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

Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity

19 October 2005

Niklas Höhne, [email protected]

Esther Lahme, [email protected] Cologne, Germany

B A S I Cwww.basic-project.net


Content1. 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)


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


Future international action on climate change network

Collecting information - Activities- Institutions- Ideas

Discussion forum

www.fiacc.net

Funded by - German Federal

Environmental Agency- EU Commissions DG

Environment



climate policy post 2012

2. 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


Time scales of stabilization

Source: IPCC Synthesis Report, 2001


Possible temperature trajectories

• 1000 to 1861, N. Hemisphere, proxy data;

• 1861 to 2000 Global, Instrumental;

• 2000 to 2100, SRES projections


EU climate target of 2°C above pre-industrial level


Source:

IPCC Syntheses Report, 2001

EU climate target

Linking temperature to concentration

Levels of CO2 concentration

Preindustrial: 280 ppmCurrent: 360 ppm


Stabilization pathways

0

1

2

34

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

GtC

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Ch

ang

e to

199

0

Source: post SRES scenarios (stabilization paths), CO2 only

450ppm

550ppm

400/350ppm

Reference


Approaches

• Contraction and Convergence (C&C)

• Common but Differentiated Convergence (CDC)

• Multistage

• South North Dialogue – Equity in the greenhouse

• Brazilian Proposal

• Sectoral approaches

• Triptych


Contraction and Convergence• Contraction: Definition of global emission path (e.g 450ppmv)

• Convergence: Per capita emissions of all countries converge by 2050

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Em

issi

on

s p

er c

apit

a (t

CO

2eq

./p

erso

n)

Annex I

Global total

Non-Annex I


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

GH

G/c

ap

Time

Threshold


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


South North DialogueQuantitative 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

Limitation SD PAMS obligatory Co-funding

5. Annex I but not Annex II

Absolute reduction

- Low/no payments

6. Annex II Strict absolute reduction

- Make high payments

• Thresholds: CO2/GDP, GHG/cap, emission growth, cumulative emissions, GDP/cap, HDI; show members of the groups

• Adaptation commitment


Brazilian proposal

• Calculate countries’ contribution to temperature increase

• Countries reduce proportional to their contribution to temperature increase


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 gCO2/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


Industry Adjusted BAU production growth with efficiency improvement

Electricity Adjusted BAU production growth with limit on sources

Domestic Converging per-capita emissions

Fossil fuel production

Decline to low level

Agricultural Percentage reduction below BAU

Waste Converging per-capita emissions

Land use change and forestry

Decline to zero (here excluded)

Triptych

Nat

ion

alem

issi

on

tar

get


Overview of tools

Country level historical data

Emission allocation

Mitigation costs

CAIT EVOC FAIR

XX X (X)

Contraction and Convergence (C&C)

X X

Common but Differentiated Convergence (CDC)

X (X)

Multistage X X

South North Dialogue – Equity in the greenhouse

X (X)

Brazilian Proposal X

Sectoral approaches (X)

Triptych X (X)

X














EVOC ToolInput• 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”


Delayed participation

Common but differentiated convergence

GH

G/c

ap

Time

Threshold

Contraction & Convergence

GH

G/c

ap

Time

IC

DC

LDC


Results towards 550 ppmv CO2

0

5

10

15

20

25

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

2055

2060

2065

2070

2075

2080

2085

2090

2095

2100

tCO

2eq

/cap

Annex I

Non Annex I

World total

Threshold

PhilippinesIndiaChina

S. Africa

Kenya

Saudi Arabia

USA

EU 25

Japan

Argentina

Towards 550 ppmv CO2:

Threshold:30% above world average,

Convergence level:4.5 tCO2eq/cap

A1B scenarioExcl. LUCF CO2

GHG per capita




Threshold:30% above world average,



0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

MtC

O2eq

India

China

Brazil

Saudi Arabia

USA

EU 25

Japan

GHG emissions




Threshold:10% below world average,



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

2055

2060

2065

2070

2075

2080

2085

2090

2095

2100

tCO

2eq

/cap

Annex I

Non Annex I

World total

Threshold

PhilippinesIndia

China

S. Africa

Kenya

Saudi Arabia

USAEU 25

Japan

Argentina

GHG per capita




Threshold:10% below world average,


A1B scenarioExcl. LUCF CO2 0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

MtC

O2eq

India

China

Brazil

Saudi Arabia

USA

EU 25

Japan

GHG emissions


Multistage

Four stage emission reduction agreement1. No commitments2. Sustainable development policies and measures3. Moderate emission limitation targets4. Absolute emission reduction targets (shared according to

Triptych approach)

Threshold: Emissions/cap, decreasing over time


Towards 550 ppmv CO2

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

MtC

O2

eq

.

