Assessing and comparing post2012 climate change regime designs Future international action on climat

1
Assessing and comparing post-2012 climate change
regime designs Future international action on
climate change - interpreting the ultimate goal,
estimating costs and comparing regime designs 9
to 11 June 2004

• Niklas Höhne
• n.hoehne_at_ecofys.de
• ECOFYS Cologne, Germany

2
Content

• Regime design features
• Comparison emission quotas
• Conclusions

3
Issues to be addressed
1. Should we aim for a long-term stabilization
level?
Mitigation
Adaptation
2. What is the type of the commitment?
5. What are the types of action for adaptation ?
3. How to determine the stringency of emission
reductions?
4. Who participates and when?
6. How and where should be negotiated?
4
2. Types of action (I)

• Emission targets
• Binding absolute emission reduction targetsAs in
  Kyoto Protocol, certainty in future emissions,
  flexible across gases, sectors and borders
  (emission trading), criticized by some as too
  rigid
• Flexible emission targets
• non-binding
• positively binding (only selling target)
• dual targets (high for buying, low for selling)
• price caps (new credits at fixed maximum price)
• Dynamic targets (per GDP or per unit of output)
• Aim at reducing unexpected high cost, introduce
  more emission uncertainty

5
2. Types of action (II)

• Soft options
• Enhanced coordinated technology RDD efforts
  Aimed at affecting long-term emissions, less
  effect in short term
• Coordinated policies and measures
• Technology standards
• Taxes
• Renewable quotas
• How to compare the effort of countries?

possibly not fitting the national circumstances
6
2. Types of action (III)

• Action by developed countries aimed at emissions
  in developing countries
• Mandatory financial contributions to emission
  reduction funds, technology transferAlready in
  place, but not mandatory
• Greening of investment flows (e.g. export credit
  agencies) Much larger volumes already flowing
  than for CDM
• Options particularly for developing countries
• Sustainable development policies and measures
  Attractive due to focus on development, but
  monitoring and additionality difficult
• Action as policies and in sectors is (party)
  rewarded as extended CDM Monitoring and
  additionality difficult

7
Options for influencing developing country
emissions

• Benefiting from technological developments in
  developed countries (spillover)
• Extended CDM Sectors and policies
• Enhanced technology transfer and funded projects
• Greening of investment flows
• Undertaking sustainable development policies and
  measures
• Assuming flexible quantitative targets
  (non-binding, sectoral targets, dynamic targets)
• Assuming absolute emission targets

Increasing comprehen-siveness
8
Issues to be addressed
1. Should we aim for a long-term stabilization
level?
Mitigation
Adaptation
2. What is the type of the commitment?
5. What are the types of action for adaptation ?
3. How to determine the stringency of emission
reductions?
4. Who participates and when?
6. How and where should be negotiated?
9
3. Sharing emission allowances

• Options
• Differentiation criteria
• Current emissions
• Contributions to temperature increase (Brazilian
  Proposal)
• Population (converging per capita emissions)
• GDP
• Others Geographic area, climatic conditions,
  reduction potential
• Several sectoral targets added to a national
  target (Triptych, Multisector convergence)
• No formula will completely satisfy all
  countries. Conflict between simple/transparent
  (converging per-capita emissions) and
  sophisticated/considering structural difference
  (Triptych)

10
4. Who participates and when?

• Options
• Countries decide themselvesStrong incentives
  needed
• Indicator threshold, e.g.
• Absolute emissions
• Emissions per capita
• Emissions per GDP
• GDP per capita
• Cumulative emissions
• Contribution to temperature increase
• Other measures of development such as e.g. the
  human development index
• No indicator will suit every country
• Link DC participation to IC reductionsFormula?
  (e.g. if emissions/cap above world average)

11
Issues to be addressed
1. Should we aim for a long-term stabilization
level?
Mitigation
Adaptation
2. What is the type of the commitment?
5. What are the types of action for adaptation ?
3. How to determine the stringency of emission
reductions?
4. Who participates and when?
6. How and where should be negotiated?
12
5. Adaptation

