Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity 19 October 2005 Niklas Höhne, Esther Lahme, ECOFYS Cologne,

There are copies: 1
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity 17 February 2006 Niklas Höhne, Jonathan Pershing, BASI C

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity 19 October 2005 Niklas Höhne, Esther Lahme, ECOFYS Cologne,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity 19 October 2005 Niklas Höhne, Esther Lahme, ECOFYS Cologne, Germany BASI C

2 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Content 1. Introduction on options for international climate policy post 2012 (30 min) 2. Interactive demonstration of the CAIT tool developed by WRI (30 min) 3. Interactive demonstration of the EVOC model developed by Ecofys (30 min) 4. Interactive demonstration of the FAIR model developed by MNP/RIVM (30 min)

3 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity ECOFYS Energy and Environment European research and consulting company In total 250 employees in the Netherlands, Germany, UK, Spain, Poland, Belgium, Italy Example projects: –Evaluation of the national allocation plans of the EU emission trading system for the UK government –Work on future international climate commitments for, e.g., the German Environmental Agency and EU Commission –Capacity building project BASIC: International climate negotiations post 2012 with Brazil, China, India, South Africa

4 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Future international action on climate change network Collecting information -Activities -Institutions -Ideas Discussion forum Funded by -German Federal Environmental Agency -EU Commissions DG Environment

5 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Content 1. Introduction on options for international climate policy post Interactive demonstration of the CAIT tool developed by WRI 3. Interactive demonstration of the EVOC model developed by Ecofys 4. Interactive demonstration of the FAIR model developed by MNP/RIVM

6 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Time scales of stabilization Source: IPCC Synthesis Report, 2001

7 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Possible temperature trajectories 1000 to 1861, N. Hemisphere, proxy data; 1861 to 2000 Global, Instrumental; 2000 to 2100, SRES projections Source: IPCC Synthesis Report, 2001 EU climate target of 2°C above pre-industrial level

8 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Source: IPCC Syntheses Report, 2001 EU climate target Linking temperature to concentration Levels of CO 2 concentration Preindustrial: 280 ppm Current: 360 ppm

9 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Stabilization pathways Source: post SRES scenarios (stabilization paths), CO2 only 450ppm 550ppm 400/350ppm Reference

10 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Approaches Contraction and Convergence (C&C) Common but Differentiated Convergence (CDC) Multistage South North Dialogue – Equity in the greenhouse Brazilian Proposal Sectoral approaches Triptych

11 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Contraction and Convergence Contraction: Definition of global emission path (e.g 450ppmv) Convergence: Per capita emissions of all countries converge by 2050

12 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Common but differentiated convergence Three stages –No commitments –Positively binding emission targets –Convergence to an equal per capita level within e.g. 40 years as of entry Threshold: –World average GHG/cap N. Höhne, M. den Elzen, M. Weiß Common but differentiated convergence (CDC) - A new conceptual approach to long-term climate policy submitted to climate policy

13 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Multistage approach Participation in e.g. four stages: Countries graduate to a next step, if threshold is passed, e.g. emissions/cap No commitments Sustainable development policies and measures Moderate reduction Reduction

14 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity South North Dialogue Quantitative commitment Qualitative commitment Financial support 1. Least developed countries -SD PAMS optional Receive payments 2. Other developing countries - SD PAMS obligatory, co-funded Receive payments 3. Rapidly industrializing developing countries Limitation if funding provided SD PAMS obligatory, co-funded Receive high payments 4. Newly industrialized countries LimitationSD PAMS obligatoryCo-funding 5. Annex I but not Annex II Absolute reduction - Low/no payments 6. Annex IIStrict absolute reduction -Make high payments Thresholds: CO 2 /GDP, GHG/cap, emission growth, cumulative emissions, GDP/cap, HDI; show members of the groups Adaptation commitment

15 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Brazilian proposal Calculate countries contribution to temperature increase Countries reduce proportional to their contribution to temperature increase

