Tyndall Centre Publications

@article{b3e3a88dbcd542e19fdfb44128e9081db,

title = {The urgent case for stronger climate targets for international shipping},

author = {Simon Bullock and James Mason and Alice Larkin},

issn = {1469-3062},

journal = {Climate Policy},

publisher = {Earthscan},

abstract = {International shipping is overwhelmingly reliant on fossil fuels, with annual carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to a country the size of Germany. Actions to reduce its emissions are therefore an important element of global efforts to combat climate change. This article re-assesses the international shipping sector’s initial greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets against the Paris Agreement goals. The analysis is based upon the latest data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and International Maritime Organization (IMO) and uses the concept of carbon budgets to evaluate proportionate 1.5°C emissions pathways for the sector. The consequences of the resulting Paris-compliant pathways for shipping’s existing mitigation targets and strategy are discussed. The article concludes that significantly stronger short- and longer-term targets need to be set for the sector to be compatible with the Paris Agreement’s goals: 34% reductions on 2008 emissions levels by 2030, and zero emissions before 2050, compared with the sector’s existing target of a 50% cut in CO by 2050. Crucially, strengthening the target by the IMO’s strategy revision date of 2023 is imperative. The long asset lifetimes of ships and shipping infrastructure limit the speed of transition such that a delay of even a few years will dictate an untenable rate of decarbonization and increased risk of pushing the already challenging Paris goals out of reach},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{e12cb7d7475b4659b8270285cf5735aeb,

title = {What if negative emission technologies fail at scale? Implications of the Paris Agreement for big emitting nations},

author = {Alice Larkin and Jaise Kuriakose and Maria Sharmina and Kevin Anderson},

doi = {10.1080/14693062.2017.1346498},

issn = {1469-3062},

journal = {Climate Policy},

volume = {18},

number = {6},

pages = {690–714},

publisher = {Earthscan},

abstract = {A cumulative emissions approach is increasingly used to inform mitigation policy. However, there are different interpretations of what ‘2°C’ implies. Here it is argued that cost-optimization models, commonly used to inform policy, typically underplay the urgency of 2°C mitigation. The alignment within many scenarios of optimistic assumptions on negative emissions technologies (NETs), with implausibly early peak emission dates and incremental short-term mitigation, delivers outcomes commensurate with 2°C commitments. In contrast, considering equity and socio-technical barriers to change, suggests a more challenging short-term agenda. To understand these different interpretations, short-term CO2 trends of the largest CO2 emitters, are assessed in relation to a constrained CO2 budget, coupled with a ‘what if’ assumption that negative emissions technologies fail at scale. The outcomes raise profound questions around high-level framings of mitigation policy. The article concludes that applying even weak equity criteria, challenges the feasibility of maintaining a 50% chance of avoiding 2°C without urgent mitigation efforts in the short-term. This highlights a need for greater engagement with: (1) the equity dimension of the Paris Agreement, (2) the sensitivity of constrained carbon budgets to short-term trends and (3) the climate risks for society posed by an almost ubiquitous inclusion of NETs within 2°C scenarios.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{7161bcfdefee4f2588d4c4aeaa3e59cab,

title = {Embracing context and complexity to address environmental challenges in the water-energy-food nexus},

author = {A. Larkin and C. Hoolohan and C. Mclachlan},

doi = {10.1016/j.futures.2020.102612},

issn = {0016-3287},

journal = {Futures},

volume = {123},

publisher = {Elsevier BV},

abstract = {Wicked environmental challenges require far-reaching changes to social, economic and technical systems. Yet, dominant ways of assessing how to mitigate global environmental change are highly reductive in their treatment of uncertainty and multidimensionality in these systems. Their common focus on optimal solutions, derived from quantitative techno-economic models, downplays social, geographical and political factors that influence the direction and pace of change. Taking a transdisciplinary approach and using a water-energy-food nexus framing, we demonstrate how participatory scenario analysis can assist stakeholders in articulating why many technologically-focused solutions to complex environmental challenges fail to achieve their intended goals, and how alternative solutions that recognise uncertainty and interdependency can be up-scaled. The findings illustrate the critical importance of changing social, geographical and governance conditions for innovation. The participatory method enables stakeholders to examine the implications of possible future changes and to navigate emergent difficulties and opportunities so that environmental challenges can be addressed effectively. The method allows participants to imagine radically different configurations of socio-technological systems, and examine their feasibility in a manner that challenges the current paradigm in which technologies are more feasible, effective and politically acceptable solutions to global societal challenges than those requiring changes to lifestyles and governance.},

note = {Funding Information: This research was conducted with funding support Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) [Research Grant EP/N00583X/1 ]. Thanks also go to the participants that contributed to the workshop. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{22733c3001db44e69fdc665c2e2b5129b,

title = {Improving shore power project economics at the Port of Aberdeen},

author = {Simon Bullock and Eliott Higgins and James Crossan and Alice Larkin},

doi = {10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105625},

issn = {0308-597X},

journal = {Marine Policy},

volume = {152},

publisher = {Elsevier BV},

abstract = {Shore power is one of just a few technologies available to the shipping sector that has potential to deliver carbon reductions this decade in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. Shore power connects ships to land-side electricity grids, reducing fossil fuel use while at berth in port and at the same time improving air quality. It is also an enabling technology for the future deployment of electric vessels, allowing battery recharge. Despite being a proven technology, global deployment has been slow, with the literature pointing to clear economic barriers to its uptake. These include high capital costs for ports, high taxes on land-side electricity and the global lack of taxation on ships’ fuel oils. Yet there is a gap in understanding around how to overcome these barriers. Here, a case-study of the Port of Aberdeen in Scotland is used to explore how the economic case for a shore-power system can be improved. A multi-criteria analysis and techno-economic assessment, coupled with port-user and supplier engagement, applicable to other port contexts, sheds light on how to create the much-needed acceleration of shore-power deployment. By building a collaborative approach between the port, ship operators and national government, project viability can be unlocked to more closely align the sector's future carbon pathway with the high ambitions laid out in Paris 2015.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}