Mitigation of Climate Change - United Nations Framework Convention

IPCC

Mitigation of Climate Change

IPCC Working Group III contribution to the

Fourth Assessment Report

Bert Metz

Co-chair IPCC WG III

UNFCCC, Bonn, May 12, 2007

IPCC

The people

– Lead Authors: 168 • from developing countries: 55• From EITs: 5• from OECD countries: 108

– Contributing authors: 85– Expert Reviewers: 485

IPCC

Between 1970 and 2004 global greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 70 %

Total GHG emissions

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60GtCO2-eq/yr

2000 20041970 1980 1990

IPCC

Carbon dioxide is the largest contributor

IPCC

With current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable development practices,

global GHG emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades

• IPCC SRES scenarios: 25-90 %increase of GHG emissions in 2030 relative to 2000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2000

A1F

1A

2A

1B A1T B1 B2

2030

GtCO2eq/yr

IPCC

Substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades

• Both bottom-up and top-down studies• Potential could offset the projected growth of global emissions,

or reduce emissions below current levels

Note: estimates do not include non-technical options such as lifestyle changes

BOTTOM-UP TOP-DOWN

Global economic potential in 2030

IPCC

What does US$ 50/ tCO2eq mean?

• Crude oil: ~US$ 25/ barrel• Gasoline: ~12 ct/ litre (50 ct/gallon)• Electricity:

– from coal fired plant: ~5 ct/kWh– from gas fired plant: ~1.5 ct/kWh

IPCC

Mitigation potential• Economic potential:

– takes into account social costs and benefits and social discountrates,

– assuming that market efficiency is improved by policies and measures and

– barriers are removed

• Market potential:– based on private costs and private discount rates– expected to occur under forecast market conditions– including policies and measures currently in place – noting that barriers limit actual uptake

IPCC

All sectors and regions have the potential to contribute

Note: estimates do not include non-technical options, such as lifestyle changes.

IPCC

Changes in lifestyle and behaviour patterns can contribute to climate change mitigation

• Changes in occupant behaviour, cultural patterns and consumer choice in buildings.

• Reduction of car usage and efficient driving style, in relation to urban planning and availability of public transport

• Behaviour of staff in industrial organizations in light of reward systems

IPCC

What are the macro-economic costs in 2030?•Costs are global average for least cost appoaches from top-down models

•Costs do not include co-benefits and avoided climate change damages

< 0.12< 3Not available445-535[4]

<0.10.2 – 2.50.6535-590

< 0.06-0.6 – 1.20.2590-710

Reduction of average annual GDP growth

rates [3](percentage points)

Range of GDP reduction [2]

(%)

MedianGDP

reduction[1](%)

Trajectories towards

stabilization levels

(ppm CO2-eq)

[1] This is global GDP based market exchange rates.[2] The median and the 10th and 90th percentile range of the analyzed data are given.[3] The calculation of the reduction of the annual growth rate is based on the average reduction during the period till 2030

that would result in the indicated GDP decrease in 2030.[4] The number of studies that report GDP results is relatively small and they generally use low baselines.

IPCC

Illustration of cost numbersGDP

GDP without mitigation

GDP withstringent mitigation

80%

77%

Timecurrent ~1 year

IPCC

There are also co-benefits of mitigation

• Near–term health benefits from reduced air pollution may offset a substantial fraction of mitigation costs

• Mitigation can also be positive for: energy security, balance of trade improvement, provision of modern energy services to rural areas, sustainable agriculture and employment

IPCC

Literature since TAR confirms that there may be effects from Annex I countries action on the global

economy and global emissions, although the scale of carbon leakage remains uncertain

• Fossil fuel exporting nations (in both Annex I and non-Annex I countries) may expect, as indicated in TAR, lower demand and prices and lower GDP growth due to mitigation policies. The extent of this spill over depends strongly on assumptions related to policy decisions and oil market conditions

• Critical uncertainties remain in the assessment of carbon leakage. Most equilibrium modelling support the conclusion in the TAR of economy-wide leakage from Kyoto action in the order of 5-20%, which would be less if competitive low-emissions technologies were effectively diffused.

