The US ‘0% by 2020’ target: What are the climate consequences, if others delay comparably?

Dr. Malte Meinshausenmalte.meinshausen@primap.org, 8th March 2009

Brief Analysis of Todd Stern’s comments in relation to US’ 2020 target

What did Todd Stern say?

“[...] What counts is getting on a viable path between now and 2050. Reducing 25-40% below 1990 levels would be a good idea if it were doable, since it would allow a less steep reduction path in the 2020- 2050 time period. But it is not independently necessary; a somewhat steeper path in the latter period could make up for the slightly slower start.”

Keynote Remarks at U.S. Climate Action Symposium, Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change, U.S. Department of State, Senate Hart Office Building, March 3, 2009

2050 numbers are not questioned by T. Stern:• 80% or more below 1990 for US by 2050

2020 numbers are questioned by T. Stern:• The delay (“slightly slower start”) by 2020 does not matter.

Question for this brief analysis: • How much would such a delay actually matter?

• Comparison between ‘0% by 2020’ and ‘25% by 2020’ US targets, with all other countries doing comparable efforts.

0% US target is roughly comparable to a -10% Annex I target

mal

te.m

eins

haus

en@

prim

ap.o

rg,

Mar

ch 2

009

Design of default and delayed global emission pathways

Default pathway‘50by50’

Delayed pathway‘Delayed 50by50’

Annex I Interim Reductions

30% by 2020 10% by 202030% by 2030

Non-Annex I Interim Reductions

20% below baseline by 2020 (BAU assumed here SRES A2)

20% below baseline by 2030 (BAU assumed here SRES A2)

2050 Emissions Halved – with Annex I and Non-Annex I shares roughly according to equal percapita emissions

2100 Emissions Asymptotic approach to zero fossil CO2 emissions

Note: All reductions refer to Kyoto-GHG baskets below 1990 excluding LULUCF emissions, if not otherwise specified. Gas-to-gas mixing ratios, as well as deforestation related CO2 emissions, are calculated using the EQW method (Meinshausen et al. 2006)

Note: Although only Kyoto-GHG emissions are shown, deforestation CO2 emissions are included in the climate model calculations. Deforestation related CO2 emissions are derived from SRES scenarios using the EQW method, and are turning negative in the 2020’s.

Effect of delay

• A delay of 2020 emissions targets implies:

1)Steeper reduction rates 2020-2050. Too steep reduction rates might render 2050 targets infeasible.

2)Higher cumulative emissions. Too high cumulative emissions will cause less than likely probabilities to achieve 2°C

The Effect of Delay: 320 GtCO2 higher cumulative emissions 15% higher probability of exceeding 2°C

Note: Climate parameter uncertainties assumed according to a climate sensitivity distribution that roughly reflects the IPCC AR4 estimates (3K best guess, 2.5 to 4.0K likely range), i.e. Frame et al. (2006) with uniform priors on TCR, with other climate response parameters constrained by historical observations; and carbon cycle uncertainties constrained by emulations of individual C4MIP carbon cycle models using MAGICC6.0 (see Meinshausen, Wigley, Raper, ACPD, 2006)

The Effect of Delay: 430 GtCO2

higher cumulative emissions 17% higher probability of exceeding 2°C

Conclusion

• A somewhat steeper path in the latter period can not make up for the slightly slower start.

• Both cumulative emissions and reduction rates increase for a delay of interim targets.

• Even if 2050 emission levels are assumed the same, a delay in US reductions from -25% by 2020 to 0% by 2020 will increase the probability to exceed 2°C by ~15% (when other countries are assumed to follow the US example).

Methods & Further informationMulti-gas pathways: If not otherwise stated, multi-gas emission pathways for prescribed emission targets were calculated using the EQW method.

A tool for creating EQW pathways is available at www.primap.org > Downloads.

The exceedance probability for staying below 1.5°C or 2°C global mean temperatures (relative to pre-industrial levels) were calculated using a medium climate sensitivity distribution (Frame et al. 2006 with uniform priors on TCR), and a historical constraining to hemispheric temperatures, ocean heat uptake and IPCC AR4 radiative forcing estimates. The used reduced-complexity climate model is MAGICC6.1. The climate sensitivity distribution roughly reflects the IPCC AR4 best estimate (3K) and provided likely range (2.5 to 4.0K) for climate sensitivity. Note that the exceedance probability can diverge from the ones shown here by 15% or more, depending on which climate sensitivity distributions is assumed.

Acknowledgements: Michiel Schaeffer, Bill Hare, Joeri Rogelj, Julia Nabel, Kathleen Markmann

More information: www.primap.org, www.climateanalytics.org, www.pik-potsdam.de

References:• EU Commission (2009) COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT, PART 2 accompanying the COMMUNICATION: Towards a comprehensive climate change

agreement in Copenhagen - Extensive background information and analysis, Brussels, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/future_action/part2.pdf• Meinshausen, M., B. Hare, T. M. L. Wigley, D. van Vuuren, M. G. J. den Elzen and R. Swart (2006). "Multi-gas emission pathways to meet climate targets."

Climatic Change 75(1): 151-194.• Meinshausen, M., S. C. B. Raper and T. M. L. Wigley (2008). "Emulating IPCC AR4 atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models for projecting global-mean,

hemispheric and land/ocean temperatures: MAGICC 6.0." Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions 8: 6153–6272.• Frame, D. J., D. A. Stone, P. A. Stott and M. R. Allen (2006). "Alternatives to stabilization scenarios." Geophysical Research Letters 33: L14707.• Stern, T. (2009) Keynote Remarks at U.S. Climate Action Symposium, U.S. Department of State, Senate Hart Office Building, March 3, 2009