Kate Dooley
University of Melbourne, Geography, Department Member
Limiting global warming to a 1.5°C temperature rise requires drastic emissions reductions and removal of carbon-dioxide from the atmosphere. Most modelled pathways for 1.5°C assume substantial removals in the form of biomass energy with... more
Limiting global warming to a 1.5°C temperature rise requires drastic emissions reductions and removal of carbon-dioxide from the atmosphere. Most modelled pathways for 1.5°C assume substantial removals in the form of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage, which brings with it increasing risks to biodiversity and food security via extensive land-use change. Recently, multiple efforts to describe and quantify potential removals via ecosystem-based approaches have gained traction in the climate policy discourse. However, these options have yet to be evaluated in a systematic and scientifically robust way. We provide spatially explicit estimates of ecosystem restoration potential quantified with a Dynamic Global Vegetation Model. Simulations covering forest restoration, reforestation, reduced harvest, agroforestry and silvopasture were combined and found to sequester an additional 93 Gt C by 2100, reducing mean global temperature increase by ∼0.12°C (5%–95% range 0.06°C–0.21°C)...
Research Interests:
Concerns are increasingly raised over the centrality of carbon removal in climate policy, particularly in the guise of “net-zero” targets. Most significantly perhaps, treating emissions and removals as equivalent obscures emission... more
Concerns are increasingly raised over the centrality of carbon removal in climate policy, particularly in the guise of “net-zero” targets. Most significantly perhaps, treating emissions and removals as equivalent obscures emission reductions, resulting in “mitigation deterrence.” Yet the conflation of emission reductions and removals is only one among several implicit equivalences in carbon removal accounting. Here, we examine three other forms—carbon, geographical, and temporal equivalence—and discuss their implications for climate justice and the environmental risks with carbon removal. We conclude that “undoing” these equivalences would further a just response to the climate crisis and tentatively explore what such undoing might look like in practice.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The recent article by Robiou du Pont et al makes counter-intuitive claims about the degree to which different countries’ pledged mitigation contributions under the Paris Agreement are “equitable”, i.e., whether they meet benchmarks... more
The recent article by Robiou du Pont et al makes counter-intuitive claims about the degree to which different countries’ pledged mitigation contributions under the Paris Agreement are “equitable”, i.e., whether they meet benchmarks associate with various equity approaches. The analysis is flawed however, in three ways, with a cascading and systematic bias against poorer and lower-emitting countries. Firstly, the methodology is heavily driven by “grandfathering” as an allocation approach, despite the absence of any ethical justification. Second, it omits “Responsibility” as a basis, without explanation, even though it is included in the set of categories (taken from the IPCC AR5) within which the authors claim to be working. And third, the IPCC raised several other ethical considerations not covered by the authors’ particular choice of categories. Each of these three analytical shortcomings biases the results in favor of the wealthier and higher-emitting countries.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Literature overview of published global and regional renewable energy potential estimates. This section provides definitions for different types of RE potentials and introduces a new category, the economic renewable energy potential in... more
Literature overview of published global and regional renewable energy potential estimates. This section provides definitions for different types of RE potentials and introduces a new category, the economic renewable energy potential in space constrained environments. The potential for utility scale solar and onshore wind in square kilometre and maximum possible installed capacity (in GW) are provided for 75 different regions. The results set the upper limits for the deployment of solar- and wind technologies for the development of the 2.0 °C and 1.5 °C energy pathways.
This paper offers a perspective on the political factors that have influenced the size, nature, and timing of UK commitments to forest finance, specifically the significant and committed finance being programmed under the International... more
This paper offers a perspective on the political factors that have influenced the size, nature, and timing of UK commitments to forest finance, specifically the significant and committed finance being programmed under the International Climate Fund (ICF), during a time of austerity in the UK. In particular, the paper analyzes opportunities and constraints (past, current, and future) related to the channeling of funding through performancebased mechanisms, such as REDD+.
Research Interests:
This article analyzes the contested politics of including (and accounting for) land-based mitigation in a post-2020 climate agreement. Emissions from land have been only partially included to date within the United Nations Framework... more
This article analyzes the contested politics of including (and accounting for) land-based mitigation in a post-2020 climate agreement. Emissions from land have been only partially included to date within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol. The Paris Agreement, adopted in December 2015 and “applicable to all” for the post-2020 period, raises the possibility of unprecedented reliance on land-based mitigation. This has significant consequences for furthering both ambition and equity in global climate mitigation efforts. Yet, what are these consequences, and how have they manifested themselves in the existing (pre-2020) multilateral climate regime? What role do accounting rules for land-based mitigation play herein? In addressing these questions, we identify key dimensions of what we term the “governance by expertise” approach taken to land-based mitigation to date, which has served to reduce the environmental integrity of existing (develope...
