India’s Copenhagen Commitments - Stanford …...Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India...

Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India

India’s Copenhagen Commitments Risks, Co-benefits and Strategies

P.R. Shukla Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, India

Presented at EMF24, Workshop on Climate Change Impacts and Integrated Assessment Session: Post Copenhagen: Integrated Assessment Analysis in a Mosaic World August 2, 2010 Snowmass, Colorado, USA


US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: As told to CNN's Fareed Zakaria in an interview http://business.rediff.com/report/2009/aug/11/do-not-follow-us-growth-model-clinton-tells-india.htm http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/fareed.zakaria.gps/

"Although India and China have every right to choose their own path of development, they should not follow the American model in their Endeavour to improve the condition of their citizens, ….“

"Our argument to China and India is: Yes, you have a right to develop and we want you to develop, and in fact, we admire your commitment to eradicating poverty and we want to help you do that. But you can't do it the way we did it, because you will suffer consequences that will undermine your development" …

Development Path: Risks and Co-benefits

Prof. Joseph Stiglitz “For developing countries, the ‘good news’ is that their environment and natural resources policies are often so bad that there are reforms which would be both good for the economy and good for the environment.”


Copenhagen Commitments and Strategy

National Climate Change Action Plan

Implementation Strategy: 8 National Missions 1.  Solar Energy (22000 MW PV + Thermal by 2022)

2.  Enhanced energy efficiency (10000 MW saving by 2012)

3.  Sustainable habitat

4.  Water Sector (20% water use efficiency improvement)

5.  Sustaining the Himalayan eco-system

6.  A “Green India” (6 Mil. Hectare Forestation; Forest cover from 23 to 33%)

7.  Sustainable agriculture

8.  Strategic knowledge for climate change

Copenhagen Commitments •  20 to 25% Emissions Intensity Reduction from 2005 to 2020 (1.5 to 1.9% decoupling)

•  Per Capita Emissions Below OECD Average (for ever)


Demographic Drivers Year: 2000 Pop: 1021 Million

0

Male Female

18-6

2 Yr

s

80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80 Population (Million)

Age

Pop: 1593 Million Year: 2050

Male Female

18-6

2 Yr

s

80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 Population (Million)

Age

Population (Million)

358

555

849

1183

1449 1593

0

400

800

1200

1600

1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050

2.22%

2.15%

1.67%

1.02%

0.47%

Growth Rate

Labor Force (Million)

133

210

360

595

795 915

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050

2.30%

2.74%

2.54%

1.46%

0.70%

Growth Rate


Drivers of Economic Growth   Human Capital

‾  High Labor Supply ‾  Increasing Education ‾  Migration (intra & inter county)

  R&D ‾  Increasing Government/ Private Expenditure ‾  International Knowledge Flows ‾  R&D Collaborations

  Technology ‾  Infrastructures ‾  Learning, transfers, deployment

  Behavioral Changes ‾  High Savings Rate ‾  Changing Lifestyles

  Governance ‾  Institutions ‾  Laws ‾  Policies

Savings Rate

20.6 22.8

24.6

35.0 38.0

35

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

40 40 ??


Integrated Multi-Model Structure

DATABASES - Socio - Economic, Technologies, Energy Resources, Environmental Constrai nts

AIM CGE Model

ANSWER - MARKAL Model

AIM SNAPSHOT Model End

Use

Dem

and

M

odel

AIM

Strategic Database

(SDB

)

Integrated Modelling Framework

DATABASES

AIM SNAPSHOT Model End

Use

Dem

and

M

odel

A

IM Strategic D

atabase (SD

B)

DATABASES Socio-Economic, Technologies, Energy Resources, Environment

AIM CGE/GCAM

ANSWER-MARKAL Model

AIM ExSS End

Use

Dem

and

M

odel

AIM

(SDB

) (Strategic D

atabase)


BAU Projections From 2005-2050: Annual Economic Growth: 7.2% Annual Population Growth: 0.9%

Absolute Growth in 2050 over 2005 Economy 23 times Population 1.56 times

Energy

Assumptions

Annual Improvement From 2005-2050: Energy Intensity: 3.14 (%) Carbon Intensity: 3.07 (%) Decarbonization of Energy: -0.07 (%)

Ratios: 2050 over 2005 Energy Intensity: 0.249 Carbon Intensity: 0.257 Decarbonization of Energy: -3.1 (%)

Results: Energy and Carbon Intensity

Carbon Emissions

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 M

illio

n To

n C

O2


Scenario GDP Growth

Emissions Growth

CO2 Intensity Decoupling

Ratio 2020 over 2005

GDP Emissions BAU (Medium Growth) 8.7% 5.1% 3.5% 3.5 2.1

High Growth 9.5% 5.6% 3.9% 3.9 2.3

Low Growth 7.3% 4.7% 2.5% 2.9 2.0

Very Low Growth 7.0% 4.6% 2.4% 2.8 2.0

Scenario GDP (% Annual Growth) Ratio: GDP / 2005 GDP 2005-20 2005-32 2005-50 2020 2032 2050

BAU (Medium Growth) 8.7% 8% 7.2% 3.5 8.0 22.8

High Growth 9.5% 9% 7.5% 3.9 10.2 25.9

Low Growth 7.3% 7% 6.9% 2.9 6.2 20.1

Very Low Growth 7.0% 6% 6.4% 2.8 4.8 16.3

Copenhagen Commitments: Risks?

