Transcript Document

Workshop on Quantitative Tools &
Negotiating Capacity
19 October 2005
Niklas Höhne, [email protected]
Esther Lahme, [email protected]
ECOFYS Cologne, Germany
B
A
S
I
www.basic-project.net
C
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Content
1. 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)
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
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
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
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
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Content
1. Introduction on options for international
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
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Time scales of stabilization
Source: IPCC Synthesis Report, 2001
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Possible temperature trajectories
Source: IPCC Synthesis Report, 2001
EU climate target of 2°C
above pre-industrial level
• 1000 to 1861, N.
Hemisphere, proxy data;
• 1861 to 2000 Global,
Instrumental;
• 2000 to 2100, SRES
projections
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Linking
temperature
to
concentration
Levels of CO2 concentration
EU climate target
Preindustrial: 280 ppm
Current: 360 ppm
Source:
IPCC Syntheses Report, 2001
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1990
Reference
120%
100%
80%
550ppm
60%
40%
20%
450ppm
0%
-20%
400/350ppm
-40%
-60%
-80%
2000
2010
Source: post SRES scenarios (stabilization paths), CO2 only
2020
2030
2040
-100%
2050
Change to 1990
GtC
Stabilization pathways
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Approaches
• Contraction and Convergence (C&C)
• Common but Differentiated Convergence (CDC)
• Multistage
• South North Dialogue – Equity in the greenhouse
• Brazilian Proposal
• Sectoral approaches
• Triptych
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Contraction and
Convergence
• Contraction: Definition of global emission path (e.g 450ppmv)
• Convergence: Per capita emissions of all countries converge by
2050
Emissions per capita (tCO2eq./person)
30
Annex I
25
Global total
Non-Annex I
20
15
10
5
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
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
– 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
GHG/cap
• Threshold:
Threshold
Time
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Multistage approach
• Participation in e.g. four stages:
Reduction
Moderate reduction
No
commitments
Sustainable development
policies and measures
• Countries “graduate” to a next step, if threshold is
passed, e.g. emissions/cap
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
South North Dialogue
Quantitative
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
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Brazilian proposal
• Calculate countries’ contribution to temperature
increase
• Countries reduce proportional to their
contribution to temperature increase
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
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
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
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)
National
emission target
Triptych
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Overview of tools
CAIT
Emission
allocation
FAIR
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)
Country level historical data
XX
EVOC
Brazilian Proposal
Sectoral approaches
Triptych
Mitigation costs
X
(X)
X
(X)
X
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Content
1. Introduction on options
climate policy post 2012
for
international
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
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Content
1. Introduction on options
climate policy post 2012
for
international
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
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
EVOC Tool
Input
• 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”
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Delayed participation
Contraction &
Convergence
Common but differentiated
convergence
GHG/cap
GHG/cap
IC
DC
Threshold
LDC
Time
Time
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Results towards 550 ppmv CO2
GHG per capita
25
USA
Towards 550
ppmv CO2:
Annex I
Non Annex I
World total
20
Threshold
Threshold:
30% above world
average,
15
EU 25
Argentina
Convergence
level:
4.5 tCO2eq/cap
Japan
10
S. Africa
5
China
India
Philippines
A1B scenario
Excl. LUCF CO2
Kenya
2100
2095
2090
2085
2080
2075
2070
2065
2060
2055
2050
2045
2040
2035
2030
2025
2020
2015
2010
2005
2000
1995
0
1990
tCO2eq/cap
Saudi Arabia
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Results towards 550 ppmv CO2
GHG emissions
Towards 550
ppmv CO2:
12000
India
10000
Threshold:
30% above world
average,
China
8000
6000
Convergence
level:
4.5 tCO2eq/cap
EU 25
4000
A1B scenario
Excl. LUCF CO2
2000
Brazil
Japan
2100
2090
2080
2070
2060
2050
2040
2030
2020
2000
2010
Saudi Arabia
0
1990
MtCO 2eq
USA
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Results towards 450 ppmv CO2
GHG per capita
Towards 450
ppmv CO2:
10
Argentina
EU 25
USA
Annex I
9
Non Annex I
Saudi Arabia
World total
8
Threshold:
10% below world
average,
Threshold
S. Africa Japan
6
5
Convergence
level:
2.9 tCO2eq/cap
China
4
India
Philippines
3
2
1
A1B scenario
Excl. LUCF CO2
Kenya
2100
2095
2090
2085
2080
2075
2070
2065
2060
2055
2050
2045
2040
2035
2030
2025
2020
2015
2010
2005
2000
1995
0
1990
tCO2eq/cap
7
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Results towards 450 ppmv CO2
GHG emissions
12000
Towards 450
ppmv CO2:
10000
Threshold:
10% below world
average,
8000
6000
China
EU 25
Convergence
level:
2.9 tCO2eq/cap
India
4000
2000
A1B scenario
Excl. LUCF CO2
Brazil
Japan
2100
2090
2080
2070
2060
2050
2040
2030
2020
2000
2010
Saudi Arabia
0
1990
MtCO 2eq
USA
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Multistage
Four stage emission reduction agreement
1.
