Transcript CGE TRAINING MATERIALS MITIGATION ASSESSMENT MODULE A Mitigating Climate Change 3.1 Glossary • • • • • • • • • • • • • AI: Annex One CDM: Clean Development Mechanism CMP: Conference of the Parties serving as the.

CGE TRAINING MATERIALS MITIGATION ASSESSMENT
MODULE A
Mitigating Climate Change
3.1
Glossary
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
AI: Annex One
CDM: Clean Development Mechanism
CMP: Conference of the Parties serving as
the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto
Protocol
COP: Conference of Parties
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
JI: Joint Implementation
LCDS: Low Carbon Development Strategies
LCGCS: Low Carbon Growth Country Studies
LEDS: Low Emission Development Strategies
MRV: Measurement, Reporting and.
Verification
NAI: Non Annex One
NAMA: Nationally Appropriate Mitigation
Actions (unilateral, supported or credited)
NAPA: National Adaptation Programmes of
Action
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NC: National Communication
NCSP: National Communications Support
Programme
NIS: National Inventory System
PAMs: Policies and Measures
QA/QC: Quality Assurance and Quality
Control
QUELRO: Quantified Emission Limitation
and Reduction Obligations
REDD/REDD+: Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and forest Degradation/plus
conservation, sustainable management of
forests and enhanced forest carbon
stocks.
SBSTA: Subsidiary Body for Scientific and
Technological Advice
TAP: Technology Action Plan
TNA: Technology Needs Assessment
UNFCCC: UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change
2
3.2
Module Objectives and Expectations
1.
Objective: Provide participants with an introduction to key issues
related to climate change mitigation including:
–
–
–
2.
The current state of climate change science
Key sources, sinks, and sectors of Green House Gas (GHG)
emissions
Mitigation actions: their potential costs and benefits, and their
relationship with the broader issues of sustainability and
development.
Expectations: Participants will have a broad but sound
understanding of key issues related to climate change, motivating
participants on the rationale and urgency of global Green House
Gas (GHG) mitigation, the benefits of mitigation actions, and how
these might fit with other national priorities.
3
3.3
Module Outline
1. State of Knowledge on Climate Change
2. GHG Emissions: Sources, Sinks and Sectors
3. Mitigation Actions, Potential Benefits and Sustainable
Development
4
3.4
MODULE A1
State of Knowledge on Climate Change
5
3.5
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC)
• Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007:
– >2500 scientific expert reviewers, 1250 contributing and lead
authors, >130 countries.
• Three working groups:
– WG I to assess the science of climate change
– WG II to assess impacts, adaptation and vulnerability
– WG III to assess mitigation of climate change
6
3.6
Key Findings of AR4 (IPCC, 2007)
•
•
•
•
•
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”
“Most of warming since mid-20th century from
increase in anthropogenic GHG
concentrations”
“Continued GHG emissions... would induce
many changes in the global climate system
during the 21st century that would very likely
be larger than those observed during the 20th
century”
“Neither adaptation nor mitigation alone can
avoid all climate change impacts; however,
they can complement each other and together
can significantly reduce the risks of climate
change”
“There is substantial potential for… mitigation
over the coming decades that could… reduce
emissions below current levels”
7
3.7
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”
(IPCC 2007)
• Global average air and
ocean temperatures are
increasing.
Warmest 12 years on record
• Global average sea
level is rising.
• Extent of snow and ice
cover is decreasing.
Source: IPCC (2007) AR4 WGI
8
3.8
Reasons for Concern
IPCC Third Assessment Report 2001
Source: Assessing dangerous climate change through an update
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘‘reasons
for concern’’ (PNAS, Feb 2009)
13
3.13
Updated Reasons for Concern
Source: Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘‘reasons for
concern’’ (PNAS, Feb 2009)
14
3.14
Developing Countries are the Most Vulnerable
• Impacts are worse:
– Large share of economy in climate
sensitive sectors (e.g. agriculture, tourism)
– Prone to natural disasters (e.g. floods and
droughts)
– Adds to existing water resource stresses
• Multiple stresses and lower adaptive capacity:
– Limited financial, institutional, technological capacity
– Limited access to knowledge
• Impacts disproportionately on poorest countries and poorest
people:
– Exacerbated human health, food security, malnutrition, clean water and
other resource access concerns
Slide adapted from Dr. RK Pachauri presentation, State of the World Symposium,
Washington, 15th January 2009.