EAsiaCPAsiaSAsiaMEAFRLAMREEURAIJPNRUS+EEUEU25USA

Stage 3• Entry at 6-10 tCO2eq./cap• 10%-15% below reference

Stage 4• Entry at 9-12 tCO2eq./cap• 1-5% reduction per year


Time of entry towards 550 ppmv CO2

2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 Annex I 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.4 4.6 4.7

Rest of Eastern Europe 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.5 3.7

Argentina 2.8 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.7 4.7

Brazil 1.7 1.8 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.8 3.3 3.8

Mexico 1.8 2.3 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.8 4.2

Venezuela 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.5 4.7

Rest of Latin America 1.3 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.9

Egypt 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.8 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.7 3.3

South Africa 2.3 2.5 2.7 3.2 3.5 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.7

Nigeria 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.3 2.5 2.8

Rest of North Africa 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.8 3.3

Rest of Africa 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3

Saudi Arabia 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.7 4.7

United Arab Emirates 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.7 4.7

Rest of Middle East 2.2 2.3 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.8 4.0

China 1.0 1.5 1.7 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.8 3.2 4.0

India 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.5

Indonesia 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.3

South Korea 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.5

Malaysia 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.7 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.5

Philippines 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.7 2.0

Singapore 3.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.7

Thailand 1.5 1.8 2.3 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.7 4.0 4.3

Rest of Asia 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.8



Stage 3• Entry at 3.5-4 tCO2eq./cap• ~30% below reference

Stage 4• Entry at 5-5.5 tCO2eq./cap• ~5% reduction per year

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

MtC

O2

eq

.




2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 Annex I 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0


Argentina 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.2 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Brazil 3.0 3.0 3.8 4.0 4.2 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Mexico 3.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.3 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.0

Venezuela 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.2 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0


Egypt 1.8 2.0 2.8 3.3 3.7 3.8 4.7 4.8 5.0

South Africa 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.7 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Nigeria 1.0 1.0 1.7 2.0 2.5 3.3 3.7 4.3 4.7


Rest of Africa 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.7 3.0

Saudi Arabia 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.2 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0



China 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.7 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.0 5.0

India 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.3 3.2 3.3 3.8 4.0 4.3

Indonesia 1.0 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.7

South Korea 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0

Malaysia 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.2 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Philippines 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.8

Singapore 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.7 5.0 5.0 5.0

Thailand 3.0 3.2 3.7 3.8 4.2 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.0

Rest of Asia 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.3



0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

MtC

O2

eq

.


Stage 3• Entry at 3.5 tCO2eq./cap• ~30% below reference

Stage 4• Entry at 4 tCO2eq./cap• ~8% reduction per year



2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 Annex I 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0


Argentina 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Brazil 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Mexico 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Venezuela 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0


Egypt 1.8 2.0 2.7 3.7 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

South Africa 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Nigeria 1.0 1.0 1.7 2.5 3.3 4.0 4.8 5.0 5.0


Rest of Africa 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.5 3.0 3.3 3.7

Saudi Arabia 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0



China 3.0 3.7 3.7 4.7 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

India 1.0 1.5 2.3 3.0 3.3 4.3 4.8 5.0 5.0

Indonesia 1.0 1.7 2.3 3.0 3.2 3.8 4.2 4.5 4.7

South Korea 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.2 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Malaysia 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Philippines 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.7 3.8 4.3

Singapore 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Thailand 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Rest of Asia 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.9 3.2



0

1

2

34

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

GtC

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Ch

ang

e to

199

0


450ppm

550ppm

400/350ppm

Reference



0

1

2

34

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

GtC

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Ch

ang

e to

199

0


450ppm

550ppm+30%

-25%

+50%+45%

+10%

-60%400/350ppm


Change 1990 to 2020 towards 450 ppm CO2

• 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

450 ppmv 2020

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

US

A

EU

25

FR

A

GE

R

UK

R+E

EU

JPN

RA

I

C&CCDCMutistageTriptychReference

450 ppmv 2020

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

RE

EU

LAM

AF

R

ME

SA

sia

CP

Asi

a

EA

sia




• Annex I: -70% to -90% below 1990• Substantial deviation from reference in all Non-Annex I regions