16 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Sectoral approaches Discussed quite actively in various fora, but their exact specification is often unclear The common goal: avoid competitiveness concerns Options: Goal for one global industry sector, e.g. the automobile industry Emission standard or benchmark for a particular sector described, e.g., in gCO 2 /t steel Emission targets are defined for all individual sectors as function of their respective output (e.g. t of steel, kWh produced, etc.) and added to a national emission target

17 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Industry Adjusted BAU production growth with efficiency improvement Electricity Adjusted BAU production growth with limit on sources DomesticConverging per-capita emissions Fossil fuel production Decline to low level AgriculturalPercentage reduction below BAU WasteConverging per-capita emissions Land use change and forestry Decline to zero (here excluded) Triptych National emission target

18 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Overview of tools Country level historical data Emission allocation Mitigation costs CAITEVOCFAIR XXX(X) Contraction and Convergence (C&C) XX Common but Differentiated Convergence (CDC) X(X) Multistage XX South North Dialogue – Equity in the greenhouse X(X) Brazilian Proposal X Sectoral approaches (X) Triptych X(X) X

19 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Content 1. Introduction on options for international climate policy post Interactive demonstration of the CAIT tool developed by WRI 3. Interactive demonstration of the EVOC model developed by Ecofys 4. Interactive demonstration of the FAIR model developed by MNP/RIVM

20 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Content 1. Introduction on options for international climate policy post Interactive demonstration of the CAIT tool developed by WRI 3. Interactive demonstration of the EVOC model developed by Ecofys 4. Interactive demonstration of the FAIR model developed by MNP/RIVM

21 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity EVOC Tool Input Historical emission data per country (hierarchy of emissions sources, all Kyoto gases, sectors) Energy, population, GDP data from IEA Future reference development (emissions, population, GDP) based on RIVM IMAGE implementation of the IPCC SRES scenarios Output Emissions or emission allowances under various proposals for future international climate policy after 2012 –Contraction and convergence –Common but differentiated convergence –Multistage –Triptych –Proposal by the South North Dialogue – Equity in the Greenhouse

22 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Delayed participation Common but differentiated convergence GHG/cap Time Threshold Contraction & Convergence GHG/cap Time IC DC LDC

23 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Results towards 550 ppmv CO 2 Towards 550 ppmv CO 2: Threshold: 30% above world average, Convergence level: 4.5 tCO 2 eq/cap A1B scenario Excl. LUCF CO 2 GHG per capita

24 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Results towards 550 ppmv CO 2 Towards 550 ppmv CO 2: Threshold: 30% above world average, Convergence level: 4.5 tCO 2 eq/cap A1B scenario Excl. LUCF CO 2 GHG emissions

25 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Results towards 450 ppmv CO 2 Towards 450 ppmv CO 2: Threshold: 10% below world average, Convergence level: 2.9 tCO 2 eq/cap A1B scenario Excl. LUCF CO 2 GHG per capita

26 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Results towards 450 ppmv CO 2 Towards 450 ppmv CO 2: Threshold: 10% below world average, Convergence level: 2.9 tCO 2 eq/cap A1B scenario Excl. LUCF CO 2 GHG emissions

27 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Multistage Four stage emission reduction agreement 1.No commitments 2.Sustainable development policies and measures 3.Moderate emission limitation targets 4.Absolute emission reduction targets (shared according to Triptych approach) Threshold: Emissions/cap, decreasing over time

28 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Towards 550 ppmv CO 2 Stage 3 Entry at 6-10 tCO 2 eq./cap 10%-15% below reference Stage 4 Entry at 9-12 tCO 2 eq./cap 1-5% reduction per year

29 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Time of entry towards 550 ppmv CO 2

30 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Towards 450 ppmv CO 2 Stage 3 Entry at tCO 2 eq./cap ~30% below reference Stage 4 Entry at tCO 2 eq./cap ~5% reduction per year