2.
3.
4.
No commitments
Sustainable development policies and measures
Moderate emission limitation targets
Absolute emission reduction targets (shared according to
Triptych approach)
Threshold: Emissions/cap, decreasing over time
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Towards 550 ppmv CO2
50000
Stage 3
• Entry at 6-10 tCO2eq./cap
• 10%-15% below reference
45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
2100
2090
2080
2070
2060
2050
2040
2030
2020
2010
2000
0
1990
MtCO2eq.
Stage 4
• Entry at 9-12 tCO2eq./cap
• 1-5% reduction per year
EAsia
CPAsia
SAsia
ME
AFR
LAM
REEU
RAI
JPN
RUS+EEU
EU25
USA
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Time of entry towards 550 ppmv CO2
Annex I
Rest of Eastern Europe
Argentina
Brazil
Mexico
Venezuela
Rest of Latin America
Egypt
South Africa
Nigeria
Rest of North Africa
Rest of Africa
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Rest of Middle East
China
India
Indonesia
South Korea
Malaysia
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Rest of Asia
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.4
4.6
4.7
2.1
2.4
2.6
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.5
3.7
2.8
3.7
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.7
4.7
1.7
1.8
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.7
2.8
3.3
3.8
1.8
2.3
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.8
4.2
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.5
4.7
1.3
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.9
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.8
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.7
3.3
2.3
2.5
2.7
3.2
3.5
3.7
4.0
4.3
4.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.3
2.5
2.8
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.8
3.3
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.7
4.7
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.7
4.7
2.2
2.3
2.6
2.9
3.2
3.2
3.5
3.8
4.0
1.0
1.5
1.7
2.2
2.5
2.7
2.8
3.2
4.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.8
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.3
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.2
4.5
2.5
3.0
3.5
3.7
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.3
4.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.7
2.0
3.0
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.7
1.5
1.8
2.3
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.7
4.0
4.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.8
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Towards 450 ppmv CO2
45000
Stage 3
• Entry at 3.5-4 tCO2eq./cap
• ~30% below reference
EAsia
CPAsia
SAsia
ME
AFR
LAM
REEU
RAI
JPN
RUS+EEU
EU25
USA
40000
35000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
2100
2090
2080
2070
2060
2050
2040
2030
2020
2010
2000
0
1990
Stage 4
• Entry at 5-5.5 tCO2eq./cap
• ~5% reduction per year
MtCO2eq.