Research Interests:
The recent article by Robiou du Pont et al makes counter-intuitive claims about the degree to which different countries’ pledged mitigation contributions under the Paris Agreement are “equitable”, i.e., whether they meet benchmarks... more
The recent article by Robiou du Pont et al makes counter-intuitive claims about the degree to which different countries’ pledged mitigation contributions under the Paris Agreement are “equitable”, i.e., whether they meet benchmarks associate with various equity approaches. The analysis is flawed however, in three ways, with a cascading and systematic bias against poorer and lower-emitting countries. Firstly, the methodology is heavily driven by “grandfathering” as an allocation approach, despite the absence of any ethical justification. Second, it omits “Responsibility” as a basis, without explanation, even though it is included in the set of categories (taken from the IPCC AR5) within which the authors claim to be working. And third, the IPCC raised several other ethical considerations not covered by the authors’ particular choice of categories. Each of these three analytical shortcomings biases the results in favor of the wealthier and higher-emitting countries.
Research Interests:
Integrated assessment models are often used to evaluate the role of different technologies in meeting global climate goals. Such models have been criticised for failing to address the deep uncertainties and plurality of values that are... more
Integrated assessment models are often used to evaluate the role of different technologies in meeting global climate goals. Such models have been criticised for failing to address the deep uncertainties and plurality of values that are fundamental to energy transitions. One consequence is that model scenarios overwhelmingly depend on large-scale carbon dioxide removal to hold warming to below 2 °C. Here we propose an alternative approach using Scenario-Focused Decision Analysis (SFDA) as methods that embrace decision making under deep uncertainty. SFDA can accommodate a range of value sets and perspectives, and most importantly can integrate value-based decision-making in designing climate policy. We specifically consider Robust Decision Making (RDM) as an exemplar of SFDA for developing climate policy. We outline an iterative five-stage framework for RDM using the role of carbon dioxide removal in long-term mitigation pathways as an example. The five steps comprise (i) participator...
Research Interests:
It is still possible to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement to maintain a global temperature ‘well below +2.0 °C’ above pre-industrial levels. We present two global non-overshoot pathways (+2.0 °C and +1.5 °C) with regional... more
It is still possible to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement to maintain a global temperature ‘well below +2.0 °C’ above pre-industrial levels. We present two global non-overshoot pathways (+2.0 °C and +1.5 °C) with regional decarbonization targets for the four primary energy sectors—power, heating, transportation, and industry—in 5-year steps to 2050. We use normative scenarios to illustrate the effects of efficiency measures and renewable energy use, describe the roles of increased electrification of the final energy demand and synthetic fuels, and quantify the resulting electricity load increases for 72 sub-regions. Non-energy scenarios include a phase-out of net emissions from agriculture, forestry, and other land uses, reductions in non-carbon greenhouse gases, and land restoration to scale up atmospheric CO2 removal, estimated at −377 Gt CO2 to 2100. An estimate of the COVID-19 effects on the global energy demand is included and a sensitivity analysis describes the impacts ...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The Parties to the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement agreed to act on the basis of equity to protect the climate system. Equitable effort sharing is an irreducibly normative matter, yet some influential studies have sought to create quantitative... more
The Parties to the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement agreed to act on the basis of equity to protect the climate system. Equitable effort sharing is an irreducibly normative matter, yet some influential studies have sought to create quantitative indicators of equitable effort that claim to be value-neutral (despite evident biases). Many of these studies fail to clarify the ethical principles underlying their indicators, some mislabel approaches that favour wealthy nations as ‘equity approaches’ and some combine contradictory indicators into composites we call derivative benchmarks. This Perspective reviews influential climate effort-sharing assessments and presents guidelines for developing and adjudicating policy-relevant (but not ethically neutral) equity research. Contributions to mitigate climate change should be equitable under the Paris Agreement, yet researchers take sharply diverging approaches to assessing national effort. This Perspective evaluates the literature and presents guidelines for policy-relevant—and ethically explicit—research on equity.
Research Interests:
Non-technical summaryUnder the Paris Agreement, nations have committed to preventing dangerous global warming. Scenarios for achieving net-zero emissions in the second half of this century depend on land (forests and bioenergy) to remove... more
Non-technical summaryUnder the Paris Agreement, nations have committed to preventing dangerous global warming. Scenarios for achieving net-zero emissions in the second half of this century depend on land (forests and bioenergy) to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Modelled levels of land-based mitigation could reduce the availability of productive agricultural land, and encroach on natural land, with potentially significant social and environmental consequences. However, these issues are poorly recognized in the policy-uptake of modelled outputs. Understanding how science and policy interact to produce expectations about mitigation pathways allows us to consider the trade-offs inherent in relying on land for mitigation.
