{"id":109504,"date":"2009-12-16T15:44:50","date_gmt":"2009-12-16T20:44:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.metasd.com\/?p=669"},"modified":"2009-12-16T15:44:50","modified_gmt":"2009-12-16T20:44:50","slug":"the-awg-kp-draft","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/109504","title":{"rendered":"The AWG-KP draft"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I&#8217;ve added the Dec. 16 Kyoto Protocol working group draft to my <a href=\"http:\/\/spreadsheets.google.com\/pub?key=tyNXpds94Yb_ew0EatuG1wQ&amp;output=html\">summary table<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>There&#8217;s not much to report with respect to the global outcome. Most of the detail is focused on Annex I (developed) country commitments. There are so many options and brackets in the text that it&#8217;s hard to draw any concrete conclusions about the implied emissions trajectory.<\/p>\n<p>There&#8217;s possibly an interesting disconnect around characterization of the second round of targets. Currently there are a number of options included in bracketed text. First, the endpoint could be either 2017 or 2020. Second, various options suggest a range of cuts between 15% and 49% below 1990. This range corresponds roughly with the range typically cited as providing a decent chance of hitting a 2C target (see <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ipcc.ch\/ipccreports\/ar4-wg3.htm\">AR4 WG3<\/a> Ch. 13 box 13.7, pg. 776, for example).<\/p>\n<p>If you think back to the first Kyoto agreement, countries committed to small cuts relative to 1990 for a commitment period from 2008 to 2012. For the EU, with an 8% cut, that meant averaging 92% of 1990 emissions over the commitment period. If you imagine that emissions fall along a linear path from 1990, that means that emissions at the midpoint (2010) would be 92% of 1990, and emissions would be a little higher prior to that, and lower after. Because the slope from 1990 through 2012 is shallow, a viable trajectory would include a 7% cut in 2008 and 9% in 2012. No big deal.<\/p>\n<p>However, for the next commitment period, the slope is a very big deal. The deepest cut in the AWG-KP draft is 49% for the developed world. I suspect that number is anchored on upper end of the AR4 2C range (25-40%), moved up a bit. 49% still sounds plausible. But there&#8217;s a problem: to achieve a 49% average over 2013-2020, starting from a 9% cut in 2012, you&#8217;d have to do one of two things: reduce emissions an additional 37% overnight, then keep them there (basically impossible), or reduce emissions by 13 percentage points per year, arriving at a cut of 76% in 2017. That&#8217;s a year-on-year reduction rate of 15 to 35% per year. That&#8217;s pretty tough going, given that, even if you never build another bit of carbon-emitting capital, natural turnover takes you down at 2 to 5% per year.<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-674\" title=\"Required trajectory of 2nd Kyoto commitment\" src=\"http:\/\/blog.metasd.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/12\/Kyoto2trajectory-500x556.png\" alt=\"Required trajectory of 2nd Kyoto commitment\" width=\"500\" height=\"556\" \/><\/p>\n<p>I&#8217;m all for strong targets, but abandoning capital at 10% per year is going to be a tough sell. It&#8217;s not clear to me that this is intentional. I think it&#8217;s quite possible that misperception of the dynamics of a target accumulated over an interval leads to false conflict, as desire to achieve a point goal (e.g., -40% in 2020) is confused with a much more stringent goal over a long interval.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I&#8217;ve added the Dec. 16 Kyoto Protocol working group draft to my summary table. There&#8217;s not much to report with respect to the global outcome. Most of the detail is focused on Annex I (developed) country commitments. There are so many options and brackets in the text that it&#8217;s hard to draw any concrete conclusions [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":818,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-109504","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109504","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/818"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=109504"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109504\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109504"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109504"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109504"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}