30000
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Time of entry towards 450 ppmv CO2
Annex I
Rest of Eastern Europe
Argentina
Brazil
Mexico
Venezuela
Rest of Latin America
Egypt
South Africa
Nigeria
Rest of North Africa
Rest of Africa
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Rest of Middle East
China
India
Indonesia
South Korea
Malaysia
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Rest of Asia
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.9
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.6
3.2
3.4
3.4
3.6
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.3
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.2
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
3.8
4.0
4.2
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
3.8
3.8
3.8
4.3
4.8
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.2
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.4
2.7
2.8
3.2
3.2
3.5
3.8
3.9
4.0
1.8
2.0
2.8
3.3
3.7
3.8
4.7
4.8
5.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.7
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.7
2.0
2.5
3.3
3.7
4.3
4.7
2.2
2.3
2.8
3.4
3.4
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.9
2.2
2.4
2.7
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.2
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.2
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.8
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.9
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.5
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.7
3.7
4.2
4.7
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.3
3.2
3.3
3.8
4.0
4.3
1.0
1.7
2.0
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.7
3.0
3.7
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.2
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.3
2.8
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.7
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
3.2
3.7
3.8
4.2
4.8
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.3
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Towards 400 ppmv CO2
45000
Stage 3
• Entry at 3.5 tCO2eq./cap
• ~30% below reference
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
2100
2090
2080
2070
2060
2050
2040
2030
2020
2010
2000
0
1990
MtCO2eq.
Stage 4
• Entry at 4 tCO2eq./cap
• ~8% reduction per year
EAsia
CPAsia
SAsia
ME
AFR
LAM
REEU
RAI
JPN
RUS+EEU
EU25
USA
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Time of entry towards 400 ppmv CO2
Annex I
Rest of Eastern Europe
Argentina
Brazil
Mexico
Venezuela
Rest of Latin America
Egypt
South Africa
Nigeria
Rest of North Africa
Rest of Africa
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Rest of Middle East
China
India
Indonesia
South Korea
Malaysia
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Rest of Asia
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.6
3.4
3.5
4.1
4.3
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.6
3.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.5
3.1
3.3
3.9
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.6
1.8
2.0
2.7
3.7
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.7
2.5
3.3
4.0
4.8
5.0
5.0
2.2
2.7
3.1
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.7
4.8
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.8
2.1
2.5
3.0
3.3
3.7
3.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.8
3.6
3.6
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
3.0
3.7
3.7
4.7
4.8
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.5
2.3
3.0
3.3
4.3
4.8
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.7
2.3
3.0
3.2
3.8
4.2
4.5
4.7
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.2
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.7
3.8
4.3
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.7
2.1
2.3
2.6
2.9
3.2
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1990
Reference
120%
100%
80%
550ppm
60%
40%
20%
450ppm
0%
-20%
400/350ppm
-40%
-60%
-80%
2000
2010
Source: post SRES scenarios (stabilization paths), CO2 only
2020
2030
2040
-100%
2050
Change to 1990
GtC
Stabilization pathways
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1990
120%
100%
80%
+50%
550ppm
60%
+45%
+30%
40%
20%
+10%
450ppm
0%
-25%
-20%
-40%
400/350ppm
-60%
-60%
-80%
2000
2010
Source: post SRES scenarios (stabilization paths), CO2 only
2020
2030
2040
-100%
2050
Change to 1990
GtC
Stabilization pathways
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Change 1990 to 2020 towards 450 ppm CO2
450 ppmv 2020
50%
C&C
CDC
Mutistage
Triptych
Reference
40%
30%
300%
250%
20%
C&C
CDC
Mutistage
Triptych
Reference
450 ppmv 2020
200%
10%
150%
0%
100%
-10%
-20%
50%
EAsia
CPAsia
SAsia
ME
AFR
LAM
RAI
JPN
R+EEU
UK
GER
-50%
FRA
-50%
EU25
0%
USA
-40%
REEU
-30%
• 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
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Change 1990 to 2050 towards 450 ppm CO2
450 ppmv 2050
60%
C&C
CDC
Mutistage
Triptych
Reference
40%
450 ppmv 2050
1000%
900%
800%
20%
700%
0%
600%
-20%
500%
400%
-40%
300%
C&C
CDC
Mutistage
Triptych
Reference
200%
-60%
• Annex I: -70% to -90% below 1990
• Substantial deviation from reference in all Non-Annex I regions
EAsia
CPAsia
SAsia
ME
AFR
LAM
RAI
JPN
R+EEU
UK
GER
-100%
