Mitigation of Climate Change

Mitigation of Climate Change IPCC Working Group III contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report Bert Metz Co-chair IPCC WG III Risoe International Energy Conference, Roskilde, Denmark, May 22, 2007 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 180 IPCC member governments (Bangkok, May 4) • Full report and technical summary accepted without discussion 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 GtCO2-eq/yr 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2004 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 180 160 140 120 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 A2 A1F1 B2 A1B A1T B1 95th 75th median 25th 5th F-Gases N2O CH4 CO2 A1F1 A2 A1B A1T B1 B2 95th 2000 • IPCC SRES scenarios: 80 25-90 %60 increase40of GHG 20 emissions 0 in 2030 relative to 2000 100 2000 A1F1 A2 A1B A1T B1 B2 95th 75th median 25th 5th 40 20 GtCO2eq/yr 0 2030 IPCC Mitigation potential • Mitigation potential: – Emission reduction, relative to emission baselines, that is economically attractive at a given “price of carbon” • Market potential: – Based on private costs and private rates of return – Expected to occur under forecast market conditions – Including policies and measures currently in place – Barriers limit actual uptake • Economic potential: – Takes into account social costs and benefits and social rates of return, – Assuming that market efficiency is improved by policies and measures and – Barriers are removed IPCC Economic mitigation potential till 2030 could offset the projected growth of global emissions, or reduce emissions below current levels • Both bottom-up and top-down studies BOTTOM-UP TOP-DOWN Global economic potential in 2030 Note: estimates do not include non-technical options such as lifestyle changes 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 All sectors and regions have the potential to contribute (end-use based) Note: estimates do not include non-technical options, such as lifestyle changes. IPCC World primary energy consumption by fuel type IPCC Future energy supply • Strong increase in energy demand projected (upto 100% by 2030) • Increase in oil/gas price: both low and high carbon alternatives attractive • Price volatility important barrier against investments • Shortage of fossil fuel is not going to help to stabilise CO2 concentrations (IPCC TAR) SPM.3 Carbon in oil, gas and coal reserves and resources compared with historic fossil fuel carbon emissions 1860-1998, and with cumulative carbon emissions from a range of SRES scenarios and TAR stabilisation scenarios up until 2100. 4000 Historic coal emissions 3500 Historic gas emissions 3000 2500 GtC Historic oil emissions Unconventional reserves and resources Conventional resources (upper estimate) Conventional reserves Scenarios 2000 1500 1000 500 0 A1FI Coal A1B Oil Gas B1 B2 A2 WRE350 WRE450 WRE550 WRE650 WRE750 1860 - 1998 WRE1000 A1T -------SRES scenarios---- Notes. - Reserve/resource and historic use data derived directly from section 3.8.1. - Cumulative carbon emissions are from the IPCC Third Assessment Report WG-I. - Unconventional resources do not include gas hydrates, w hich contain an estimated 12,000 GtC. IPCC How can emissions be reduced? Sector Key mitigation technologies and practices currently commercially available. (Selected) efficiency; fuel switching; nuclear power; renewable (hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal and bioenergy); combined heat and power; early applications of CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) Key mitigation technologies and practices projected to be commercialized before 2030. (Selected) CCS for gas, biomass and coal-fired electricity generating facilities; advanced nuclear power; advanced renewables (tidal and wave energy, concentrating solar, solar PV) Energy Supply IPCC Electricity sector emissions, 2002 to 2030 (IEA/WEO 2004 baseline) 16,074 TWh 31,656 TWh IPCC Potential emission reductions from additional electricity saving in Building sector at 75% savings compared to current (at low to zero additional cost) – Barriers include availability of technologies, financing, cost of reliable information and limitations in building designs IPCC Changes in lifestyle and behaviour patterns can contribute to climate change mitigation • Changes in occupant behaviour, cultural patterns and consumer choice in buildings. • Behaviour of staff in industrial organizations in light of reward systems • Reduction of car usage and efficient driving style, in relation to urban planning and availability of public transport 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 Trajectories towards stabilization levels (ppm CO2-eq) 590-710 535-590 445-535[4] Median GDP reduction[1] (%) 0.2 0.6 Not available Range of GDP reduction [2] (%) Reduction of average annual GDP growth rates [3] (percentage points) < 0.06 <0.1 < 0.12 -0.6 – 1.2 0.2 – 2.5 <3 [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 numbers GDP GDP without mitigation 80% 77% GDP with stringent mitigation current ~1 year Time 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 Stabilisation of GHG concentrations (radiative forcing) in the atmosphere and emission reductions • The lower the stabilisation level the earlier global CO2 emissions have to peak 35 Post-SRES (max) Stabilization targets: E: 850-1130 ppm CO2-eq C: 590-710 ppm CO2-eq Wold CO2 Emissions (GtC) 25 B: 535-590 ppm CO2-eq A2: 490-535 ppm CO2-eq A1: 445-490 ppm CO2-eq 20 15 10 5 Post-SRES (min) 0 -5 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 Multigas and CO2 only studies combined Equilibrium global mean temperature increase over preindustrial (°C) 30 D: 710-850 ppm CO2-eq GHG concentration stabilization level ( IPCC Stabilisation and equilibrium global mean temperatures • Equilibrium temperatures reached after 2100 • Uncertainty of climate sensitivity important 35 35 Stabilization targets: Post-SRES (max) E: 850-1130 ppm CO2-eq Post-SRES (max) Stabilization targets: E: 850-1130 ppm CO2-eq Wold CO2 Emissions (GtC) A2: CO2-eq A2: 490-535 ppm490-535 ppm CO2-eq Wold CO2 Emissions (GtC) 25 B: CO2-eq B: 535-590 ppm 535-590 ppm CO2-eq 25 A1: 445-490 ppm CO2-eq 20 A1: 445-490 ppm CO2-eq 