IPCC

Long-term mitigation: stabilisation and equilibrium global mean temperatures

• The lower the stabilisation level the earlier global CO2 emissions have to peak

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Wol

d CO2

Emis

sion

s (G

tC)

E: 850-1130 ppm CO2-eq

D: 710-850 ppm CO2-eqC: 590-710 ppm CO2-eq

B: 535-590 ppm CO2-eq

A2: 490-535 ppm CO2-eqA1: 445-490 ppm CO2-eq

Stabilization targets: Post-SRES (max)

Post-SRES (min)

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Wol

d CO2

Emis

sion

s (G

tC)

E: 850-1130 ppm CO2-eq

D: 710-850 ppm CO2-eqC: 590-710 ppm CO2-eq

B: 535-590 ppm CO2-eq

A2: 490-535 ppm CO2-eqA1: 445-490 ppm CO2-eq

Stabilization targets: Post-SRES (max)

Post-SRES (min)

Multigas and CO2 only studies combined

IPCC

Long term mitigation (after 2030)•Mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels

2050- 2100

2020- 2060

2000- 2040

2000- 2030

Year CO2 emissions back at 2000 level

+90 to +1402060 - 20904.9 – 6.1855 – 1130

+25 to +852050 - 20804.0 – 4.9710 – 855

+10 to +602020 - 20603.2 – 4.0590 – 710

-30 to +52010 - 20302.8 – 3.2535 – 590

-60 to -302000 - 20202.4 – 2.8490 – 535

-85 to -502000 - 20152.0 – 2.4445 – 490

Reduction in 2050 CO2 emissions compared to 2000

Year CO2 needs to peak

Global Mean temp. increase

at equilibrium (ºC)

Stab level (ppm CO2-eq)

IPCC

Technology• The range of stabilization levels can be achieved by

– deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are currently available and – those that are expected to be commercialised in coming decades.

• This assumes that appropriate and effective incentives are in place for development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion of technologies and for addressing related barriers

IPCC

What are the macro-economic costsin 2050?

< 0.12< 5.5Not available445-535[4]

<0.1Slightly negative - 41.3535-590

< 0.05-1 – 20.5590-710

Reduction of average annual GDP growth

rates [3](percentage points)

Range of GDP reduction [2]

(%)

MedianGDP

reduction[1](%)

Trajectories towards

stabilization levels

(ppm CO2-eq)

[1] This is global GDP based market exchange rates.[2] The median and the 10th and 90th percentile range of the analyzed data are given.[3] The calculation of the reduction of the annual growth rate is based on the average reduction during the period till 2050

that would result in the indicated GDP decrease in 2050.[4] The number of studies that report GDP results is relatively small and they generally use low baselines.

IPCC

A wide variety of policies is available to governments to realise mitigation of climate change

• Studies of economic potentials show what might be achieved if appropriate new and additional policies were put into place to remove barriers and include social costs and benefits

• Applicability of national policies depends on national circumstances, their design, interaction, stringency and implementation

• The literature suggests that successful international agreementsare environmentally effective, cost-effective, incorporate distributional considerations and equity, and are institutionally feasible

IPCC

An effective carbon-price signal could realise significant mitigation potential in all sectors

• Policies that provide a real or implicit price of carbon could create incentives for producers and consumers to significantly invest in low-GHG products, technologies and processes.

• Such policies could include economic instruments, government funding and regulation

• For stabilisation at around 550 ppm CO2eq carbon prices should reach 20-80 US$/tCO2eq by 2030 (5-65 if “induced technological change” happens)

• At these carbon prices large shifts of investments into lowcarbon technologies can be expected

IPCC

Sustainable development and climate change mitigation

• Making development more sustainable by changing development paths can make a major contribution to climate change mitigation

• Implementation may require resources to overcome multiple barriers.

• Possibilities to choose and implement mitigation options to realise synergies and avoid conflicts with other dimensions of sustainable development.