FRA
-100%
EU25
0%
USA
-80%
REEU
100%
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Content
1. Introduction on options
climate policy post 2012
for
international
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
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Backup slides
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Linking impacts to temperature
Area of
concern
Risk of large
scale
singularities
Aggregate
impacts
Distribution of
impacts
Risks of
extreme
weather events
Risks to
unique and
threatened
systems
Benchmark impact indicators
- Breakdown of the Thermohaline Circulation
- Disintegration of the West Antarctica Ice
Sheet
- Aggregate monetary or economic welfare
losses
- Numbers of people affected
- Monetary or economic welfare losses by
region
- Numbers of people affected by region
- 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
- Coral reefs, mangrove forests, mountain
glaciers. Already affected
Possible
Global Mean
Temperature
Change
Thresholds
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
3 -4 C
2 -3 C
2 -3 C
1 -2 C
o
o
0.5 -2 C
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
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Linking impacts to temperature
Area of
concern
Risk of large
scale
singularities
Aggregate
impacts
Distribution of
impacts
Risks of
extreme
weather events
Risks to
unique and
threatened
systems
Benchmark impact indicators
- Breakdown of the Thermohaline Circulation
- Disintegration of the West Antarctica Ice
Sheet
- Aggregate monetary or economic welfare
losses
- Numbers of people affected
- Monetary or economic welfare losses by
region
- Numbers of people affected by region
- 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
- Coral reefs, mangrove forests, mountain
glaciers. Already affected
Possible
Global Mean
Temperature
Change
Thresholds
o
o
o
o
o
o
3 -4 C
2 -3 C
2 -3 C
Temperature
range at
equilibrium
450: 1.5 - 4°C
550: 2 - 5°C
650: 2.5 - 6°C
o
o
1 -2 C
o
o
0.5 -2 C
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
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Immediate participation
BAU
Contraction &
Convergence
IC
GHG/cap
GHG/cap
IC
DC
LDC
Time
DC
LDC
Time
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Time of participation 550 ppmv CO2
Region
Annex I
Rest of Eastern Europe
Argentina
Brazil
Mexico
Venezuela
Rest of Latin America
Egypt
South Africa
Nigeria
Rest of North Africa
Rest of Africa
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Rest of Middle East
China
India
Indonesia
South Korea
Malaysia
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Rest of Asia
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
38%
53%
57%
58%
58%
59%
60%
62%
62%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
0%
0%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
0%
33%
67%
67%
67%
67%
67%
67%
67%
83%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
7%
13%
16%
29%
37%
37%
37%
39%
41%
0%
0%
0%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
67%
67%
67%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
33%
33%
33%
50%
6%
6%
19%
40%
42%
42%
49%
49%
49%
1%
1%
2%
3%
11%
16%
23%
28%
32%
83%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
31%
41%
50%
64%
65%
65%
65%
65%
65%
0%
0%
17%
33%
33%
33%
67%
67%
67%
0%
0%
0%
0%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
17%
17%
33%
33%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
33%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
17%
17%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
0%
0%
33%
67%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
7%
6%
6%
6%
7%
11%
16%
17%
17%
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Time of participation 450 ppmv CO2
Region
Annex I
Rest of Eastern Europe
Argentina
Brazil
Mexico
Venezuela
Rest of Latin America
Egypt
South Africa
Nigeria
Rest of North Africa
Rest of Africa
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Rest of Middle East
China
India
Indonesia
South Korea
Malaysia
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Rest of Asia
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
71%
74%
80%
85%
90%
91%
91%
92%
92%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
67%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
18%
69%
74%
81%
89%
89%
89%
89%
89%
0%
0%
67%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
50%
67%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
34%
58%
60%
87%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2%
2%
9%
28%
48%
52%
65%
71%
71%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
73%
85%
88%
88%
88%
88%
88%
88%
88%
0%
67%
83%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
33%
67%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
67%
67%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
50%
83%
83%
83%
83%
83%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
67%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
8%
8%
10%
28%
41%
48%
51%
52%
53%
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Comparison
Contraction & Convergence 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
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
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.