450 ppmv 2050

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

US

A

EU

25

FR

A

GE

R

UK

R+E

EU

JPN

RA

I


450 ppmv 2050

-100%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

700%

800%

900%

1000%

RE

EU

LAM

AF

R

ME

SA

sia

CP

Asi

a

EA

sia









Backup slides


Linking impacts to temperature

Area of concern

Benchmark impact indicators

Possible Global Mean Temperature

Change Thresholds

Risk of large scale singularities

- Breakdown of the Thermohaline Circulation - Disintegration of the West Antarctica Ice Sheet

3o-4oC

Aggregate impacts

- Aggregate monetary or economic welfare losses

- Numbers of people affected 2o-3oC

Distribution of impacts

- Monetary or economic welfare losses by region

- Numbers of people affected by region 2o-3oC

Risks of extreme weather events

- Frequency, intensity of tropical storms and precipitation events, drought

- Increase in maximum T and number of hot days, increase in minimum T and decrease in number of cold/frost days

1o-2oC

Risks to unique and threatened systems

- Coral reefs, mangrove forests, mountain glaciers. Already affected 0.5o-2oC

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 277-293


Linking impacts to temperature

Area of concern

Benchmark impact indicators

Possible Global Mean Temperature

Change Thresholds

Risk of large scale singularities

- Breakdown of the Thermohaline Circulation - Disintegration of the West Antarctica Ice Sheet

3o-4oC

Aggregate impacts

- Aggregate monetary or economic welfare losses

- Numbers of people affected 2o-3oC

Distribution of impacts

- Monetary or economic welfare losses by region

- Numbers of people affected by region 2o-3oC

Risks of extreme weather events

- Frequency, intensity of tropical storms and precipitation events, drought

- Increase in maximum T and number of hot days, increase in minimum T and decrease in number of cold/frost days

1o-2oC

Risks to unique and threatened systems

- Coral reefs, mangrove forests, mountain glaciers. Already affected 0.5o-2oC

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 277-293

450: 1.5 - 4°C

550: 2 - 5°C

650: 2.5 - 6°C

Temperature range at

equilibrium


Immediate participation


GH

G/c

ap

Time

BAU

GH

G/c

ap

Time

IC

DC

LDC

IC

DC

LDC


Time of participation 550 ppmv CO2

Region 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 Annex I 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Rest of Eastern Europe 38% 53% 57% 58% 58% 59% 60% 62% 62%

Argentina 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83%

Brazil 0% 0% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Mexico 0% 33% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67%

Venezuela 83% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Rest of Latin America 7% 13% 16% 29% 37% 37% 37% 39% 41%

Egypt 0% 0% 0% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%

South Africa 33% 67% 67% 67% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83%

Nigeria 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 33% 33% 50%

Rest of North Africa 6% 6% 19% 40% 42% 42% 49% 49% 49%

Rest of Africa 1% 1% 2% 3% 11% 16% 23% 28% 32%

Saudi Arabia 83% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

United Arab Emirates 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Rest of Middle East 31% 41% 50% 64% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65%

China 0% 0% 17% 33% 33% 33% 67% 67% 67%

India 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%

Indonesia 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 17% 33% 33%

South Korea 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83%

Malaysia 33% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83%

Philippines 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 17%

Singapore 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83%

Thailand 0% 0% 33% 67% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83%

Rest of Asia 7% 6% 6% 6% 7% 11% 16% 17% 17%


Time of participation 450 ppmv CO2Region 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 Annex I 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Rest of Eastern Europe 71% 74% 80% 85% 90% 91% 91% 92% 92%

Argentina 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Brazil 67% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Mexico 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Venezuela 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Rest of Latin America 18% 69% 74% 81% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89%

Egypt 0% 0% 67% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

South Africa 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Nigeria 0% 0% 50% 67% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Rest of North Africa 34% 58% 60% 87% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Rest of Africa 2% 2% 9% 28% 48% 52% 65% 71% 71%

Saudi Arabia 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

United Arab Emirates 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Rest of Middle East 73% 85% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88%

China 0% 67% 83% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

India 0% 0% 33% 67% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Indonesia 0% 0% 67% 67% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83%

South Korea 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Malaysia 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Philippines 0% 0% 0% 50% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83%

Singapore 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Thailand 67% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Rest of Asia 8% 8% 10% 28% 41% 48% 51% 52% 53%


Comparison


Common but differentiated convergence

Very simple Simple

One form of commitment Two 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 participate Stepwise participation

Resource transfers to DCs Least developed countries are exempt


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.