IPCC

The full SPM can be downloadedfrom www.ipcc.ch

Further information:IPCC Working group III Technical Support Unit:

[email protected]

IPCC

Additional slides

IPCC

Dealing with uncertainty

Low agreement,much evidence

Low agreement,medium evidence

Low agreement,limited evidence

Medium agreement,much evidence

Medium agreement,medium evidence

Medium agreement,limited evidence

High agreement,much evidence

High agreement,medium evidence

High agreement,limited evidence

Leve

l of a

gree

men

t(o

n ap

artic

ular

findi

ng)

Amount of evidence(theory, observations, models)

IPCC

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

18020

00

A1F1 A

2A

1B A1T B

1B

295

th75

thm

edia

n25

th 5th A2

A1F1 B

2A

1B A1T B

195

th75

thm

edia

n25

th 5th

F-GasesN2OCH4CO2

Global GHG emissions for 2000 and projected baseline emissions for 2030 and 2100 from IPCC

SRES and the post-SRES literature

2030 2100SRES SRES postSRES

postSRES

IPCC

Global economic mitigation potential in 2030 (bottom-up)

32-6323-4616-31100

27-5220-3813-2650

19-3514-259-1720

10-147-105-70

Reduction relative to SRES B2(49 GtCO2- eq/yr)%

Reduction relative to SRES A1 B

(68 GtCO2- eq/yr)%

Economic mitigation potential

(GtCO2-eq/yr)

Carbon price (US$/tCO2-eq)

Table SPM 1: Global economic mitigation potential in 2030 estimated from bottom-up studies.

IPCC

Illustration of cost numbers

GDP growth ratewithout mitigation 3%/yr

Average annual GDP growth rate(%) 2.88%/yrGDP growth rate

with stringent mitigation

current Time

IPCC

Sectors in WGIII Report

• Energy Supply• Transport• Buildings• Industry• Agriculture• Forestry • Waste Management

IPCC

Global economic mitigation potential in 2030 (top-down)

35-5325-3817-26100

29-4721-3414-2350

18-3713-279-1820

Reduction relative toSRES B2(49 GtCO2 eq/yr)%

Reduction relative to

SRES A1 B(68 GtCO2 eq/yr)%

Economic potential

(GtCO2-eq/yr)Carbon price (US$/tCO2-eq)

Table SPM.2: Global economic potential in 2030 estimated from top-down studies.

IPCC

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

estim

ated

miti

gatio

n po

tent

ial

(Gt C

O2-

eq) i

n 20

30

low end of range high end of range

< $0 < $20 < $50 < $100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

estim

ated

miti

gatio

n po

tent

ial

(Gt C

O2-

eq) i

n 20

30

low end of range high end of range

< $20 < $50 < $100

Figure SPM 5B:Global economic potential in 2030 estimated from top-down studies (data from Table SPM 2)

Figure SPM 5A:Global economic potential in 2030 estimated from bottom-up studies (data from Table SPM 1)

IPCC

Carbon Intensity (CO2/TPES)

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Inde

x 19

70=1

Population

Income (GDPppp)

CO2 emissions

Energy (TPES)

Emission Intensity (CO2/GDPppp)

Income per capita (GDPppp/Pop)

Energy intensity (TPES/GDPppp)

Carbon Intensity (CO2/TPES)Carbon Intensity (CO2/TPES)

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Inde

x 19

70=1

Population

Income (GDPppp)

CO2 emissions

Energy (TPES)




0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Inde

x 19

70=1

Population

Income (GDPppp)

CO2 emissions

Energy (TPES)




PopulationPopulation

Income (GDPppp)Income (GDPppp)

CO2 emissionsCO2 emissions

Energy (TPES)Energy (TPES)

Emission Intensity (CO2/GDPppp)Emission Intensity (CO2/GDPppp)

Income per capita (GDPppp/Pop)Income per capita (GDPppp/Pop)

Energy intensity (TPES/GDPppp)Energy intensity (TPES/GDPppp)

IPCC

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

Cumulative population in million

t CO

2eq/

cap Average Annex I:

16.1 t CO2eq/cap

Average non-Annex I: 4.2 t CO2eq/cap

Annex I: Population 19.7% Non-Annex I: Population 80.3%

EIT

Anne

x I:

9.7%

Latin

Am

eric

a:

10.3

%

Non-Annex I East Asia:

17.3% Africa: 7.8% US

A &

Can

ada:

19.