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Original Triptych 1997
Industry
Electricity
(energy intensive)
Fixed production
growth with efficiency
improvement
Energy CO2 only
Fixed production
growth with limit for
renewables, CHP,
coal and gas
National
emission target
Domestic
sectors
(Households,
services, transport)
Converging
per-capita emissions
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Parameters used
Industry
- Adjusted BAU industry production growth
- Energy efficiency index by 2050 better than
current best technology (=1)
450 CO2
550 CO2
0.5
0.8
60%
-75%
40%
-40%
0.7
tCO2eq/cap
1.3
tCO2eq/cap
-90%
-90%
Electricity
- Adjusted BAU production growth
- REN and emission free share in 2050
- Coal + oil absolute reduction
Domestic
Converging per-capita emissions in 2050 to…
Fossil fuel
production
Emissions in 2050 decline by …
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
Land use
change and
forestry
Per capita emissions in 2050 decline to …
0
0
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Sectoral development: USA
3500
3000
Mt CO2eq.
2500
Agriclture
2000
Domestic
1500
Electricity
Industry
1000
500
(Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach)
2100
2090
2080
2070
2060
2050
2040
2030
2020
2010
2000
1990
0
450 CO2 case
A1B scenario
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Sectoral development: China
6000
Mt CO2eq.
5000
4000
Agriclture
Domestic
3000
Electricity
Industry
2000
1000
(Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach)
2100
2090
2080
2070
2060
2050
2040
2030
2020
2010
2000
1990
0
450 CO2 case
A1B scenario
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Change in emissions from 1990 to 2020
Triptych 2020
60%
40%
400
450
550
Reference
300%
400
450
550
Reference
250%
Triptych 2020
200%
20%
150%
0%
100%
-20%
(Source: EVOC model)
EAsia
CPAsia
SAsia
ME
AFR
LAM
RAI
JPN
R+EEU
UK
GER
-50%
FRA
-60%
EU25
0%
USA
-40%
REEU
50%
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Change in emissions from 1990 to 2050
-60%
(Source: EVOC model)
RAI
JPN
R+EEU
UK
GER
FRA
USA
-100%
EU25
-80%
EAsia
-40%
CPAsia
-20%
SAsia
0%
400
450
550
Reference
ME
20%
Triptych 2050
AFR
40%
1000%
900%
800%
700%
600%
500%
400%
300%
200%
100%
0%
-100%
LAM
60%
400
450
550
Reference
REEU
Triptych 2050
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
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
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
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, energyrelated CO2 emissions from agriculture, all
emissions from HFCs, PFCs and SF6
CO2, CH4, N2O,
HFCs, PFCs,
SF6
Fossil fuel
production
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
Land use change
and forestry
Mainly deforestation
CO2, CH4, N2O
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Sectoral development: Global
14000
Agriclture
Domestic
Electricity
Fossil fuel production
Industry
Waste
12000
MtCO2eq.
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
450 CO2 case
A1B scenario
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
(Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach)
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Emissions from electricity
(change from 2000)
Emissions from electricity
300%
South Korea Business As Usual
South Korea Triptych
250%
China Business As Usual
China Triptych
• BAU production
growth
• REN and
emission free at
40% in 2050
• Coal + oil 40%
less
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
2000
550 CO2 case
A1B scenario
2005
(Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach)
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Emissions from industry (change from 2000)
Industry emissions
300%
Brazil Business As Usual
Brazil Triptych
250%
South Africa Business As Usual
South Africa Triptych
• Industry
production
growth
• Energy
efficiency index
to 0.8 of current
best technology
by 2050
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
2000
550 CO2 case
A1B scenario
2005
(Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach)
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Electricity mix in 2050
100%
80%
Renewable and
emission free
Coal
60%
Oil
40%
Nuclear
20%
Gas
(Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach)
World total
Non Annex I
Annex I
EAsia
CPAsia
SAsia
ME
AFR
LAM
REEU
RAI
JPN
RUS+EEU
UK
GER
FRA
EU25
USA
0%
450 CO2 case
A1B scenario
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Emissions from Domestic secotros (tCO2eq./cap)
Domestic sectors
4.5
4
3.5
Mexico Business As Usual
Mexico Triptych
• Converging percapita emissions
of 1.3
tCO2eq./cap in
2050
India Business As Usual
India Triptych
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2000
550 CO2 case
A1B scenario
2005
(Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach)
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Industry
10000
9000
EAsia
CPAsia
SAsia
ME
AFR
LAM
REEU
RAI
JPN
RUS+EEU
EU25
USA
8000
MtCO2eq.