Original Triptych 1997

Energy CO2 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


450 CO2 550 CO2

Industry - Adjusted BAU industry production growth- Energy efficiency index by 2050 better than current best technology (=1)

0.5 0.8

Electricity - Adjusted BAU production growth - REN and emission free share in 2050- Coal + oil absolute reduction

60%-75%

40%-40%

Domestic Converging per-capita emissions in 2050 to… 0.7tCO2eq/cap

1.3 tCO2eq/cap


Emissions in 2050 decline by …-90% -90%

Agricultural Reduction below BAU in 2050 high income Reduction below BAU in 2050 low income

70%50%

20%40%

Waste Per capita emissions in 2050 decline to … 0 0


Per capita emissions in 2050 decline to …0 0

Parameters used


Sectoral development: USA

(Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

Mt

CO

2eq

. Agriclture

Domestic

Electricity

Industry

450 CO2 caseA1B scenario


Sectoral development: China


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

Mt

CO

2eq

. Agriclture

Domestic

Electricity

Industry



Change in emissions from 1990 to 2020

(Source: EVOC model)

Triptych 2020

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

US

A

EU

25

FR

A

GE

R

UK

R+E

EU

JPN

RA

I

400450550Reference

Triptych 2020

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

RE

EU

LAM

AF

R

ME

SA

sia

CP

Asi

a

EA

sia

400450550Reference


Change in emissions from 1990 to 2050

(Source: EVOC model)

Triptych 2050

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

US

A

EU

25

FR

A

GE

R

UK

R+E

EU

JPN

RA

I

400450550Reference

Triptych 2050

-100%0%

100%200%300%400%500%600%700%800%900%

1000%

RE

EU

LAM

AF

R

ME

SA

sia

CP

Asi

a

EA

sia

400450550Reference


Conclusions• Most sophisticated approach to share emission allowances• Can be applied to any group of countries (here globally)

• For stabilization at 450 ppmvCO2 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


Sectors of Triptych version 6.0

Industry Energy and process emissions from industrial production

CO2, CH4, N2O

Electricity Emissions from electricity production CO2, CH4, N2O

Domestic Residential, commercial, transportation, energy-

related CO2 emissions from agriculture, all

emissions from HFCs, PFCs and SF6

CO2, CH4, N2O,

HFCs, PFCs, SF6


Coal mining, gas venting and flaring CO2, CH4

Agricultural Non-energy-related emissions from the agricultural sector

CH4, N2O

Waste Landfills, waste incineration, waste water CO2, CH4, N2O


Mainly deforestation CO2, CH4, N2O


Sectoral development: Global

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

MtC

O2e

q.

AgricltureDomesticElectricityFossil fuel productionIndustryWaste




Emissions from electricity



• BAU production growth

• REN and emission free at 40% in 2050

• Coal + oil 40% less

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Em

issi

on

s fr

om

ele

ctri

city

(c

han

ge

fro

m 2

000)

South Korea Business As Usual

South Korea Triptych

China Business As Usual

China Triptych


Industry emissions


550 CO2 caseA1B scenario0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Em

issi

on

s fr

om

in

du

stry

(ch

ang

e fr

om

200

0) Brazil Business As Usual

Brazil Triptych

South Africa Business As Usual

South Africa Triptych

• Industry production growth

• Energy efficiency index to 0.8 of current best technology by 2050


Electricity mix in 2050


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

US

A

EU

25

FR

A

GE

R

UK

RU

S+

EE

U

JPN

RA

I

RE

EU

LAM

AF

R

ME

SA

sia

CP

Asi

a

EA

sia

Ann

ex I

Non

Ann

ex I

Wor

ld t

otal

Renewable andemission free

Coal

Oil

Nuclear

Gas



Domestic sectors



• Converging per-capita emissions of 1.3 tCO2eq./cap in 2050

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Em

issi

on

s fr

om

Do

mes

tic

seco

tro

s (t

CO 2

eq./

cap

)

Mexico Business As Usual

Mexico Triptych

India Business As Usual

India Triptych


Industry

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

MtC

O2

eq

.