31 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Time of entry towards 450 ppmv CO 2

32 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Towards 400 ppmv CO 2 Stage 3 Entry at 3.5 tCO 2 eq./cap ~30% below reference Stage 4 Entry at 4 tCO 2 eq./cap ~8% reduction per year

33 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Time of entry towards 400 ppmv CO 2

34 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Stabilization pathways Source: post SRES scenarios (stabilization paths), CO2 only 450ppm 550ppm 400/350ppm Reference

35 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Stabilization pathways Source: post SRES scenarios (stabilization paths), CO2 only 450ppm 550ppm +30% -25% +50% +45% +10% -60% 400/350ppm

36 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Change 1990 to 2020 towards 450 ppm CO 2 Annex I: -10% to –30% below 1990 No participation: South Asia and Africa. Deviate from their reference: Latin America, Middle East, East Asia and Centrally planned Asia

37 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Change 1990 to 2050 towards 450 ppm CO 2 Annex I: -70% to -90% below 1990 Substantial deviation from reference in all Non-Annex I regions

38 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Content 1. Introduction on options for international climate policy post Interactive demonstration of the CAIT tool developed by WRI 3. Interactive demonstration of the EVOC model developed by Ecofys 4. Interactive demonstration of the FAIR model developed by MNP/RIVM

39 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Backup slides

40 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Linking impacts to temperature Source: Jan Corfee-Morlot, Niklas Höhne: "Climate change: long-term targets and short-term commitments", Global Environmental Change, Volume 13, Issue 4, December 2003, Pages

41 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Linking impacts to temperature Source: Jan Corfee-Morlot, Niklas Höhne: "Climate change: long-term targets and short-term commitments", Global Environmental Change, Volume 13, Issue 4, December 2003, Pages : 1.5-4°C 550: 2-5°C 650: 2.5-6°C Temperature range at equilibrium

42 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Immediate participation Contraction & Convergence GHG/cap Time BAU GHG/cap Time IC DC LDC IC DC LDC

43 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Time of participation 550 ppmv CO 2

44 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Time of participation 450 ppmv CO 2

45 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Comparison Contraction & Convergence Common but differentiated convergence Very simpleSimple One form of commitmentTwo forms of commitment Historical responsibility not taken into account NAI delay takes historical responsibility into account Excess allowances (hot air)No excess allowances All countries participateStepwise participation Resource transfers to DCsLeast developed countries are exempt

46 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Introduction Triptych 1997: How should the EU Kyoto target of -8% / -15% be shared among the individual member states? All countries reduce the same at -8% / -15%? Not acceptable due to different national conditions and development stage All countries do the same: increase efficiency, reduce fossil fuels in electricity production and converge in domestic emissions. Triptych was developed to calculate the respective emission allowances Values served as the basis for the negotiations within the EU.

47 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Original Triptych 1997 Energy CO 2 only Domestic sectors (Households, services, transport) Converging per-capita emissions Industry (energy intensive) Fixed production growth with efficiency improvement Electricity Fixed production growth with limit for renewables, CHP, coal and gas National emission target

48 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity 450 CO CO 2 Industry- Adjusted BAU industry production growth - Energy efficiency index by 2050 better than current best technology (=1) Electricity- Adjusted BAU production growth - REN and emission free share in Coal + oil absolute reduction 60% -75% 40% -40% DomesticConverging per-capita emissions in 2050 to… 0.7 tCO 2 eq/cap 1.3 tCO 2 eq/cap Fossil fuel production Emissions in 2050 decline by … -90% AgriculturalReduction below BAU in 2050 high income Reduction below BAU in 2050 low income 70% 50% 20% 40% WastePer capita emissions in 2050 decline to … 00 Land use change and forestry Per capita emissions in 2050 decline to … 00 Parameters used

49 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Sectoral development: USA (Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach) 450 CO 2 case A1B scenario