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
(Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach)
2100
2090
2080
2070
2060
2050
2040
2030
2020
2010
2000
1990
0
450 CO2 case
A1B scenario
• Energy efficiency varies
between countries
Western Europe: 1.2
USA: 1.8
South 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
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
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
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Electricity mix in 2000
100%
80%
Renewable
60%
Coal
Oil
Nuclear
40%
Gas
20%
(Source: EVOC model, data from IEA)
World total
Non Annex I
Annex I
EAsia
CPAsia
SAsia
ME
AFR
LAM
REEU
RAI
JPN
RUS+EEU
UK
GER
FRA
EU25
USA
0%
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Electricity mix for South Korea
1,200
1,000
TWh
800
• BAU production
growth
• REN and emission
free at 40% in 2050
• Coal + oil 40% less
Renewable and emission free
Oil
Nuclear
Coal
Gas
CHP
600
400
200
0
1990
550 CO2 case
A1B scenario
2000
(Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach)
2010
2020
2030
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Electricity mix for China
6,000
5,000
TWh
4,000
• BAU production
growth
• REN and emission
free at 40% in 2050
• Coal + oil 40% less
Renewable and emission free
Oil
Nuclear
Coal
Gas
CHP
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1990
(Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach)
2000
2010
2020
2030
550 CO2 case
A1B scenario
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Domestic sectors
Residential, commercial, transportation
12
USA
EU25
RUS+EEU
JPN
RAI
REEU
LAM
AFR
ME
SAsia
CPAsia
EAsia
tCO2eq./cap
10
8
6
4
2
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
450 CO2 case
A1B scenario
(Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach)
• Domestic per capita
emissions vary
substantially between
countries
Triptych 6.0:
• Per capita emissions
converge (by 2050 to
0.7tCO2eq./cap)
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Agriculture
7000
EAsia
CPAsia
SAsia
ME
AFR
LAM
REEU
RAI
JPN
RUS+EEU
EU25
USA
6000
4000
3000
2000
1000
(Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach)
2100
2090
2080
2070
2060
2050
2040
2030
2020
2010
2000
0
1990
MtCO2eq.
5000
450 CO2 case
A1B scenario
• 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)
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Total emissions
45000
40000
EAsia
CPAsia
SAsia
ME
AFR
LAM
REEU
RAI
JPN
RUS+EEU
EU25
USA
35000
MtCO2eq.
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
450 CO2 case, A1B scenario
(Source: EVOC model, Triptych approach)
2100
2090
2080
2070
2060
2050
2040
2030
2020
2010
2000
1990
0
Until 2010:
• Annex I reaches Kyoto targets
• Non-Annex I follows reference
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Change from 1990 to 2020
Multistage 2020
60%
300%
400
450
550
Reference
40%
20%
250%
Multistage 2020
400
450
550
Reference
200%
150%
0%
100%
-20%
50%
-40%
EAsia
CPAsia
SAsia
ME
AFR
LAM
-50%
REEU
RAI
JPN
R+EEU
UK
GER
FRA
USA
-60%
EU25
0%
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Change from 1990 to 2050
Multistage 2050
EAsia
CPAsia
SAsia
ME
AFR
400
450
550
Reference
LAM
1000%
900%
800%
700%
600%
500%
400%
300%
200%
100%
0%
-100%
REEU
RAI
JPN
R+EEU
GER
FRA
EU25
UK
400
450
550
Reference
Multistage 2050
USA
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
-100%
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Sensitivity stage 4
RAI
JPN
R+EEU
Per capita reduction
Equal percentage
Triptych
Reference
UK
GER
FRA
EU25
USA
Multistage 450 ppmv 2020
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Sensitivity USA and EITs until 2010
RAI
JPN
R+EEU
UK
GER
FRA
USA
EU25
Multistage 450 ppmv 2020
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
All Kyoto
USA national target
USA national target, EITs low er of Kyoto and reference
Reference
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Change 1990 to 2000
Change from 1990 to 2000
30%
Change from 1990 to 2000
80%
20%
60%
10%
40%
0%
20%
-10%
EAsia
CPAsia
SAsia
ME
AFR
LAM
RAI
JPN
R+EEU
UK
GER
-40%
FRA
-40%
EU25
-20%
USA
-30%
REEU
0%
-20%
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Linking
temperature
to
concentration
Levels of CO2 concentration
EU climate target
Preindustrial: 280 ppm
Current: 360 ppm
Source:
IPCC Syntheses Report, 2001
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Linking concentrations to global
emissions
Reference
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)
(Source: Ecofys, adapted from post SRES stabilization paths Morita et al. 2001, CO2 only)
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
UNFCCC
Climate 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.”