• Energy efficiency varies between countries Western Europe: 1.2USA: 1.8South 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


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


Electricity mix in 2000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

US

A

EU

25

FR

A

GE

R

UK

RU

S+

EE

U

JPN

RA

I

RE

EU

LAM

AF

R

ME

SA

sia

CP

Asi

a

EA

sia

Ann

ex I

Non

Ann

ex I

Wor

ld t

otal

Renewable

Coal

Oil

Nuclear

Gas

(Source: EVOC model, data from IEA)


Electricity mix for South Korea



0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

TW

h

Renewable and emission freeOilNuclear Coal GasCHP





Electricity mix for China



0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

TW

h

Renewable and emission free OilNuclear Coal GasCHP





Domestic sectorsResidential, commercial, transportation


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

tCO

2eq

./ca

p

USAEU25RUS+EEUJPNRAIREEULAMAFRMESAsiaCPAsiaEAsia


• Domestic per capita emissions vary substantially between countries

Triptych 6.0:• Per capita emissions

converge (by 2050 to 0.7tCO2eq./cap)


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

MtC

O2

eq

.


Agriculture



• 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 2050 -50% for low income countries, -70% for high income countries)


Total emissions


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

19

90

20

00

20

10

20

20

20

30

20

40

20

50

20

60

20

70

20

80

20

90

21

00

MtC

O2e

q.


450 CO2 case, A1B scenario

Until 2010:• Annex I reaches Kyoto targets• Non-Annex I follows reference


Change from 1990 to 2020

Multistage 2020

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

US

A

EU

25

FR

A

GE

R

UK

R+E

EU

JPN

RA

I

400450550Reference

Multistage 2020

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

RE

EU

LAM

AF

R

ME

SA

sia

CP

Asi

a

EA

sia

400450550Reference



Multistage 2050

-100%

-80%-60%

-40%

-20%

0%20%

40%

60%

US

A

EU

25

FR

A

GE

R

UK

R+E

EU

JPN

RA

I

400450550Reference

Multistage 2050

-100%0%

100%200%300%400%500%600%700%800%900%

1000%

RE

EU

LAM

AF

R

ME

SA

sia

CP

Asi

a

EA

sia

400450550Reference


Sensitivity stage 4

Multistage 450 ppmv 2020

-50%-40%-30%-20%-10%

0%10%20%30%40%50%

US

A

EU

25

FR

A

GE

R

UK

R+E

EU

JPN

RA

I

Per capita reductionEqual percentageTriptychReference


Sensitivity USA and EITs until 2010

Multistage 450 ppmv 2020

-50%-40%

-30%-20%

-10%0%

10%

20%30%

40%50%

US

A

EU

25

FR

A

GE

R

UK

R+E

EU

JPN

RA

I

All KyotoUSA national targetUSA national target, EITs low er of Kyoto and referenceReference


Change 1990 to 2000


-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

US

A

EU

25

FR

A

GE

R

UK

R+E

EU

JPN

RA

I


-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

RE

EU

LAM

AF

R

ME

SA

sia

CP

Asi

a

EA

sia


Source:

IPCC Syntheses Report, 2001

EU climate target

Linking temperature to concentration

Levels of CO2 concentration

Preindustrial: 280 ppmCurrent: 360 ppm


Linking concentrations to global emissions

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

GtC

eq.

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Ch

ang

e to

199

0

450ppm

550ppm

400/350ppm

(Source: Ecofys, adapted from post SRES stabilization paths Morita et al. 2001, CO2 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


UNFCCCClimate 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.”


Stabilized temperatures at different CO2 concentrations

• 1000 to 1861, N. Hemisphere, proxy data;

• 1861 to 2000 Global, Instrumental;

• 2000 to 2100, SRES projections


Range temperature for stabilization of CO2

concentration at equilibrium after 2100

450550

650


Climate change impacts


450550

650


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


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 CO2: participation at roughly world average and convergence to 3 tCO2eq./cap within 40 years

• For 550 CO2: participation at roughly 50% above global average and convergence to 4.5 tCO2eq./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.