50 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Sectoral development: China (Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach) 450 CO 2 case A1B scenario

51 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Change in emissions from 1990 to 2020 (Source: EVOC model)

52 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Change in emissions from 1990 to 2050 (Source: EVOC model)

53 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Conclusions Most sophisticated approach to share emission allowances Can be applied to any group of countries (here globally) For stabilization at 450 ppmvCO 2 applied globally: –Substantial reduction requirements for the industrialised countries, especially those more inefficient or slower growing –Substantial emission increases are allowed for most developing countries, however, mostly below their reference scenarios Weaknesses: –Rather complex and requires many separate decisions –Requires much data –Modelling requires many assumptions, including projections of production growth rates for heavy industry and electricity Strengths: –Can accommodate national circumstances through sectoral detail –Explicitly allows for economic growth and improving efficiency –Successfully applied (on EU level) as a basis for negotiating targets

54 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Sectors of Triptych version 6.0 Industry Energy and process emissions from industrial production CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O ElectricityEmissions from electricity productionCO 2, CH 4, N 2 O Domestic Residential, commercial, transportation, energy- related CO 2 emissions from agriculture, all emissions from HFCs, PFCs and SF 6 CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, HFCs, PFCs, SF 6 Fossil fuel production Coal mining, gas venting and flaring CO 2, CH 4 Agricultural Non-energy-related emissions from the agricultural sector CH 4, N 2 O WasteLandfills, waste incineration, waste water CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O Land use change and forestry Mainly deforestationCO 2, CH 4, N 2 O

55 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Sectoral development: Global (Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach) 450 CO 2 case A1B scenario

56 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Emissions from electricity (Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach) 550 CO 2 case A1B scenario BAU production growth REN and emission free at 40% in 2050 Coal + oil 40% less

57 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Industry emissions (Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach) 550 CO 2 case A1B scenario Industry production growth Energy efficiency index to 0.8 of current best technology by 2050

58 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Electricity mix in 2050 (Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach) 450 CO 2 case A1B scenario

59 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Domestic sectors (Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach) 550 CO 2 case A1B scenario Converging per- capita emissions of 1.3 tCO 2 eq./cap in 2050

60 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Industry (Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach) 450 CO 2 case A1B scenario Energy efficiency varies between countries Western Europe: 1.2 USA: 1.8 South East Asia: 1.6 Triptych 6.0: Convergence of energy efficiency index (to 0.5 in 2050) Considerable growth in industrial production from IPCC SRES scenarios, adjusted upward or downward depending on per capita income

61 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Electricity Energy mix varies between countries Emission factors per fuel vary between countries Triptych 6.0: Renewables and emission free generation: fixed share (60% in 2050) Combined heat and power (gas): fixed share of (35% in 2050) Oil and coal: absolute level reduced (-75% in 2050) Nuclear: absolute level of generation constant Gas: remainder Convergence of emission factors per fuel to low level Considerable growth in electricity generation from IPCC SRES scenarios, slightly adjusted depending on per capita income

62 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Electricity mix in 2000 (Source: EVOC model, data from IEA)

63 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Electricity mix for South Korea (Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach) 550 CO 2 case A1B scenario BAU production growth REN and emission free at 40% in 2050 Coal + oil 40% less

64 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Electricity mix for China (Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach) 550 CO 2 case A1B scenario BAU production growth REN and emission free at 40% in 2050 Coal + oil 40% less

65 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Domestic sectors Residential, commercial, transportation (Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach) 450 CO 2 case A1B scenario Domestic per capita emissions vary substantially between countries Triptych 6.0: Per capita emissions converge (by 2050 to 0.7tCO 2 eq./cap)

66 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Agriculture (Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach) 450 CO 2 case A1B scenario Large increase in emissions expected in developing countries Stabilization expected in developed countries Emission reduction options available Triptych 6.0: Reduction below reference emissions by a percentage (by % for low income countries, -70% for high income countries)