4%JA

NZ:

5.2%

Euro

pe A

nnex

II:

11.4

%

South Asia: 13.1%

Other non-Annex I: 2.0%

Mid

dle

East

: 3.8

%

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

Cumulative GDPppp(2000) in billion USSkg

CO

2eq/

US$

GD

P ppp

(200

0)

EIT

Ann

ex I:

9.7

%

Latin America:

10.3%

Non-Annex I

East Asia: 17.3%A

fric

a: 7

.8%

USA & Canada: 19.4%

JANZ: 5.2%

Europe Annex II: 11.4%

South Asia: 13.1%


Mid

dle

East

: 3.8

%

Share in global GDP

GHG/GDPkg CO2eq/US$

Annex I 56.6% 0.683non- Annex I 43.4% 1.055

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000


CO

2eq/

US$

GD

P ppp

(200

0)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000


CO

2eq/

US$

GD

P ppp

(200

0)

EIT

Ann

ex I:

9.7

%

Latin America:

10.3%

Non-Annex I

East Asia: 17.3%A

fric

a: 7

.8%

USA & Canada: 19.4%

JANZ: 5.2%


South Asia: 13.1%


Mid

dle

East

: 3.8

%

Share in global GDP

GHG/GDPkg CO2eq/US$


EIT

Ann

ex I:

9.7

%

Latin America:

10.3%

Non-Annex I

East Asia: 17.3%A

fric

a: 7

.8%

USA & Canada: 19.4%

JANZ: 5.2%


South Asia: 13.1%


Mid

dle

East

: 3.8

%

Share in global GDP

GHG/GDPkg CO2eq/US$


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

Cumulative population in million

t CO

2eq/

cap Average Annex I:

16.1 t CO2eq/cap

Average non-Annex I: 4.2 t CO2eq/cap

Annex I: Population 19.7% Non-Annex I: Population 80.3%

EIT

Anne

x I:

9.7%

Latin

Am

eric

a:

10.3

%

Non-Annex I East Asia:

17.3% Africa: 7.8% US

A &

Can

ada:

19.

4%JA

NZ:

5.2%

Euro

pe A

nnex

II:

11.4

%

South Asia: 13.1%


Mid

dle

East

: 3.8

%

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000


CO

2eq/

US$

GD

P ppp

(200

0)

EIT

Ann

ex I:

9.7

%

Latin America:

10.3%

Non-Annex I

East Asia: 17.3%A

fric

a: 7

.8%

USA & Canada: 19.4%

JANZ: 5.2%


South Asia: 13.1%


Mid

dle

East

: 3.8

%

Share in global GDP

GHG/GDPkg CO2eq/US$


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000


CO

2eq/

US$

GD

P ppp

(200

0)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000


CO

2eq/

US$

GD

P ppp

(200

0)

EIT

Ann

ex I:

9.7

%

Latin America:

10.3%

Non-Annex I

East Asia: 17.3%A

fric

a: 7

.8%

USA & Canada: 19.4%

JANZ: 5.2%


South Asia: 13.1%


Mid

dle

East

: 3.8

%

Share in global GDP

GHG/GDPkg CO2eq/US$


EIT

Ann

ex I:

9.7

%

Latin America:

10.3%

Non-Annex I

East Asia: 17.3%A

fric

a: 7

.8%

USA & Canada: 19.4%

JANZ: 5.2%


South Asia: 13.1%


Mid

dle

East

: 3.8

%

Share in global GDP

GHG/GDPkg CO2eq/US$


Figure SPM 3b: Year 2004 distribution of regional GHG emissions (all Kyoto gases, including those from land-use) per US$ of GDPppp over the GDPppp of different country groupings. The percentages in the bars indicate a regions share in global GHG emissions [Figure 1.4b].

Figure SPM 3a: Year 2004 distribution of regional per capita GHG emissions (all Kyoto gases, including those from land-use) over the population of different country groupings. The percentages in the bars indicate a regions share in global GHG emissions [Figure 1.4a].

IPCC

Selected sectoral policies, measures and instruments that have shown to be environmentally effective

Producer subsidies

Renewable energy obligations

May be appropriate to create markets for low emissions technologies

Feed-in tariffs for renewable energy technologies

Taxes or carbon charges on fossil fuels

Resistance by vested interests may make them difficult to implement

Reduction of fossil fuel subsidies

Energy supply

Key constraints or opportunities

Policies[1], measures and instruments shown to be environmentally effective

Sector

[1] Public RD&D investment in low emission technologies have proven to be effective in all sectors.

