Presentation on theme: "EEA 29-30 June 2004 Copenhagen EEA scenario 2005 project : sustainable emission pathways Presentation by Hans Eerens EEA-ETC/ACC, RIVM/MNP It is not most."— Presentation transcript:
EEA 29-30 June 2004 Copenhagen EEA scenario 2005 project : sustainable emission pathways Presentation by Hans Eerens EEA-ETC/ACC, RIVM/MNP It is not most important to predict the future, but to be prepared for it Perikles (about 500-429 b. Chr.)
ETC/ACC partners and others involved: RIVM: IMAGE/TIMER/FAIR/EUROMOVE models, global scenarios, climate effects, coordination NTUA: PRIMES/GEM-E3/PROMETHEUS models, European energy system IIASA: RAINS model, European air quality AEAT: non-CO 2 GHGs and non-energy CO 2 emissions IPTS: POLES model, technology variants AUTH: OFIS model, transport & urban Air Quality NILU: Air Pollution State & policies CCE: Air pollution effects on ecosystems/critical loads EEA: project guidance, links with issues other than air and climate change
ETC/ACC SCENARIOS IN SUPPORT OF EEA SOEOR2005 Objectives: Explore air pollution and climate change implications of CAFE baseline and policy scenarios –Long-Range Energy Modelling (LREM) –Clean Air For Europe Kyoto ratified (CAFE-KR) Explore alternative scenarios which meet sustainability goals also beyond CAFE –Sustainable Emissions Pathways (SEP)
CAFE LREM Driving forces: population, economic growth CAFE ETC/ACC for EEA/SoEOR2005 OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING SUSTAINABLE EMISSIONS PATHWAYS SCENARIO FOR EEAS SOEOR2005 REPORT CAFE LREM-E Add 2030-2100 Add non CO 2 GHGs NEC targets? Yes Kyoto targets? No LREM-E/LE SEP-LE Low Economic growth Sustainable Emissions Pathways scenario (SEP ) Energy system details and variants NEC targets? Yes Kyoto targets? Yes* long-term targets? Yes CAFE KR NEC targets? Yes Kyoto targets? Yes* long-term targets? No
LONG-TERM OBJECTIVE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE Objective adopted by EU The EU long-term climate objective of 2 o C is roughly consistent with stabilisation of CO2equivalent concentrations at 550 ppm for low to medium estimates of the climate sensitivity
To explore and evaluate the environmental and abatement costs implications of possible future international climate policy regimes for differentiation of mitigation commitments The model is not made to promote any particular regime, but to allow for comparing regimes in consistent and transparent way Objective FAIR 2.0
Global emission profile Regional emissions targets Regional GHG emissions after trade Climate assessment model Per capita Convergence Multi-stage approach emission intensity system CLIMATE MODEL Global emission profile Abatement costs & permit price DATASETS EMISSIONS ALLOCATION MODEL Mitigation costs & Emissions trade EMISSION TRADE & COST MODEL Historical emissions Brazilian Proposal Triptych approach Baseline scenario Emissions profile MACs FAIR 2.0 model Global emission reduction objective
IMPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENT GLOBAL BURDEN SHARING OBJECTIVES FOR EUROPEAN EMISSIONS ALLOWANCES For SoEOR2005, without prejudging negotiations outcomes, assume: -20% by 2020 and, -40 % by 2030 as a sustainability benchmark when evaluating scenarios
EU SD AND ADOPTED (2010) ASSUMED (2020-30) ENERGY TARGETS EU Sustainable Development Strategy: 1%/yr GHG emission reductions from 2012-2020 ; extended for SoEOR to 2030 EU25(domestic): 2010 -5.3% 2020 -13% 2030 -23% EU Directive on renewables: electricity generation: 22.1% in 2010 (not met) extended for SoEOR to 27% by 2020 and 35% by 2030 ; EU Directive on biofuels in transport: 2% by 2005, 5.75% by 2010; extended for SoEOR2005 to 7.5% by 2020 and 10% by 2030 EU Directive on renewables: share of total energy use: 12% by 2010 (not met), at least 20%, we choose 15% (SEP 10%) by 2020; extended for SoEOR2005 to 20% ( SEP 13%) by 2030
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS LREM SEP-Domestic SEP CO2 CO2eq CO2 SEP LREM SEP-Domestic In SEP GHGs domestic reduction 20-27 % (2030), supplemented with flexible mechanism to meet proposed targets SEP As energy intensity improvements become more difficult and non-CO2 abatement options get exhausted, shift to fuel mix changes
In LREM-E, Kyoto targets are not met. In CAFE-KR (carbon prices 12/tCO 2eq in 2010, 20 in 2020/2030), Kyoto targets are assumed to be met by domestic measures plus significant usage of Kyoto mechanisms; emissions increase after 2010 In SEP (carbon prices 12/tCO 2eq in 2010, 30 in 2020 and 65 in 2030) emission allowances are in line with EU longer-term climate target, but use of the Kyoto mechanisms is still needed IN SEP, EUs SD target (1% GHG reduction in 2010-2020) and renewable energy targets are not met -> technology variants (to be developed) GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS 2010 targets for NEC pollutants are assumed to be reached regardless of costs in CAFE Beyond 2010 emissions remain roughly stable in the scenarios
Costs PRIMES uses behavioural costs (discount rates): 8%Large Utilities 12%Large industrial & commercial entities 17.5%Households spending Recalculation to social costs (as in RAINS), 4% discount rate, assuming decisions have been taken) (Billion Euro)201020202030 Behavioural costs2630 21 Social costs2539 32 Declining energy costs results in less capital investments, counted more heavily in behavioural costs
GLOBAL CLIMATE IMPLICATIONS OF SCENARIOS In LREM-E, the EU climate goal is exceeded around 2050 In SEP, the global mean temperature increase remains below the EU objective in this century In SEP, also the rate of change is lowered to facilitate adaptation of social and ecological systems
UNCERTAINTY TREATMENT IN SOEOR2005 Measuring and monitoring: are statistics/measurement data precise? –Noted, not addressed in report Representativess indicators: Are impacts avoided if climate/air quality goals are met? Is GDP an adequate measure for welfare? –Noted, not addressed in report Model dynamics: do models adequately represent real world? –Differences models (PRIMES, POLES, TIMER) discussed in report Assumptions about the future: how uncertain is the future? –No probabilities analysed –Results compared with other studies –Low economic growth variant; low/high carbon price sensitivities –Technology variants
SCENARIOS FOR SOEOR2005: PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 1 Additional (global) action will be needed to facilitate a transition to a more sustainable Europe in terms of air pollution and climate change -> SEP In SEP carbon prices go from 12/tCO 2eq in 2010 to 65 in 2030, cost-effective action requires a major part of the GHG emissions reductions reached through international mechanisms.
SCENARIOS FOR SOEOR2005: PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 2
SoEOR2005 variants 2003: Low economic growth Renewables Considered for 2004: Hydrogen economy/C-capture-storage CAP reform Nuclear –Phase-out –increased External/internal burden sharing regimes
LREM-E LOW ECONOMIC GROWTH VARIANT LREM-E assumes moderately optimistic GDP growth -> a similarly pessimistic variant has been explored In the low economic growth variant, the effect of lower activity levels outweighs the effect of slower technological development Hence, GHG emissions are significant lower than in the base case, making it easier to meet NEC and Kyoto targets The emissions in the energy-intensive industry, the power and transport sectors are particularly sensitive to economic growth assumptions??
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.