67 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Total emissions (Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach) 450 CO 2 case, A1B scenario Until 2010: Annex I reaches Kyoto targets Non-Annex I follows reference

68 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Change from 1990 to 2020

69 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Change from 1990 to 2050

70 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Sensitivity stage 4

71 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Sensitivity USA and EITs until 2010

72 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Change 1990 to 2000

73 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Source: IPCC Syntheses Report, 2001 EU climate target Linking temperature to concentration Levels of CO 2 concentration Preindustrial: 280 ppm Current: 360 ppm

74 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Linking concentrations to global emissions (Source: Ecofys, adapted from post SRES stabilization paths Morita et al. 2001, CO 2 only) Corresponding temperature levels at equilibrium: 550ppm: around 3.2°C 450ppm: above 2.5°C 350ppm: around 1.5°C (Source: IPCC TAR 2001, average climate sensitivity) Reference

75 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity UNFCCC Climate Change Convention Ultimate objective : Stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Principles: The Parties should protect the climate system on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.

76 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Stabilized temperatures at different CO 2 concentrations 1000 to 1861, N. Hemisphere, proxy data; 1861 to 2000 Global, Instrumental; 2000 to 2100, SRES projections Source: IPCC Synthesis Report, 2001 Range temperature for stabilization of CO 2 concentration at equilibrium after

77 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Climate change impacts Source: IPCC Synthesis Report,

78 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Characteristics of Common but differentiated convergence Common: all countries eventually converge to the same per capita emission level Differentiated: countries follow these common trajectories delayed Conditional: Non-Annex I countries mitigation actions are explicitly linked to Annex I actions (world GHG/cap average) Without excess emissions: only countries participate that need to reduce emissions Efficient: developing countries reductions are encouraged through the positively binding targets. Emission trading possible Simple: Simple rules, only countries with high per capita emission need to participate

79 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Conclusions New concept for an international climate regime Simple, but eliminates two concerns often voiced in relation to C&C: –Delayed participation of DCs –No resource transfer and hot air For 450 CO 2 : participation at roughly world average and convergence to 3 tCO2eq./cap within 40 years For 550 CO 2 : participation at roughly 50% above global average and convergence to 4.5 tCO 2 eq./cap within 40 years Additional mechanisms needed for vulnerable developing countries to adapt to climate change. Future decisions on post 2012 regime guided CDC principles: –Developed countries per capita emissions converge –Developing countries do the same but delayed and conditional to developed country action.

80 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Global shares of Triptych 6.0 sectors (Source: EVOC model for 2000, including CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, HFCs, PFCs and SF 6 from submissions to the UNFCCC, IEA and others. Land-use change from EDGAR)

81 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Sectoral GHG emissions (Source: EVOC model, including CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, HFCs, PFCs and SF 6 from submissions to the UNFCCC, IEA and others. Land-use change from EDGAR)

82 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Industry Adjusted BAU production growth with efficiency improvement Electricity Adjusted BAU production growth with limit on sources DomesticConverging per-capita emissions Fossil fuel production Decline to low level AgriculturalPercentage reduction below BAU WasteConverging per-capita emissions Land use change and forestry Decline to zero (here excluded) Triptych Version 6.0 National emission target

83 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Conclusions compromise proposal Strengths: Designed as a compromise to accommodate many different viewpoints Gradual phase-in in line with the UNFCCC spirit Takes into account national circumstances Flexibility emission reductions vs. technologies development Allows for gradual decision making Trust building, as industrialised countries take the lead Weaknesses: Relative complex system that requires many decisions Risk that countries enter too late, that desired stabilization levels are lost Incentives are needed for countries to participate Critical: participation of the USA through the commitment for technology development

84 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Change 1990 to 2020 towards 550 ppm CO 2 Annex I: -5% to –25% below 1990 No participation: South Asia, Africa, Centrally Planned Asia or excess allowances under C&C or Triptych Deviate from their reference: Latin America, Middle East and East Asia