17
3.17
Expected Impacts on Poor Regions
People exposed to increased water stress by 2020:
•
•
•
120 million to 1.2 billion in Asia
12 to 81 million in Latin America
75 to 250 million in Africa
Possible yield reduction in agriculture:
•
•
•
30% by 2050 in Central and South Asia
30% by 2080 in Latin America
50% by 2020 in some African countries
Crop revenues could fall by 90% by 2100 in Africa
Slide adapted from Dr. R K Pachauri ‘s presentation, State of the World
Symposium, Washington, 15th January 2009.
18
3.18
Adaptation
• Has the potential to reduce the adverse effects of
climate change and can produce ancillary benefits,
but cannot prevent all damage
• Numerous adaptation options have been identified
• Greater and more rapid climate change would pose
greater challenges for adaptation
• Neither adaptation nor mitigation, alone, can avoid
all impacts, but they can complement each other
and together significantly reduce risks.
19
3.19
The Mitigation Challenge: Global Emissions Pathways Giving
67% Chance of Achieving Compliance with 2°C Guardrail
Source: WGBU (2009)
20
3.20
MODULE A2
GHG Emissions: Sources, Sinks and Sectors
21
3.21
Estimating GHG Emissions
• UNFCCC accounting covers a basket of direct greenhouse gases
(GHGs):
– Expressed in global warming potential (GWP), which compares the
radiative forcing of a tonne of a greenhouse gas over a given time
period (e.g. 100 years) to a tonne of CO2
– Other climate forcers such as black carbon may be considered
separately.
• National GHG inventories:
– Core element of national communications
– Starting point for mitigation analysis.
22
3.22
Greenhouse Gases: Sources and Sinks
Greenhouse Gas
Principal Sources (and
Sinks)
GWP*
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Fossil fuel use, land
use change
(oceans, terrestrial
biosphere)
1
Methane (CH4)
Fossil fuel
mining/distribution,
livestock, rice
agriculture, landfills
21
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
Agriculture and
associated land use
change
310
“F-gases”
Industrial processes
140 23,900
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs),
Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6)
*GWP = Global Warming Potential from Second Assessment
Report, as used for reporting purposes under the UNFCCC
Global anthropogenic
GHG emissions (2004)
Sources: IPCC (2007) AR4 WGI & WGIII
23
3.23
Baseline Trends in
Fossil-fuel and Industry-related CO2 Emissions
• Baseline emissions
growth in the coming
decades will come
predominantly from the
developing world.
• However, emissions
per capita in
developing countries
are set to remain much
lower than in the
developed world.
Source: Global Energy Assessment (2012, Forthcoming)
24
3.24
Regional Distribution of Emissions
Per Capita and Per Dollar GDP
Source: IPCC (2007) AR4 WGIII
25
3.25
Sectoral Emissions Trends
CO2 only (1970-2004)
•
•
All GHGs (2004)
Since 1970, increases in global CO2 emissions have been largely due to
rise in fossil fuel use for electricity and transportation
Agriculture, forestry and land use change currently comprise about 30%
of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Source: IPCC (2007) AR4 WGIII
28
3.28
MODULE A3
Mitigation Actions, Potential Benefits and Sustainable Development
30
3.30
Studies Show the Potential for Mitigation
Actions to Greatly Reduce Global Emissions
According to the IPCC (2007), “There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilization levels assessed
can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be
commercialized in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for their development,
acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing related barriers.”
Source: IPCC (2007) AR4 Synthesis Report
31
3.31
Key Mitigation Instruments,
Policies and Practices
• Research, development and demonstration
• Appropriate energy infrastructure
investments
• Regulations and standards
• Taxes and charges
• Change in lifestyles and consumption
patterns
• Effective carbon price signal.
Adapted from Dr. RK Pachauri’s presentation, State of the
World Symposium, Washington, 15th January 2009.