• Mitigation has been the focus of the debate so
  far
• But adaptation and sustainable development are
  major concerns of developing countries
• Options
• Funding adaptation projects
• Insurance
• Separate adaptation protocol
• More thinking needed

13
6. Negotiations

• Options
• Continue under the Kyoto Protocol
• Well established structure with currently no
  alternative
• 7 years of negotiation effort
• But difficult decision making
• Rejected by USA, Russian Federation undecided
• Only committed countries negotiate amongst
  themselves
• Competitiveness of industries, countries could be
  moved to join if successful
• 20 biggest emitters only
• Agreement possibly easier, weakening the UNFCCC
  process
• Split into several treaties with only interested
  countries on each subject
• Officially decoupled, but in reality linked back

14
Content

• Regime design features
• Comparison emission quotas
• Conclusions

15
Issues to be addressed
1. Should we aim for a long-term stabilization
level?
Mitigation
Adaptation
2. What is the type of the commitment?
5. What are the types of action for adaptation ?
3. How to determine the stringency of emission
reductions?
4. Who participates and when?
6. How and where should be negotiated?
16
Comparison

• Approaches
• Multistage
• Contraction Convergence
• Triptych
• Quantification
• CO2, CH4, N2O, F-Gases, excl. LUCF
• Growth rates of IMAGE implementation of the IPCC
  SRES scenarios applied to a UNFCCC, IEA, EDGAR
  inventories per country

17
Multistage approach
How?
How much?
Who?

• Participation in four stages

Reduction
Moderate reduction
Sustainable development policies and measures
No commitments

• Countries graduate to a next step, if threshold
  is passed, e.g. emissions/cap
• Countries on stage 4 (reducing countries) share
  the remaining emissions with equal percentage
  reduction

18
Contraction and Convergence
How?
How much?
Who?

• Contraction Definition of global emission path
  (e.g 450ppmv)
• Convergence Per capita emissions of all
  countries converge by 2050

19
Triptych approach
How?
How much?
Who?
Domestic (CO2)
Industry (CO2)
Electricity (CO2)
Waste
CH4 and N2O
CH4 and N2O
Agriculture
Forestry
Converging per-capita emissions
BAU production growth with efficiency improvement
BAU production growth with limit on sources
Stabilization at 100
Converging per-capita emissions to 0
National emission target
20
Possible corridors to stabilization
14
13
550ppm
12
11
50
45
10
Global anthropogenic CO2 emissions (GtC)
30
9
Change compared to 1990
8
450ppm
7
6
-25
5
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Source Edgar database (historic), IPCC WGIII
chapter 2, post SRES scenarios (stabilization
paths), CO2 only
21
Annex I in 2020 for 450 ppm CO2
- USA reaches its national target in 2010 -
Triptych based on different data - Error bars
show the range for different reference scenarios

• Reductions in Annex I between -10 and -45
• Triptych More reductions than CC, less
  reductions for more efficient countries
• Multistage More reductions then CC, because
  Non-Annex I start reducing later

21
22
Non-Annex I in 2020 for 450 ppm

• Already some deviation from reference in Latin
  America and SEE Asia
• Convergence Not more allowances than reference
  emissions
• Multistage After initial sorting, not much
  movement upwards

22
23
Possible corridors to stabilization
14
13
550ppm
12
11
50
45
10
Global anthropogenic CO2 emissions (GtC)
30
9
Change compared to 1990
8
450ppm
7
6
-25
5
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Source Edgar database (historic), IPCC WGIII
chapter 2, post SRES scenarios (stabilization
paths), CO2 only
24
Annex I in 2050 for 450 ppm CO2
Error bars show the range for different reference
scenarios

• Major reductions under all approaches (-70 to
  90)

25
Non-Annex I in 2050 for 450 ppm
Error bars show the range for different future
scenarios

• Substantial deviation from reference in all
  regions

26
Possible corridors to stabilization
14
13
550ppm
12
11
50
45
10
Global anthropogenic CO2 emissions (GtC)
30
9
Change compared to 1990
8
450ppm
7
6
-25
5
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Source Edgar database (historic), IPCC WGIII
chapter 2, post SRES scenarios (stabilization
paths), CO2 only
27
Annex I in 2020 for 550 ppm
Error bars show the range for different reference
scenarios

