1. New climate scenarios and possible consequences for air pollution control Detlef van Vuuren

2. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Contents 1.New IPCC scenario development 2.What is needed for EU climate target 3.Implications for energy scenarios

3. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 New scenarios development process – interactions for scenario development

4. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Representative emission pathways All selected from existing literature (but slightly updated) Span a wide range of different possible futures and trajectory shapes.

5. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O SO y BC OC CO NO x VOC NH 3 HFCs PFCs CFCs SF 6 Emission scenarios and harmonisation 1. Air Transportation 2. International Shipping 3. Other transportation 4. Energy production / conversion. 5. Solvents 6. Waste (landfills, waste water) 7. Industry (combustion and process emissions) 8. Buildings (Residential and Commercial) 9. Ag. waste burning on fields 10. Agriculture 11. Savannah burning 12. Land use change Aim to have data at regional, national and grid scale J.F. Lamarque EDGAR-team IAM teams Others

6. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Land use data and harmonisation Cropland Sec. “nature” Prim. “nature” Pasture 170020002100 University of New Hampshire IAM – teams Kees Klein Goldewijk (HYDE)

7. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 What could happen if we do nothing?

8. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 What could happen if we do nothing?  Future dominated by fossil fuels  Temperature increase 2100: 2-6 o C – and rapidly increasing still! Wood Coal Oil Natural gas Hydro Nuclear Solar/wind Modern bio-energy Van Vuuren et al. (2008). Temperature increase of 21 st scenarios. PNAS. 105. 40. 15258–15262 EnergyTemperature

9. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Where do we want to aim for?

10. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Bill Nordhaus (2007) The optimal policy reduces the global temperature rise relative to 1900 to 2.8 °C in 2100 and to 3.4 °C in 2200. Jim Hansen (2007): Based on climate model studies and the history of the Earth, the Hansen and Sato conclude that additional global warming of about 1ºC or more, above global temperature in 2000, is likely to be dangerous.

11. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Impacts No increase over 2 o C Stern report (2006).

12. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 The probability to reach the 2°C target 650 Presentation: Meinshausen, 2004

13. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009  2 o C target corresponds to around 400-450 ppm CO 2 eq. (80-50% probability).  Corresponds to a 50% emission reduction in 2050 Van Vuuren et al. (2008). Temperature increase of 21 st scenarios. PNAS. 105. 40. 15258–15262 From temperature to emission target.

14. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 650 CO2-eq 550 CO2-eq 450 CO2-eq  Integrated analysis: combination of options based on technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness Sinks Non-CO2 Other Fuel switch CCS Biofuels Nuclear, renewable Efficiency From emissions to reduction measures (B2) Van Vuuren et al. Stabilising GHG emissions at low concentration levels.Climatic Change 81: 119-159.

15. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Mitigation scenarios – integrated analysis Nuclear Renewables Biofuels + CCS Natural gas+CCS Oil+CCS Coal+CCS Biofuels Natural gas Oil Coal  Major changes in the global energy system BioEnergy + CCS (BECS Default 80% of meeting 2 o C probably requires negative emissions (BECS)

16. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Electric power system: Many different options 2025 – Western Europe Electricity costs ($/kWh) 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 050100150200250300350400 Coal ‘Carbon price’ ($/tC) Wind Nuclear Coal NG Biofuels Coal-CCS NG-CCS

17. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Electric power system: Many different options  Many CO 2 -neutral options economic around 200-250 $/tC tax  Thus… EPG carbon neutral around this tax level; but not certain which options – choice! 2025 – Western Europe Electricity costs ($/kWh) 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 050100150200250300350400 Coal Natural Gas Wind ‘Carbon price’ ($/tC) Wind Nuclear Coal NG Biofuels Coal-CCS NG-CCS Obviously strongly depends on technology assumptions. This is not “science”

18. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Renewable/ nuclear Gas CCS GasCoal CCS Gas CCS Gas Coal Renewable/ nuclear Coal CCS Electric power system: Many different options Dependency on the oil price and carbon price Van Ruijven and van Vuuren (2000). Impact of oil prices on greenhouse gas mitigation. Energy Policy (Submitted)

19. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Power sector: Influence on air pollution 2050: Little GHG emissions for power sector Efficiency: Zero SO2/NOx/PM10 emissions Nuclear/wind: Zero SO 2 /NO x /PM10 emissions CCS: Depends on technology choise. NO x ,SO 2  ? Bio-energy: SO 2 , PM10  Baseline450 ppm Nat.gas Nat.gas CCS Wind

20. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Transport sector 2050: Still difficult to beat oil Efficiency: Zero SO2/NOx/PM10 emissions Electricity: Zero from car ; but stationary emissions H2: Some H 2 emissions ; but stationary emissions Bio-energy: SO 2 , PM10  Baseline450 ppm400 ppm Oil BiofuelH2H2 H2H2

21. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Impacts on emissions (different models) Van Vuuren et al. (2008). Temperature increase of 21 st scenarios. PNAS. 105. 40. 15258–15262

22. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Findings  Stabilizing GHG concentration at low levels in order to meet 2 degrees requires very ambitious emission reductions.  Target technically feasible (with ‘known techniques’)… but just!  Portfolio of options needed:  Likely substantial contribution CCS and efficiency  Implications on emissions… likely to be substantial for SO 2.

23. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Thank you for your attention For further information: Detlef.vanvuuren@pbl.nl

24. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Lowest scenario

25. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Representative emission pathways Strong cooperation between Integrated Assessment Modelling community and Earth System Modelling community (and to some degree emission inventory people + atmospheric chemistry people). IAM: Nakicenovic, Weyant, Edmonds, Riahi, Van Vuuren, Smith, Kainumi, and many others ESM: Hibbart, Mitchell, Meehl, etc. Atmospheric Chemistry: Jean-Francois Lamarque Inventories: Van Aardenne, Smith, Ayring, Lee, Bond, etc. Land use: Hurtt, Klein Goldewijk, Frokking etc.

26. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Costs of stabilising emissions Carbon taxAbatement costs (%GDP)  Substantial costs  But nothing to disrupt the economy Van Vuuren et al. Stabilising GHG emissions at low concentration levels.Climatic Change 81: 119-159.

27. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Main messages  Still scope for limiting global warming to about 2 o C… just.  Global emissions will need to peak around 2020.  Requires participation of all major countries.  Technologies and economics are not the most important obstacles.  Major uncertainties: Even if we aim for 2 o C, we should prepare for much more.

28. How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009 Land use pattern in 450 ppm mitigation scenario (2100) Forests Desert Agriculture Ice Tundra Ext. grassland Grass Bio-energy C-plantation Van Vuuren et al. Stabilising GHG emissions at low concentration levels.Climatic Change 81: 119-159.