85 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Change 1990 to 2050 towards 550 ppm CO 2 Annex I: -40% to -80% below 1990 Deviate from reference: Most Non-Annex I regions, except South Asia Triptych: more reductions for coal intensive countries under these parameters

86 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Stabilization pathways Source: post SRES scenarios (stabilization paths), CO2 only 450ppm 550ppm +30% -25% +50% +45% +10% -60% 400/350ppm

87 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Stabilization pathways Source: post SRES scenarios (stabilization paths), CO2 only 450ppm 550ppm +30% -25% +50% +45% +10% -60% 400/350ppm

88 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Change 1990 to 2020 towards 400 ppm CO 2 Annex I: -25% to -50% below 1990 No participation: only a very few countries Deviate from their reference: all Non-Annex I regions

89 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Change 1990 to 2050 towards 400 ppm CO 2 Annex I: -80% to -90% below 1990 Substantial deviation from reference in all Non-Annex I regions

90 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Conclusions EU target of 2°C above pre-industrial levels: below 450 ppmv CO 2 (average climate sensitivity) If no efforts are made to reduce emissions and if the Kyoto Protocol is not implemented, there is a significant probability that staying below 450 ppmv CO 2 would be out of reach already as of To keep 450 ppmv CO 2 within reach –Developed country emissions would need to be reduced substantially –USA needs to be involved in the system most likely with stronger action than the national target of 18% intensity improvement in 10 years –Developing country emissions need to deviate from the reference as soon as possible, for some countries even as of 2020 (Latin America, Middle East, East Asia) Reduction difference between stabilization targets (400, 450 and 550 ppmv) is larger than between approaches

91 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Emission reduction efforts Reduction below 1990 level ppm CO 2 Annex I-25% to -50%-80% to -90% Non- Annex I Substantial deviation from reference in Latin America, Middle East, East Asia and Centrally planned Asia Substantial deviation from reference in all regions 450 ppm CO 2 Annex I-10% to -30%-70% to -90% Non- Annex I Deviation from reference in Latin America, Middle East, East Asia and Centrally Planned Asia Substantial deviation from reference in all regions 550 ppm CO 2 Annex I -5% to -25%-40% to -80% Non- Annex I Deviation from reference in Latin America and Middle East, East Asia Deviation from reference in most regions, specially in Latin America and Middle East

92 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Conclusions 450 ppmv CO 2 concentrations is not a safe option: –Likely to result in global temperature increase above 2°C –Coral reefs affected, –Considerable melting of ice, –Increased extreme whether events, –Risk of large scale singularities low but not excluded Stabilization requires global emissions to drop below 1990 levels (for 450 ppmv CO 2 within a few decades)

93 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity 5. Global scenarios ScenarioCondition Mild Annex I excl. USA -15% below 1990 level in 2020 USA +10% above 1990 level in 2020 Non-Annex I Reference Strong Annex I excl. USA -30% below 1990 level in 2020 USA +0% at 1990 level in 2020 Non-Annex I Sectoral for electricity, iron & steel and cement Sectoral onlyAll countriesSectoral for electricity, iron & steel and cement

94 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Reductions after 2020 towards % Maximum annual reduction rate -4% -6.5% -10% Global emission levels necessary to stay below 450 ppmv CO 2 concentration assuming that all greenhouse gases are reduced in the same proportion and that the global trend cannot change be faster than 0.5 percentage points per year using the MAGICC model. For 550 ppmv the difference between the cases is less pronounced (maximum annual reduction rate of 0.6%, 0.9%, 0.9%, 1% for immediate reductions after 2020) 450 ppmv CO 2

95 Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity Effect of delay of action Delay in the next decades significantly increases the efforts to to achieve the same environmental goal.


Download ppt "Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity 19 October 2005 Niklas Höhne, Esther Lahme, ECOFYS Cologne,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google