• For less stringent target, less reductions (10
  to -30)

27
28
Non-Annex I in 2020 for 550 ppm

• Multistage Small deviation from reference
• Convergence more allowances than reference
  emissions in Africa and South Asia, not in Latin
  America, Middle East and SEE Asia

28
29
Possible corridors to stabilization
14
13
550ppm
12
11
50
45
10
Global anthropogenic CO2 emissions (GtC)
30
9
Change compared to 1990
8
450ppm
7
6
-25
5
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Source Edgar database (historic), IPCC WGIII
chapter 2, post SRES scenarios (stabilization
paths), CO2 only
30
Annex I in 2050 for 550 ppm
Error bars show the range for different reference
scenarios

• Substantial but less reductions (-50 to -70)
• Contraction convergence not attractive for
  Annex I

31
Non-Annex I in 2050 for 550 ppm
Error bars show the range for different future
scenarios

• Deviation from reference in Latin America and
  Middle East, SEE Asia
• Convergence possibly more allowances than
  reference emissions in Africa and South Asia

32
Content

• Regime design features
• Comparison emission quotas
• Conclusions

33
Conclusions I

• Several types of targets (multistage or menu)
• For DCs types of targets for DCs that limit
  emissions but not economic growth (e.g. per unit
  of output, positively binding, standards)
• Both, caps and measures for technology development

Mitigation
How ?

• For 2C more reductions than under Kyoto
• Differentiation/allocation of emission targets
  not solved
• Any formula (e.g. convergence or Triptych) is
  only the basis for negotiations

How much?

• Action from Annex I countries to reduce emissions
  in Non-Annex I countries needed
• Increased participation necessary soon
• No threshold indicator will suit every country
  (benchmark emissions/capita)
• Self-identification with incentives to be in a
  certain group

Who?
34
Conclusions II

• Difference between 450 and 550 is larger than
  between approaches

35
National long-term targets

• UK -60 by 2050
• Germany -40 by 2020, if EU 30
• France -75 by 2050
• Netherlands -30 by 2020 and 50 by 2030

36
Acknowledgements

• German Federal Environmental Agency
• EU Commission DG Environment
• ECOFYS team Simone Ullrich, Dian Phylipsen,
  Kornelis Blok, Ruut Brandsma

37
Backup slides
38
Annex I in 2020 for 450 ppm CO2
Error bars show the range for different future
scenarios

• Reduction between -20 and -45
• Brazilian proposal more reductions for countries
  with long emission history (EU)
• Triptych less reductions for more efficient
  countries (Japan, Europe)
• Contraction convergence in comparison
  attractive for Annex I

39
Non-Annex I in 2020 for 450 ppm
Different reference used RIVM2025 ECOFYS
2020 Triptych based on different data, only for
selected countries

• Deviation from reference in Latin America, Middle
  East and SEE Asia
• Contraction Convergence More allowances than
  reference emissions only possibly in Africa and
  South Asia

40
Annex I in 2050 for 450 ppm CO2
Error bars show the range for different reference
scenarios

• Major reductions under all approaches (-70 to
  90)
• More reductions for Contraction Convergence
  than under Multistage

41
Non-Annex I in 2050 for 450 ppm
Error bars show the range for different future
scenarios

• Substantial deviation from reference in all
  regions

42
Annex I in 2020 for 550 ppm
Error bars show the range for different reference
scenarios RIVM National target for
USA ECOFYS Kyoto target for USA

• For less stringent target, less reductions (10
  to -20)
• Contraction convergence in comparison
  attractive for Annex I

43
Non-Annex I in 2020 for 550 ppm
Error bars show the range for different future
scenarios

• Deviation from reference in Latin America and
  Middle East
• Contraction Convergence more allowances than
  reference emissions in Africa and South Asia

44
Annex I in 2050 for 550 ppm
Error bars show the range for different reference
scenarios CC Different convergence
year RIVM 2075 ECOFYS 2050

• Substantial but less reductions (-50 to -70)
• Contraction convergence in comparison only
  attractive for Annex I for late convergence year
  2075

