CGE Training materials - Mitigation Assessment Module A

3.1

Mitigating Climate Change

CGE TRAINING MATERIALS - MITIGATION ASSESSMENT

MODULE A

3.2

Glossary

• AI: Annex One

• CDM: Clean Development Mechanism

• CMP: Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol

• COP: Conference of Parties

• IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

• JI: Joint Implementation

• LCDS: Low Carbon Development Strategies

• LCGCS: Low Carbon Growth Country Studies

• LEDS: Low Emission Development Strategies

• MRV: Measurement, Reporting and. Verification

• NAI: Non Annex One

• NAMA: Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (unilateral, supported or credited)

• NAPA: National Adaptation Programmes of Action

• NC: National Communication

• NCSP: National Communications Support Programme

• NIS: National Inventory System

• PAMs: Policies and Measures

• QA/QC: Quality Assurance and Quality Control

• QUELRO: Quantified Emission Limitation and Reduction Obligations

• REDD/REDD+: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation/plus conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhanced forest carbon stocks.

• SBSTA: Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice

• TAP: Technology Action Plan

• TNA: Technology Needs Assessment

• UNFCCC: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

2

3.3

Module Objectives and Expectations

1. Objective: Provide participants with an introduction to key issues related to climate change mitigation including:

– The current state of climate change science– Key sources, sinks, and sectors of Green House Gas (GHG)

emissions– Mitigation actions: their potential costs and benefits, and their

relationship with the broader issues of sustainability and development.

2. Expectations: Participants will have a broad but sound understanding of key issues related to climate change, motivating participants on the rationale and urgency of global Green House Gas (GHG) mitigation, the benefits of mitigation actions, and how these might fit with other national priorities.

3

3.4

Module Outline

1. State of Knowledge on Climate Change

2. GHG Emissions: Sources, Sinks and Sectors

3. Mitigation Actions, Potential Benefits and Sustainable

Development

4

3.5

MODULE A1

State of Knowledge on Climate Change

5

3.6

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC)

• Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007:– >2500 scientific expert reviewers, 1250 contributing and lead

authors, >130 countries.

• Three working groups:– WG I to assess the science of climate change

– WG II to assess impacts, adaptation and vulnerability

– WG III to assess mitigation of climate change

6

3.7

Key Findings of AR4 (IPCC, 2007)

• “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”• “Most of warming since mid-20th century from

increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations”

• “Continued GHG emissions... would induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century”

• “Neither adaptation nor mitigation alone can avoid all climate change impacts; however, they can complement each other and together can significantly reduce the risks of climate change”

• “There is substantial potential for… mitigation over the coming decades that could… reduce emissions below current levels”

7

3.8

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”

(IPCC 2007)

• Global average air and ocean temperatures are increasing.

• Global average sea level is rising.

• Extent of snow and ice cover is decreasing.

Warmest 12 years on record

Source: IPCC (2007) AR4 WGI

8

3.13

Reasons for Concern IPCC Third Assessment Report 2001

Source: Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘‘reasons

for concern’’ (PNAS, Feb 2009)

13

3.14

Source: Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘‘reasons for concern’’ (PNAS, Feb 2009)

Updated Reasons for Concern

14

3.17

• Impacts are worse:– Large share of economy in climate

sensitive sectors (e.g. agriculture, tourism)– Prone to natural disasters (e.g. floods and

droughts)– Adds to existing water resource stresses

• Multiple stresses and lower adaptive capacity:– Limited financial, institutional, technological capacity

– Limited access to knowledge

• Impacts disproportionately on poorest countries and poorest people:

– Exacerbated human health, food security, malnutrition, clean water and other resource access concerns

Developing Countries are the Most Vulnerable

Slide adapted from Dr. RK Pachauri presentation, State of the World Symposium, Washington, 15th January 2009.

17

3.18

Expected Impacts on Poor Regions

• 30% by 2050 in Central and South Asia

• 30% by 2080 in Latin America

• 50% by 2020 in some African countries

• 120 million to 1.2 billion in Asia

• 12 to 81 million in Latin America

• 75 to 250 million in Africa

People exposed to increased water stress by 2020:

Possible yield reduction in agriculture:

Crop revenues could fall by 90% by 2100 in Africa

Slide adapted from Dr. R K Pachauri ‘s presentation, State of the World Symposium, Washington, 15th January 2009.

18

3.19

Adaptation• Has the potential to reduce the adverse effects of

climate change and can produce ancillary benefits, but cannot prevent all damage

• Numerous adaptation options have been identified

• Greater and more rapid climate change would pose greater challenges for adaptation

• Neither adaptation nor mitigation, alone, can avoid all impacts, but they can complement each other and together significantly reduce risks.

19

3.20

The Mitigation Challenge: Global Emissions Pathways Giving

67% Chance of Achieving Compliance with 2°C Guardrail

Source: WGBU (2009)

20

3.21

MODULE A2

GHG Emissions: Sources, Sinks and Sectors

21

3.22

Estimating GHG Emissions

• UNFCCC accounting covers a basket of direct greenhouse gases (GHGs):– Expressed in global warming potential (GWP), which compares the

radiative forcing of a tonne of a greenhouse gas over a given time period (e.g. 100 years) to a tonne of CO2

– Other climate forcers such as black carbon may be considered separately.

• National GHG inventories: – Core element of national communications

– Starting point for mitigation analysis.