IPCC

Selected sectoral policies, measures and instruments that have shown to be environmentally effective

Investment in attractive public transport facilities and non-motorised forms of transport

Particularly appropriate for countries that are building up their transportation systems

Influence mobility needs through land use regulations, and infrastructure planning

Effectiveness may drop with higher incomes

Taxes on vehicle purchase, registration, use and motor fuels, road and parking pricing

Partial coverage of vehicle fleet may limit effectiveness

Mandatory fuel economy, biofuelblending and CO2 standards for road transport

Transport

Key constraints or opportunities

Policies[1], measures and instruments shown to be environmentally effective

Sector

[1] Public RD&D investment in low emission technologies have proven to be effective in all sectors.

IPCC

The importance of technology policies• Deployment of low-GHG emission technologies and RD&D

would be required for achieving stabilization targets and cost reduction.

• The lower the stabilization levels, especially those of 550 ppmCO2-eq or lower, the greater the need for more efficient RD&D efforts and investment in new technologies during the next few decades.

• Government support through financial contributions, tax credits, standard setting and market creation is important for effective technology development, innovation and deployment.

• Government funding for most energy research programmes has been flat or declining for nearly two decades (even after the UNFCCC came into force); now about half of 1980 level.

IPCC

The process

• Three year process• Assessment of published literature• Extensive review by independent and government

experts• Summary for Policy Makers approved line-by-line

by all IPCC member governments (Bangkok, May 4)

• Full report and technical summary acceptedwithout discussion

IPCC

International agreements• Notable achievements of the UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol that

may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts: – global response to the climate problem,– stimulation of an array of national policies,– the creation of an international carbon market and – new institutional mechanisms

• Future agreements:– Greater cooperative efforts to reduce emissions will help to

reduce global costs for achieving a given level of mitigation, or will improve environmental effectiveness

– Improving, and expanding the scope of, market mechanisms (such as emission trading, Joint Implementation and CDM) could reduce overall mitigation costs

IPCC

Stabilisation levels and equilibrium global mean temperaturesEq

uilib

rium

glo

bal m

ean

tem

pera

ture

incr

ease

ove

r pre

indu

stria

l(°C

)

GHG concentration stabilization level (ppmv CO2-eq)

Equi

libriu

m g

loba

l mea

n te

mpe

ratu

rein

crea

se o

ver p

rein

dust

rial(

°C)

GHG concentration stabilization level (ppmv CO2-eq)

Figure SPM 8: Stabilization scenario categories as reported in Figure SPM.7 (coloured bands) and their relationship to equilibrium global mean temperature change above pre-industrial, using (i) “best estimate” climate sensitivity of 3°C (black line in middle of shaded area), (ii) upper bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 4.5°C (red line at top of shaded area) (iii) lower bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 2°C (blue line at bottom of shaded area). Coloured shading shows the concentration bands for stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere corresponding to the stabilization scenario categories. The data are drawn from AR4 WGI, Chapter 10.8.

IPCC

How can emissions be reduced?

Efficient lighting; efficient appliances and airco; improved insulation ; solar heating and cooling; alternatives for fluorinated gases in insulation and aplliances

Buildings

More fuel efficient vehicles; hybrid vehicles; biofuels; modal shifts from road transport to rail and public transport systems; cycling, walking; land-use planning

Transport

efficiency; fuel switching; nuclear power; renewable (hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal and bioenergy); combined heat and power; early applications of CO2 Capture and Storage

Energy Supply

(Selected) Key mitigation technologies and practices currently commercially available.

Sector

IPCC

Emissie reducties voor lange-termijnstabilisatie

Hoe lager het stabilisatie niveau, hoe sneller wereldemissies door eenpiek moeten gaan – en daarna moeten worden gereduceerd.

Voor lagere stabilisatieniveau’s zijn de reductie activiteiten in de komende 1-2 decennia’s cruciaal

Piek jaar 2000 niveau

IPCC

How can emissions be reduced?(Selected) Key mitigation technologies and practices currently commercially available.

Sector

Landfill methane recovery; waste incineration with energy recovery; composting; recycling and waste minimization

Waste

Afforestation; reforestation; forest management; reduced deforestation; use of forestry products for bioenergy

Forests

Land management to increase soil carbon storage; restoration of degraded lands; improved rice cultivation techniques; improved nitrogen fertilizer application; dedicated energy crops

Agriculture

More efficient electrical equipment; heat and power recovery; material recycling; control of non-CO2 gas emissions

Industry

Mitigation of Climate Change - United Nations Framework Convention

Documents

Transcript of Mitigation of Climate Change - United Nations Framework Convention