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Stabilized temperatures at different CO2 concentrations
Source: IPCC Synthesis Report, 2001
Range temperature for
stabilization of CO2
concentration at
equilibrium after 2100
• 1000 to 1861, N.
Hemisphere, proxy data;
• 1861 to 2000 Global,
Instrumental;
• 2000 to 2100, SRES
projections
650
550
450
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Climate change impacts
Very low
Positive or negative monetary;
majority of people adversely affected
0
Past
Negative for Distribution
most regions of impacts
Increase
Large increase
Risks to some
Risks to many
1
2
450
3
4
Future
550
Increase in global mean temperature after 1990 (°C)
Source: IPCC Synthesis Report, 2001
Aggregate impacts
Net negative in all metrics
Negative for
some regions
-0.7
Risks of large scale
singularities
Higher
650
Risk of extreme
weather events
Risks to unique &
threatened systems
5
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
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
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
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.
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Global shares of 2000
Triptych 6.0 sectors
Land use
change
9%
Waste
3%
Industry
17%
Agriclture
15%
Electricity
25%
Fossil fuel
production
5%
Domestic
26%
(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)
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Sectoral GHG emissions
100%
80%
Land use change EDGAR
Waste
60%
Agriclture
Fossil fuel production
Domestic
40%
Industry
Electricity
20%
15 EAsia
14 CPAsia
13 SAsia
12 ME
11 AFR
10 LAM
09 REEU
08 RAI
07 JPN
06 RUS+EEU
05 UK
04 GER
03 FRA
02 EU25
01 USA
0%
(Source: EVOC model, including CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6 from submissions to the UNFCCC, IEA and others. Land-use change from
EDGAR)
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
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)
National
emission target
Triptych Version 6.0
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Conclusions compromise proposal
Strengths:
• 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
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Change 1990 to 2020 towards 550 ppm CO2
550 ppmv 2020
50%
C&C
CDC
Mutistage
Triptych
Reference
40%
30%
550 ppmv 2020
300%
C&C
CDC
Mutistage
Triptych
Reference
250%
20%
200%
10%
150%
0%
-10%
100%
-20%
EAsia
CPAsia
SAsia
ME
AFR
0%
LAM
RAI
JPN
R+EEU
UK
GER
FRA
EU25
USA
-40%
REEU
50%
-30%
• 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
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Change 1990 to 2050 towards 550 ppm CO2
550 ppmv 2050
60%
C&C
CDC
Mutistage
Triptych
Reference
40%
20%
550 ppmv 2050
1000%
900%
800%
700%
0%
600%
-20%
500%
C&C
CDC
Mutistage
Triptych
Reference
400%
-40%
300%
-60%
200%
-80%
100%
• 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
EAsia
CPAsia
SAsia
ME
AFR
LAM
-100%
REEU
RAI
JPN
R+EEU
UK
GER
FRA
USA
EU25
0%
-100%
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1990
120%
100%
80%
+50%
550ppm
60%
+45%
+30%
40%
20%
+10%
450ppm
0%
-25%
-20%
-40%
400/350ppm
-60%
-60%
-80%
2000
2010
Source: post SRES scenarios (stabilization paths), CO2 only
2020
2030
2040
-100%
2050
Change to 1990
GtC
Stabilization pathways
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1990