22

3.23

Greenhouse Gases: Sources and Sinks

*GWP = Global Warming Potential from Second Assessment Report, as used for reporting purposes under the UNFCCC Sources: IPCC (2007) AR4 WGI & WGIII

Global anthropogenic GHG emissions (2004)

Greenhouse Gas Principal Sources (and Sinks)

GWP*

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Fossil fuel use, land use change(oceans, terrestrial biosphere)

1

Methane (CH4) Fossil fuel mining/distribution, livestock, rice agriculture, landfills

21

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Agriculture and associated land use change

310

“F-gases” Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6)

Industrial processes 140 - 23,900

23

3.24

Baseline Trends in

Fossil-fuel and Industry-related CO2 Emissions

• Baseline emissions growth in the coming decades will come predominantly from the developing world.

• However, emissions per capita in developing countries are set to remain much lower than in the developed world.

Source: Global Energy Assessment (2012, Forthcoming)

24

3.25

Regional Distribution of Emissions

Per Capita and Per Dollar GDP

Source: IPCC (2007) AR4 WGIII

25

3.28

Sectoral Emissions Trends

• Since 1970, increases in global CO2 emissions have been largely due to rise in fossil fuel use for electricity and transportation

• Agriculture, forestry and land use change currently comprise about 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

CO2 only (1970-2004) All GHGs (2004)

Source: IPCC (2007) AR4 WGIII

28

3.30

MODULE A3

Mitigation Actions, Potential Benefits and Sustainable Development

30

3.31

Studies Show the Potential for Mitigation

Actions to Greatly Reduce Global Emissions

According to the IPCC (2007), “There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilization levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialized in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing related barriers.”

Source: IPCC (2007) AR4 Synthesis Report

31

3.32

Adapted from Dr. RK Pachauri’s presentation, State of the World Symposium, Washington, 15th January 2009.

Key Mitigation Instruments,

Policies and Practices• Research, development and demonstration• Appropriate energy infrastructure

investments• Regulations and standards• Taxes and charges• Change in lifestyles and consumption

patterns• Effective carbon price signal.

32

3.34

Slide adapted from Dr. RK Pachauri’s presentation, State of the World Symposium, Washington, 15th January 2009.

Potential Co-benefits of Mitigation

• Health co-benefits from reduced air pollution

• Increased energy security

• More rural employment

• Increased agricultural production and reduced pressure on natural ecosystems

• Improved technological base

• Strengthened institutions and human capacity

34

3.36

Slide adapted from Dr. R. K Pachauri presentation, State of the World Symposium, Washington, 15th January 2009.

GDP without mitigation

GDP with stringent mitigation

2030

GDP

TimeCurrent

Mitigation would postpone GDP growth by one year at most over the medium term

Cost of mitigation in 2030: max 3% of global GDP

Schematic graph

Impacts of Mitigation on GDP Growth(for stabilization scenario of 445-535 ppm CO2-eq)

36

3.38

• Possible relationships: – Complementary

– Substitutable or

– Independent?

• Imperfect substitutes:– Because of long lag times in the climate system, no mitigation efforts will

be able to prevent some amount of climate change

– Conversely, reliance on adaptation alone would lead to a large magnitude of climate change, to which it would be very expensive to adapt.

Integrating Mitigation and Adaptation

Source: IPCC (2007) AR4 WGII

38

3.39

Mitigation and Adaptation: Synergies and Trade-offs

• Nature of benefits varies:– Mitigation: global and long-term

– Adaptation: local and shorter term

• Trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation

– National level: often viewed as competing priorities

– Local level: increasing recognition of overlaps, especially when natural, energy, and sequestration systems intersect

– Particularly important for developing countries and LDCs relying on natural resources for energy and development

– Examples emerging in bioenergy, forestry, agriculture

• Both adaptation and mitigation depend on capital assets (including social capital).

• Mitigation and adaptation policies can be related to sustainable development goals.

AgroforestryPhoto source: Scitizen (2009) Source: IPCC (2007) AR4 WGIII

39

3.40D.40

Example: Tanzania National Agroforestry Strategy

• 2004 National Agroforestry Strategy:– Goal: By 2020, 60% of resource-poor households adopt agroforestry technologies,

contributing to improved livelihoods.– Complements “MKUKUTA” national development strategy (increasing household

income while protecting the environment).

• Crops, livestock, and trees/shrubs planted/retained on farm land create a web of resilient land use practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change, conserve biodiversity, and stop land degradation.

40

3.43

Two-Way Relationship between Climate Change

and Sustainable Development

Climate change influences natural and human living conditions, and social/economic development

Society’s priorities on sustainable development influence GHG emissions, causing climate change and vulnerability

Source: IPCC (2007) AR4 WGIII

43

3.44

Addressing Energy Poverty

Source: OECD/IEA (2011)

44

3.45

Integrating Mitigation in Development Planning

• Mitigation options that improve productivity of resource use (energy, water, land) generally yield sustainable development benefits.

• Climate-related policies (e.g. energy efficiency) are often economically beneficial, improve energy security, reduce local pollution, and create jobs.

• Opportunities for mitigation-sustainable development synergies are especially promising in waste management, transportation, and buildings (decreased energy use and reduced pollution).

• Reducing deforestation can yield biodiversity, soil and water conservation benefits, but may result in economic loss and reduced agricultural (or forestry) production.

• Capitalizing on synergies is especially relevant where economic and social development are the top priorities.

45

3.47

Possible Topics for Discussion

• How might mitigation and adaptation policies differ in terms of implementation challenges?

• Where are there opportunities to integrate climate change mitigation and sustainable development priorities in your country?

• What are the challenges of addressing energy poverty?• Do you see mitigation as complementary to, or in

competition with, development priorities?

47

3.48

Discussion Questions

• Does the relative significance of sectors and their global/regional mitigation potential correspond to your expectations? Your national situation?

• What are the pros and cons of approaching mitigation from a sectoral perspective?

• Do national inventories typically provide sufficient data for mitigation analysis? What additional emissions data might be needed?

48