Global shares of Triptych 6.0 sectors

Industry17%

Electricity25%

Domestic26%


5%

Agriclture15%

Waste3%

Land use change

9%

(Source: EVOC model for 2000, including CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6 from submissions to the UNFCCC, IEA and others. Land-use change

from EDGAR)


Sectoral GHG emissions

(Source: EVOC model, including CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6 from submissions to the UNFCCC, IEA and others. Land-use change from

EDGAR)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

01 U

SA

02 E

U25

03 F

RA

04 G

ER

05 U

K

06 R

US

+E

EU

07 J

PN

08 R

AI

09 R

EE

U

10 L

AM

11 A

FR

12 M

E

13 S

Asi

a

14 C

PA

sia

15 E

Asi

a

Land use change EDGAR

Waste

Agriclture


Domestic

Industry

Electricity


Industry Adjusted BAU production growth with efficiency improvement

Electricity Adjusted BAU production growth with limit on sources

Domestic Converging per-capita emissions


Decline to low level

Agricultural Percentage reduction below BAU

Waste Converging per-capita emissions


Decline to zero (here excluded)

Triptych Version 6.0

Nat

ion

alem

issi

on

tar

get


Conclusions compromise proposalStrengths:• 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



550 ppmv 2020

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

US

A

EU

25

FR

A

GE

R

UK

R+E

EU

JPN

RA

I


550 ppmv 2020

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

RE

EU

LAM

AF

R

ME

SA

sia

CP

Asi

a

EA

sia


• 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



• 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

550 ppmv 2050

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

US

A

EU

25

FR

A

GE

R

UK

R+E

EU

JPN

RA

I


550 ppmv 2050

-100%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

700%

800%

900%

1000%

RE

EU

LAM

AF

R

ME

SA

sia

CP

Asi

a

EA

sia




0

1

2

34

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

GtC

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Ch

ang

e to

199

0


450ppm

550ppm+30%

-25%

+50%+45%

+10%

-60%400/350ppm



0

1

2

34

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

GtC

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Ch

ang

e to

199

0


450ppm

550ppm+30%

-25%

+50%+45%

+10%

-60%400/350ppm



• Annex I: -25% to -50% below 1990• No participation: only a very few countries• Deviate from their reference: all Non-Annex I regions

400 ppmv 2020

-70%

-50%

-30%

-10%

10%

30%

50%

US

A

EU

25

FR

A

GE

R

UK

R+E

EU

JPN

RA

I


400 ppmv 2020

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

RE

EU

LAM

AF

R

ME

SA

sia

CP

Asi

a

EA

sia




• Annex I: -80% to -90% below 1990• Substantial deviation from reference in all Non-Annex I regions

400 ppmv 2050

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

US

A

EU

25

FR

A

GE

R

UK

R+E

EU

JPN

RA

I


400 ppmv 2050

-100%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

700%

800%

900%

1000%

RE

EU

LAM

AF

R

ME

SA

sia

CP

Asi

a

EA

sia



Conclusions• EU target of 2°C above pre-industrial levels: below 450 ppmv CO2

(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 CO2 would be out of reach already as of 2020.

• To keep 450 ppmv CO2 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


Emission reduction effortsReduction below

1990 level2020 2050

400

ppm

CO2

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


reference in all regions

450

ppm

CO2

Annex I -10% to -30% -70% to -90%

Non-

Annex IDeviation from reference in Latin

America, Middle East, East Asia

and Centrally Planned Asia


reference in all regions

550

ppm

CO2

Annex I -5% to -25% -40% to -80%

Non-

Annex IDeviation from reference in Latin

America and Middle East, East

Asia

Deviation from reference in most

regions, specially in Latin

America and Middle East


Conclusions• 450 ppmv CO2 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 CO2 within a few decades)


5. Global scenarios

Scenario Condition

“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 only” All countries Sectoral for electricity, iron & steel and cement


Reductions after 2020 towards 450

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Glo

ba

l CO

2 e

mis

sio

ns

(G

tC)

Reference

Mild

Only sectoral

Strong

-2.2%

Maximum annual reduction rate

-4%

-6.5%

-10%

Global emission levels necessary to stay below 450 ppmv CO2 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 CO2


Effect of delay of action

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Glo

ba

l CO

2 e

mis

sio

ns

(G

tC)

Reference

Delayed 2020

Delayed 2015

Multistage

-2.2%

Maximum annual reduction rate

- 3.6%

>- 10%

> -10%

450 ppmv CO2

• Delay in the next decades significantly increases the efforts to to achieve the same environmental goal.

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

Documents

quantitative tools

capacity common

capacity source

ppm slide

capacity contraction

climate policy slide

capacity content

environment slide