each week, we will be summarizing the key issues, positions, and direction on each of the 8 major issues we defined so that everyone has a general knowledge of the issues heading into Poznan.

My evenings have been largely consumed with policy research, coordinating phone calls, and organizing the logistics of who's researching what and when they will present. It's a big task, but one I greatly enjoy doing. I feel that the more prepared and informed our team is going into Poznan this December, the more effectively we can monitor the discussions and develop our strategies. Providing up-to-the-minute information on critical negotiation developments and policy statements to the rest of the CYD will be essential to developing powerful messaging and strategies for encouraging stronger action from Canadian and international governments.

My next post will provide the summary of our LULUCF overview and REDD summary for anyone interested in following along.