1. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 1 Unintended Consequences: Policies on Biofuels and Climate Change Matthias JONAS International Institute for Systems Analysis Laxenburg, Austria jonas@iiasa.ac.at IIASA Energy Day, Warsaw, Poland – 10 June 2008

2. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 2 1. My talk will take you from global long-term anthroposphere vs biosphere Poland short-term policy implications (Kyoto/post-Kyoto) to

3. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 3 1. In detail 2. Brief historical GHG review 3. Understanding the carbon balance 4. How good do we know the FF emissions? 5. Terrestrial biosphere: some plain insights 6. Signal analysis under the KP 7. Conclusions

4. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 4 2. Brief historical GHG review Nakicenovic (2007)

5. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 5 2. Brief historical GHG review Haberl et al. (2008: http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/socec/inhalt/1088.htm) Humanity‘s draw on terrestrial ecosystems: The human appropriation of net primary production Global HANPP in 2000: 23.8%  LU-induced productivity: 9.6% Biomass harvest: 12.5% Human-induced fires: 1.7%

6. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 6 2. Brief historical GHG review Global atmospheric concentrations of CO 2, CH 4 and N 2 O have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice-cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in CO 2 concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of CH 4 and N 2 O are primarily due to agriculture. Today’s atmospheric concentration of CO 2 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm). IPCC WG I (2007: Fig. SPM.1; http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/gr-ar4-wg1.htm, SPM)

7. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 7 Canadell et al. (2007a, b); modified Atmospheric CO 2 Ocean Land Fossil Fuel Emissions Deforestation 7.6 1.5 4.1 2.2 2.8 CO 2 flux (Pg C y -1 ) Sink Source Time (y) Perturbation of Global Carbon Budget (1850-2006) 2000- 2006 balance: 3. Understanding the carbon balance

8. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 8 3. Understanding the carbon balance Canadell et al. (2007a, b); modified Tropical Americas: 0.6 Pg C y -1 Tropical Asia: 0.6 Pg C y -1 Tropical Africa: 0.3 Pg C y -1 2000-2006 Anthropogenic Land Use Change: Tropical deforestation 13 Million hectares each year 1.5 Pg C y -1 Borneo, Courtesy: Viktor Boehm

9. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 9 3. Understanding the carbon balance The net terrestrial C flux is determined as the remainder of the other fluxes. The same is done with its uncertainty (error propagation). IPCC WG I (2007: Tab. 7.1) 4% relative 66% relative Consequence (FF example):  relative uncertainty of FF emissions by 1%   relative uncertainty of net terrestrial uptake by 4%

10. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 10 3. Interim summary Spatial scale: global Temporal scale: 2000–2005 Our ignorance of the net terrestrial carbon flux (uptake) is 16 times greater than our ignorance of the emissions from the use of fossil fuels and 4 times more sensitive.

11. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 11 4. How good do we know the FF emissions? Canadell et al. ( 2007a, b); modified Anthropogenic Fossil Fuel C Emissions 185018701890191019301950197019902010 [2006 Total Anthrop. Emissions: 8.4+1.5 = 9.9 Pg] 2006 Fossil Fuel : 8.4 Pg C 1990 - 1999: 1.3% y -1 2000 - 2006: 3.3% y -1

12. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 12 4. How good do we know the FF emissions? 50-year constant growth rates to 2050: B1 1.1%, A1B 1.7% A2 1.8% A1FI 2.4% Canadell et al. ( 2007a, b); Raupach et al., (2007); modified 2006 2005 Trajectory of Global Fossil Fuel Emissions Observed 2000-2006: 3.3%

13. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 13 4. How good do we know the FF emissions? IPCC WG III ( 2007: Tab. SPM-5) Characteristics of post-TAR stabilization scenarios:

14. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 14 4. How good do we know the FF emissions? Time Emissions Most recent emission estimates Most recent precision estimates Initial precision estimates Initial emission estimates Accuracy Hamal ( 2008: Fig. 9); modified

15. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 15 4. How good do we know the FF emissions? Hamal ( 2008: Fig. 11); Hamal et al. (2008: pers. comm.); modified R 2 = 0.9345 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 1983198819931998200320082013 (%) UNFCCC: - 4.2%/yr EU-15: Total Uncertainty (CO 2, w/o LULUCF)

16. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 16 4. How good do we know the FF emissions? Hamal et al. (2008: pers. comm.); modified Global: "initial - most recent" (absolute; reference: 2004) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006 (%) CDIAC CDIAC w/o: China (main land), USA, Canada, Algeria, United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, India, South Africa, Nigeria, Iran, Kuwait, USSR CDIAC w/o “emission leaders”

17. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 17 4. Interim summary Spatial scale: EU-15–world regions–global Temporal scale: 1980s–2015 FF emissions are extremely dynamic (upward). We have difficulties to project them even 10 years ahead. Global emissions will not peak before 2015. We will not be able to keep the warming below 2 o C globally. We are overconfident about the FF emissions. Globally, their uncertainty is most likely closer to 10% rather than 4%. So far, the change in uncertainty can be grasped reasonably well only for the EU-15 MSs.

18. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 18 5. Terrestrial biosphere: some plain insights Globe or Group of Countries or individual Country Net Storage in the Atmosphere FF Industry Kyoto Biosphere Non-Kyoto Biosphere Impacting? Sphere of Activity under the KP Jonas and Nilsson (2007: Fig. 4); modified

19. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 19 5. Terrestrial biosphere: some plain insights Problematic: Partial C or GHG accounting under the KP! Global carbon budget data between 1959 and 2006 show that the efficiency of natural carbon sinks to remove atmospheric CO 2 has declined by about 2.5% per decade. This may look modest but it represents a mean net ‘source’ to the atmosphere of 0.13 PgC y -1 during 2000–2006. Or, in comparison: a 5% reduction in the mean global FF emissions during the same time period yields a net ‘sink’ of 0.38 PgC y -1. Canadell et al. ( 2007a, b); Ciais (2007: pers. comm.); modified

20. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 20 Atmosphere t2t2  const Time F net t1t1  imagine continents 5. Terrestrial biosphere: some plain insights Jonas and Nilsson (2007: Fig. 6); modified

21. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 21 5. Interim summary Spatial scale: multi country–continental–global Temporal scale: KP / post-KP The KP cannot be verified if the terrestrial biosphere is split up into a “Kyoto biosphere” and a “non-Kyoto biosphere”. We need to understand the entire system: Emissions, removals and their trends in toto (  FCA, FGA). Scientists can be expected to consistently account CO 2 Bu/Td at the scale of continents in  10 years from now (FF CO 2 most likely sooner than terrestrial CO 2 ) and to disaggregate emission changes on a country scale. Politically driven (mis-) accounting reported Bu annually under (post-) Kyoto can and will be instantaneously corrected.

22. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 22 6. Signal analysis under the KP Jonas and Nilsson (2009: Tab. 1); modified

23. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 23 6. Signal analysis under the KP Jonas and Nilsson (2009: Tab. 1); modified

24. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 24 6. Signal analysis under the KP Jonas and Nilsson (2007: Fig. 7); modified b) VT < t 2   Emissions Time VT t1t1 t2t2 Time VT t1t1 t2t2 VT > t 2  a)  Biosphere FF-Sphere

25. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 25 6. Signal analysis under the KP ~ Risk  Undershooting U Committed Level Base Year Level x1x1 Time t1t1 Emissions t2t2 x2x2 Jonas and Nilsson (2007: Fig. 11); modified

26. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 26 6. Signal analysis under the KP Hamal and Jonas (2008: Fig. 9)

27. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 27 6. Signal analysis under the KP Bun et al. ( 2008: Fig. 5, 6); modified Emissions in Tg CO 2 -eq (w/o LULUCF)  = 0.1 Emissions in Tg CO 2 -eq (w/o LULUCF)

28. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 28 6. Interim summary Spatial scale: country Temporal scale: KP / post-KP For most countries the emission changes agreed on under the KP are of the same order of magnitude as the uncertainty that underlies their combined CO 2 -equivalent emissions estimates. Some GHG emissions and removals estimates are more uncertain than others. Options exist to address this issue, and these could be incorporated in the design of future policy regimes. These include the option of not pooling subsystems with different relative uncertainties but treating them individually and differently.

29. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 29 6. Interim summary—cont’d Signal analysis techniques differ; each has its pros and cons. Any such technique, if implemented, could ‘make or break’ compliance, especially in cases where countries claim fulfillment of their reduction commitments. Emission changes at the level of countries (and legal entities) can be evaluated against true emission changes and in terms of uncertainty, risk, etc. Scientists will do it! Poland would be an extremely credible (low-risk) seller of emission permits. However, a holistic view indicates that an emissions market will face serious (inconceivable?) constraints if uncertainty is taken into account—which would be rational to do.

30. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 30 7. Conclusions Science will, most likely, break the neck of the KP which follows a Bu approach and does not consider uncertainty, unless it becomes flexible in that it adapts to Td accounting. gives up fake accounting of the ‘Kyoto Biosphere’ but treats the terrestrial biosphere (including hot issues such as deforestation, avoided deforestation, bio-energy, etc.) in a holistic context which is appropriate for this natural system. and becomes rigorous on uncertainty.

31. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 31 References

32. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 32 Canadell et al. ( 2007a, b); modified 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1980 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1980 World 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 198019851990199520002005 F (emissions) P (population) g = G/P h = F/G Factor (relative to 1990) Emissions Population Wealth = per capita GDP Carbon intensity of GDP Drivers of Anthropogenic Emissions Drivers of anthropogenic emissions

33. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 33 Anthropogenic C Emissions: Regional Contributions Cumulative Emissions [1751-2004] Flux in 2004 Flux Growth in 2004 Population in 2004 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% D3-Least Developed Countries India D2-Developing Countries China FSU D1-Developed Countries Japan EU USA Canadell et al. ( 2007a, b); modified Anthropogenic C emissions: regional contributions

34. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 34 IPCC SR ( 2001: Fig. SPM-5) Inertia and time scales

35. M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 35 The Bali Roadmap UNFCCC( 2007); CANA (2007)