120%
100%
80%
+50%
550ppm
60%
+45%
+30%
40%
20%
+10%
450ppm
0%
-25%
-20%
-40%
400/350ppm
-60%
-60%
-80%
2000
2010
Source: post SRES scenarios (stabilization paths), CO2 only
2020
2030
2040
-100%
2050
Change to 1990
GtC
Stabilization pathways
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Change 1990 to 2020 towards 400 ppm CO2
400 ppmv 2020
50%
C&C
CDC
Mutistage
Triptych
Reference
30%
400 ppmv 2020
C&C
CDC
Mutistage
Triptych
Reference
300%
250%
200%
10%
150%
-10%
100%
-30%
• Annex I: -25% to -50% below 1990
• No participation: only a very few countries
• Deviate from their reference: all Non-Annex I regions
EAsia
CPAsia
SAsia
ME
AFR
LAM
RAI
JPN
R+EEU
UK
GER
-50%
FRA
-70%
EU25
0%
USA
-50%
REEU
50%
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Change 1990 to 2050 towards 400 ppm CO2
400 ppmv 2050
60%
C&C
CDC
Mutistage
Triptych
Reference
40%
400 ppmv 2050
1000%
900%
C&C
CDC
Mutistage
Triptych
Reference
800%
20%
700%
0%
600%
500%
-20%
400%
-40%
300%
200%
-60%
• Annex I: -80% to -90% below 1990
• Substantial deviation from reference in all Non-Annex I regions
EAsia
CPAsia
SAsia
ME
AFR
LAM
RAI
JPN
R+EEU
UK
GER
FRA
-100%
EU25
-100%
USA
0%
REEU
100%
-80%
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
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
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Emission reduction efforts
Reduction below
1990 level
2020
2050
400
ppm
CO2
Annex I
-25% to -50%
-80% to -90%
NonAnnex I
Substantial deviation from
reference in Latin America, Middle
East, East Asia and Centrally
planned Asia
Substantial deviation from
reference in all regions
450
ppm
CO2
Annex I
-10% to -30%
-70% to -90%
NonAnnex I
Deviation from reference in Latin
America, Middle East, East Asia
and Centrally Planned Asia
Substantial deviation from
reference in all regions
550
ppm
CO2
Annex I
-5% to -25%
-40% to -80%
NonAnnex I
Deviation from reference in Latin
America and Middle East, East
Asia
Deviation from reference in most
regions, specially in Latin
America and Middle East
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
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)
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
5. Global scenarios
Scenario
Condition
“Mild”
Annex I excl.
USA
-15% below 1990 level in 2020
USA
+10% above 1990 level in 2020
“Strong”
Non-Annex I
Reference
Annex I excl.
USA
-30% below 1990 level in 2020
USA
“Sectoral only”
+0% at 1990 level in 2020
Non-Annex I
Sectoral for electricity, iron &
steel and cement
All countries
Sectoral for electricity, iron &
steel and cement
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Reductions after 2020 towards 450
Global CO2 emissions (GtC)
14
450 ppmv CO2
12
10
8
Maximum annual
reduction rate
6
Reference
4
Mild
Only sectoral
2
Strong
0
1990
2000
-2.2%
-4%
-6.5%
-10%
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
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)
Workshop on Quantitative Tools & Negotiating Capacity
Effect of delay of action
Global CO2 emissions (GtC)
14
450 ppmv CO 2
12
10
8
6
Reference
4
Delayed 2020
Delayed 2015
2
Multistage
0
1990
2000
2010
Maximum annual
reduction rate
-2.2%
- 3.6%
>- 10%
> -10%
2020
2030
2040
2050
• Delay in the next decades significantly increases the efforts to to
achieve the same environmental goal.