Research Interests:
This paper focuses on the risks associated with ''negative emissions'' technologies (NETs) for drawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and storing it in land-based sinks or underground. Modelled mitigation... more
This paper focuses on the risks associated with ''negative emissions'' technologies (NETs) for drawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and storing it in land-based sinks or underground. Modelled mitigation pathways for 1.5 °C assume NETs that range as high as 1000 Gt CO 2. We argue that this is two to three times greater than the amount of land-based NETs that can be realistically assumed, given critical social objectives and ecological constraints. Embarking on a pathway that assumes unrealistically large amounts of future NETs could lead society to set near-term targets that are too lenient and thus greatly overshoot the carbon budget, without a way to undo the damage. Pathways consistent with 1.5 °C that rely on smaller amounts of NETs, however, could prove viable. This paper presents a framework for assessing the risks associated with negative emissions in the context of equity and sustainable development. To do this, we identify three types of risks in counting on NETs: (1) that NETs will not ultimately prove feasible; (2) that their large-scale deployment involves unacceptable ecological and social impacts; and (3) that NETs prove less effective than hoped, due to irreversible climate impacts, or reversal of stored carbon. We highlight the technical issues that need to be resolved and—more importantly—the value judgements that need to be made, to identify the realistic potential for land-based NETs consistent with social and environmental goals. Given the critical normative issues at stake, these are decisions that should be made within an open, transparent, democratic process. As input, we offer here an indicative assessment of the realistic potential for land-based NETs, based on a precautionary assessment of the risks to their future effectiveness and a provisional assessment of the extent to which they are in conflict with sustainable development goals related to land, food and climate.
This article analyzes the contested politics of including (and accounting for) land-based mitigation in a post-2020 climate agreement. Emissions from land have been only partially included to date within the United Nations Framework... more
This article analyzes the contested politics of including (and accounting for) land-based mitigation in a post-2020 climate agreement. Emissions from land have been only partially included to date within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol. The Paris Agreement, adopted in December 2015 and ''applicable to all'' for the post-2020 period, raises the possibility of unprecedented reliance on land-based mitigation. This has significant consequences for furthering both ambition and equity in global climate mitigation efforts. Yet, what are these consequences, and how have they manifested themselves in the existing (pre-2020) multilateral climate regime? What role do accounting rules for land-based mitigation play herein? In addressing these questions, we identify key dimensions of what we term the ''governance by expertise'' approach taken to land-based mitigation to date, which has served to reduce the environmental integrity of existing (developed country) mitigation efforts. Specifically, we analyze land-use accounting rules as a site of politics and highlight the ''technical-ization of politics'' underway in this realm, which obscures the political implications of how land has been included to date. We conclude by considering whether the Paris Agreement institutionalizes similar dynamics, and the environmental integrity and equity implications of doing so. Keywords Accounting Á Climate governance Á Equity Á Land-based mitigation Á Land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) Á Negative emissions Á Paris Agreement Á United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This paper offers a perspective on the political factors that have influenced the size, nature, and timing of UK commitments to forest finance, specifically the significant and committed finance being programed under the International... more
This paper offers a perspective on the political factors that have influenced the size, nature, and timing of UK commitments to forest finance, specifically the significant and committed finance being programed under the International Climate Fund (ICF), during a time of austerity in the UK. In particular, the paper analyzes opportunities and constraints (past, current, and future) related to the channeling of funding through performance- based mechanisms, such as REDD+.
Towards the latter half of the 2000s, at a time when UK finance for forests under the international climate negotiations was scaling up, the global financial crisis put considerable pressure on the UK government’s aid budget. This led to an increased scrutiny of ODA in general and an increased appetite across government for a more results-based approach to aid.
This paper explores how the UK government has channeled finance under it's International Climate Fund (ICF) - the primary vehicle for forest finance - and how it has integrated results based payments into its funding decisions. This analysis is based
on a combination of desk research and expert interviews. A wide range of stakeholders with in-depth knowledge of forest finance in the UK were consulted, including current and past government staff, as well as representatives of NGOs and the private sector. Desk research included a review of information on UK
forest aid projects, government commissioned reports, NGO reports and position statements, and media coverage.
Towards the latter half of the 2000s, at a time when UK finance for forests under the international climate negotiations was scaling up, the global financial crisis put considerable pressure on the UK government’s aid budget. This led to an increased scrutiny of ODA in general and an increased appetite across government for a more results-based approach to aid.
This paper explores how the UK government has channeled finance under it's International Climate Fund (ICF) - the primary vehicle for forest finance - and how it has integrated results based payments into its funding decisions. This analysis is based
on a combination of desk research and expert interviews. A wide range of stakeholders with in-depth knowledge of forest finance in the UK were consulted, including current and past government staff, as well as representatives of NGOs and the private sector. Desk research included a review of information on UK
forest aid projects, government commissioned reports, NGO reports and position statements, and media coverage.