India’s Emissions Intensity Reduction Commitment requires 1.5 to 1.9% annual decoupling (2005-2020)

Scenario Analysis: 2005-20


The 2OC Stabilization Challenge: What is a Reference Case?


Mitigation Options: Conventional

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Mill

ion

Ton

CO

2 Other

CCS Device Efficiency Nuclear Renewable

Fossil Switch

Emissions (for 2O Target)

Baseline Emissions

Carbon Price ($) 20 87 136 200 52

Technology Co-operation Areas •  Energy Efficiency (Immediate Target) •  Renewable (2020 Targets) •  Nuclear/CCS (Long-term Targets)

Conventional Development + Carbon price •  High Carbon Price •  Climate Focused Technology Push •  Top-down/Supply-side actions


Mitigation Options: Sustainability

Sustainability Approach: aligning climate and sustainable development actions

•  Low Carbon Price •  Bottom-up/Demand-side actions •  Behavioural change •  Diverse Technology portfolio

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Mill

ion

Ton

CO

2

CCS Transport Reduced Consumption Recycling Material Substitutions Device Efficiency

Renewable Energy Building

Fossil Switch

Emissions (for 2O Target)

Carbon Price ($) 15 55 100 117 28

Technology Co-operation Areas • Transport Infrastructure Technologies •  3R, Material Substitutes, Renewable Energy • Process Technologies • Urban Planning, Behavioral Changes


Integrated Assessment Modeling Co-benefits

Lock-ins Social Value of Carbon

Linking National and Global Policies


Integrated Regional Energy Market: Co-benefits

Benefit (Saving) Cumulative from 2010 to 2030

$ Billion % GDP

Energy 60 Exa Joule 321 0.87

CO2 Equiv. 5.1 Billion Ton 28 0.08

SO2 50 Million Ton 10 0.03

Total 359 0.98

Spill-over Benefits / Co-Benefits

• More Water for Food Production (MDG1)

• 16 GW additional Hydropower (MDG1&7)

• Flood control (MDG1&7)

• Lower energy prices would enhance competitiveness of regional industries (MDG1)

Legend Important Places Existing Gas Pipelines

Proposed Gas Pipelines Existing LNG terminals Proposed LNG terminals Existing Gas Basin

Gas Pipelines under construction

Proposed Gas Basin ¨


Infrastructures to Overcome Lock-ins - 1

Gas Demand for Power Generation 2010-2030

Coal by Wire


Train Corridors •  Sustainable modal shift

•  Efficient logistics

•  Infrastructures investments

•  Associated development

Technologies for Train Corridors

Haryana Dadri

J.N.Port

Rajasthan

Maharashtra

Gujarat Madhya Pradesh

Haryana

Uttar Pradesh

Infrastructures to Overcome Lock-ins - 2


AMC (Old

boundary)

AMC (New

boundary)

Co-benefits in City Planning: Ahmedabad Ahmedabad (2009) Pop 5.5 Mil

SectoralCO2Emissions(mtCO2)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

2005 2035 BaU 2035 LCS

Mt C

O2

Freight Transport Passenger Transport Industry Commercial Residential

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Valu

e in

200

5 =

1

Passenger Transport Demand

Energy Demand GHG Emissions

2005 2035 BAU 2035 LCS

10.2

61.1

20.4 8.6

15.4 6.3 2.4 4.3 3.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

2005 2035 BaU 2035 LCS G

HG

Em

issi

ons/

redu

ctio

ns (m

t- C

02)

Transport Efficiency Industry Efficiency Building Efficiency Fuel Switch Energy Service demand

Coal + CCS Emissions

Mitigation Contributions

67%


Energy Security & Air Quality Co-benefits Energy Mix in 2050

0

400

800

1,200

1,600

Coal Oil Gas Nuclear Hydro Renewable Prim

ary

Ene

rgy

Dem

and

(Mto

e)

Total Energy Demand ( Mtoe )

Base 2825 LCS_CT 2945 LCS_SS 2207

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

2020 2030 2040 2050

Incr

ease

ove

r B

ase

Cas

e (M

toe)

Hydro Solar Wind Bio-energy

Additional Renewable Energy (in LCS_SS)


Linking Global & National Analysis

GDP Loss for India

%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095

450 ppmv (2 deg C)

550 ppmv (3 deg C) 2OC Sustainability Scenario

Base Scenario 0

50

100

150

200

250

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Pric

e (U

S $/

tCO

2)

2OC Conventional Mitigation Scenario

Social Value of Carbon


Integrated Assessment Modeling Challenges

•  Taking Policymakers/Decision-makers more seriously

•  Look beyond ‘conventional’ market solutions (lock-ins, co-benefits)

•  Modeling protocols that relate to specific Real-World questions

•  Pay Attention to ‘diversity’ of policy-making and implementation

•  Revisit past projections and learn

Thank you

India’s Copenhagen Commitments - Stanford …...Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India...

Documents

Transcript of India’s Copenhagen Commitments - Stanford …...Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India...