45
Non-Annex I in 2050 for 550 ppm
Error bars show the range for different future
scenarios

• Deviation from reference in Latin America and
  Middle East, SEE Asia
• Convergence more allowances than reference
  emissions in Africa and South Asia for
  convergence year 2050 not 2075

46
Costs using bottom-up cost curves
Source FAIR/TIMER in GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION
PATHWAYS IN THE UNFCCC PROCESS UP TO 2025 -
TECHNICAL REPORT by P. Criqui, A. Kitous, M.
Berk, M. den Elzen, B. Eickhout, P. Lucas, D.
van Vuuren, N. Kouvaritakisº and D.
Vanregemorter
47
Costs using an economic model
Source GEM-E3 in GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION
PATHWAYS IN THE UNFCCC PROCESS UP TO 2025 -
TECHNICAL REPORT by P. Criqui, A. Kitous, M.
Berk, M. den Elzen, B. Eickhout, P. Lucas, D.
van Vuuren, N. Kouvaritakisº and D.
Vanregemorter
48
Emissions since 1990
USA
Japan
OECD
EU
Industrialized countries
UK
Germany
Eastern Europe
CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC, PFCs und SF6 Quelle National
inventories submitted to the UNFCCC
49
Time scales of stabilization
Source IPCC Synthesis Report, 2001
50
Linking temperature to concentration
Levels of CO2 concentration Preindustrial 280
ppm Current 360 ppm
Source IPCC Synthesis Report, 2001
51
Stabilized temperatures at different CO2
concentrations
Source IPCC Synthesis Report, 2001
Range temperature for stabilization of CO2
concentration at equilibrium after 2100
650
550
450

• 1000 to 1861, N. Hemisphere, proxy data
• 1861 to 2000 Global, Instrumental
• 2000 to 2100, SRES projections

52
Climate change impacts
450
550
650
Source IPCC Synthesis Report, 2001
53
IPCC Cost for stabilization

• Presented as difference between GDP in 2050 in
  reference case and GDP in 2050 in stabilization
  case
• 4 GDP loss over 50 years 0.08 per year

Source IPCC TAR
54
Cost for stabilization is only postponement of
GDP growth
Source Azar Schneider 2002
55
Possible indicators for ranking
Data sources EDGAR database, IEA, UNDP
56
Emissions per capita
United Arab Emirates 56.4 USA 25.3 Saudi
Arabia 18.3 Russian Federation 16.7 Annex
I 15.1 EU 10.8 South Korea 10.4 Brazil 7.5 Hungar
y 6.7 World 6.4 China 4.9 Non-Annex
I 4.1 India 2.4 Egypt 2.4 Burundi 0.6 Source
EDGAR / UN / ECOFYS
tCO2eq./cap in 1995 All sectors incl. forestry
CO2, CH4, N2O
See also Climate Analysis Indicator Tool of
WRI http//cait.wri.org/
57
Historic emissions
Source Marland et al. / Houghton et al. / EDGAR
3.2
58
Future emissions
7
Annex I
x 10
3
N2O
2.5
CH4
Forestry CO2
2
Fossil CO2
1.5
Emissions in Tg CO2eq.
How can developed country emissions be reduced
1
0.5
0
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
1900
Year
7
Non-Annex I
x 10
and developing country emission growth be
limited?
3
N2O
2.5
CH4
Forestry CO2
2
Fossil CO2
1.5
Emissions in Tg CO2eq.
1
0.5
0
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
1900
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
Year
IPCC SRES A1B scenario
59
ECOFYS Energy and Environment

• European research and consulting company
• In total 200 employees
• Offices in the Netherlands, Germany, UK, Spain,
  Poland, Belgium
• Example projects
• Sectoral objectives study to share the Kyoto
  target amongst the sectors in the EU
• Development of the emission monitoring guidelines
  for the EU emission trading system (with FIELD,
  KPMG and TÜV)
• Work on future international climate commitments
  for the German Environmental Agency and EU
  Commission

60
Future international action on climate change
network

• Collecting information
• - Activities
• Institutions
• - Ideas
• Discussion forum
• www.fiacc.net