32
3.32
Potential Co-benefits of Mitigation
•
•
•
•
Health co-benefits from reduced air pollution
Increased energy security
More rural employment
Increased agricultural production and reduced
pressure on natural ecosystems
• Improved technological base
• Strengthened institutions and human capacity
Slide adapted from Dr. RK Pachauri’s presentation, State of
the World Symposium, Washington, 15th January 2009.
34
3.34
Impacts of Mitigation on GDP Growth
(for stabilization scenario of 445-535 ppm CO2-eq)
Schematic graph
GDP
Cost of mitigation
in 2030: max 3% of
global GDP
GDP without
mitigation
Mitigation would
postpone GDP growth
by one year at most
over the medium term
GDP with
stringent
mitigation
Current
2030
Time
Slide adapted from Dr. R. K Pachauri presentation, State of
the World Symposium, Washington, 15th January 2009.
36
3.36
Integrating Mitigation and Adaptation
• Possible relationships:
– Complementary
– Substitutable or
– Independent?
• Imperfect substitutes:
– Because of long lag times in the climate system, no mitigation efforts
will be able to prevent some amount of climate change
– Conversely, reliance on adaptation alone would lead to a large
magnitude of climate change, to which it would be very expensive to
adapt.
Source: IPCC (2007) AR4 WGII
38
3.38
Mitigation and Adaptation: Synergies and Trade-offs
•
•
Both adaptation and mitigation
depend on capital assets (including
social capital).
Mitigation and adaptation policies
can be related to sustainable
development goals.
•
Nature of benefits varies:
–
–
•
Mitigation: global and long-term
Adaptation: local and shorter term
Trade-offs between mitigation and
adaptation
–
–
–
–
National level: often viewed as
competing priorities
Local level: increasing recognition of
overlaps, especially when natural,
energy, and sequestration systems
intersect
Particularly important for developing
countries and LDCs relying on natural
resources for energy and development
Examples emerging in bioenergy,
forestry, agriculture
Agroforestry
Photo source: Scitizen (2009)
Source: IPCC (2007) AR4 WGIII
39
3.39
Example: Tanzania National Agroforestry Strategy
•
2004 National Agroforestry Strategy:
– Goal: By 2020, 60% of resource-poor households adopt agroforestry technologies,
contributing to improved livelihoods.
– Complements “MKUKUTA” national development strategy (increasing household
income while protecting the environment).
•
Crops, livestock, and trees/shrubs planted/retained on farm land create a web
of resilient land use practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change,
conserve biodiversity, and stop land degradation.
40
D.40
3.40
Two-Way Relationship between Climate Change
and Sustainable Development
Climate change
influences natural
and human living
conditions, and
social/economic
development
Society’s priorities
on sustainable
development
influence GHG
emissions, causing
climate change and
vulnerability
Source: IPCC (2007) AR4 WGIII
43
3.43
Addressing Energy Poverty
Source: OECD/IEA (2011)
44
3.44
Integrating Mitigation in Development Planning
•
Mitigation options that improve productivity of resource use (energy,
water, land) generally yield sustainable development benefits.
•
Climate-related policies (e.g. energy efficiency) are often economically
beneficial, improve energy security, reduce local pollution, and create
jobs.
•
Opportunities for mitigation-sustainable development synergies are
especially promising in waste management, transportation, and
buildings (decreased energy use and reduced pollution).
•
Reducing deforestation can yield biodiversity, soil and water
conservation benefits, but may result in economic loss and reduced
agricultural (or forestry) production.
•
Capitalizing on synergies is especially relevant where economic and
social development are the top priorities.
45
3.45
Possible Topics for Discussion
• How might mitigation and adaptation policies differ in
terms of implementation challenges?
• Where are there opportunities to integrate climate
change mitigation and sustainable development priorities
in your country?
• What are the challenges of addressing energy poverty?
• Do you see mitigation as complementary to, or in
competition with, development priorities?
47
3.47
Discussion Questions
• Does the relative significance of sectors and their
global/regional mitigation potential correspond to your
expectations? Your national situation?
• What are the pros and cons of approaching mitigation
from a sectoral perspective?
• Do national inventories typically provide sufficient data
for mitigation analysis? What additional emissions data
might be needed?
48
3.48