20 15 15 10 10 5 5 0 Post-SRES (min) Post-SRES (min) 0 -5 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 -5 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 Multigas and CO2 only studies combined Equilibrium global mean temperature increase over preindustrial (°C) GHG concentration stabilization level (ppmv CO2-eq) Equilibrium global mean temperature increase over preindustrial (°C) 30 D: 710-850 ppm 710-850 ppm CO2-eq 30 D: CO2-eq C: 590-710 ppm 590-710 ppm CO2-eq C: CO2-eq GHG concentration stabilization level ( 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 Stab level (ppm CO2-eq) 445 – 490 490 – 535 535 – 590 Global Mean temp. increase at equilibrium (ºC) 2.0 – 2.4 2.4 – 2.8 2.8 – 3.2 Year global CO2 needs to peak 2000 - 2015 2000 - 2020 2010 - 2030 Year global CO2 emissions back at 2000 level 2000- 2030 2000- 2040 2020- 2060 Reduction in 2050 global CO2 emissions compared to 2000 -85 to -50 -60 to -30 -30 to +5 590 – 710 710 – 855 855 – 1130 3.2 – 4.0 4.0 – 4.9 4.9 – 6.1 2020 - 2060 2050 - 2080 2060 - 2090 2050- 2100 +10 to +60 +25 to +85 +90 to +140 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 costs in 2050? Trajectories towards stabilization levels (ppm CO2-eq) 590-710 535-590 445-535[4] Median GDP reduction[1] (%) 0.5 1.3 Not available Range of GDP reduction [2] (%) Reduction of average annual GDP growth rates [3] (percentage points) < 0.05 <0.1 < 0.12 -1 – 2 Slightly negative - 4 < 5.5 [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 Policies are available to to governments to realise mitigation of climate change • Effectiveness of policies depends on national circumstances, their design, interaction, stringency and implementation – – – – – – – – Integrating climate policies in broader development policies Regulations and standards Taxes and charges Tradable permits Financial incentives Voluntary agreements Information instruments Research and development IPCC Selected sectoral policies, measures and instruments that have shown to be environmentally effective Sector Policies[1], measures and Key constraints or instruments shown to be opportunities environmentally effective fuel Resistance by vested interests may make difficult to Taxes or carbon charges on them implement fossil fuels Feed-in tariffs for renewable May be appropriate to energy technologies create markets for low emissions technologies Renewable energy obligations Producer subsidies [1] Public RD&D investment in low emission technologies have proven to be effective in all sectors. Energy supply Reduction subsidies of fossil IPCC Selected sectoral policies, measures and instruments that have shown to be environmentally effective Sector Policies, measures and instruments Key constraints shown to be environmentally opportunities effective or Transport Mandatory fuel economy, biofuel Partial coverage of vehicle blending and CO2 standards for road fleet may limit effectiveness transport Taxes on vehicle purchase, registration, Effectiveness may use and motor fuels, road and parking with higher incomes pricing drop Influence mobility needs through land Particularly appropriate for use regulations, and infrastructure countries that are building planning up their transportation Investment in attractive public systems transport facilities and non-motorised forms of transport [1] Public RD&D investment in low emission technologies have proven to be effective in all sectors. 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$/tCO2eq by 2030 (5-65 if “induced technological change” happens) • At these carbon prices large shifts of investments into low carbon technologies can be expected IPCC Investments • Energy infrastructure investment decisions, (20 trillion US$ till 2030) will have long term impacts on GHG emissions. • The widespread diffusion of low-carbon technologies may take many decades, even if early investments in these technologies are made attractive. • Returning global energy-related CO2 emissions to 2005 levels by 2030 would require a large shift in the pattern of investment, although the net additional investment required ranges from negligible to 5-10% • It is often more cost-effective to invest in end-use energy efficiency improvement than in increasing energy supply IPCC The importance of technology policies • The lower the stabilization levels (550 ppm CO2-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 is important for effective technology development, innovation and deployment through • • • • financial contributions, tax credits, standard setting market creation. • BUT, government funding for most energy research programmes has been declining for nearly two decades: now about half of 1980 level. 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 – Assessed literature on future agreements on basis of criteria for enevironmental/ cost effectiveness, distributional/ institutional feasibility IPCC Two-way Relationship Between Climate Change and Sustainable Development Climate policy can have positive or negative effects on other aspects of SD Climate change mitigation Sustainable development Non-climate policies can influence GHG emissions as much as specific climate policies IPCC Examples of side-effects of climate mitigation OPTIONS Energy: efficiency, renewables, fuelswitching SYNERGIES TRADEOFFS • particulate emissions (diesel) • biodiversity (biofuels) • costs (renewables) • air quality • supply security • employment • costs (efficiency) waste: landfill gas capture, incineration • health & safety • employment • energy advantages • ground water pollution • costs IPCC Non-climate policies can influence GHG emissions as much as specific climate policies Sectors Macro-economy Electricity Non-climate policies -- Candidates for integrating climate concerns Taxes, subsidies, other fiscal policies Diversification to low-carbon sources, demand management, limit distribution losses Diversification energy sources/decrease intensity -> enhance energy security Differentiated premiums, liability insurance exclusion, improved conditions for green products Possible influence (% of global emissions) All GHG emissions (100%) Electricity sector emissions (20 %) GHGs from oil product imports (20 %) GHG emissions buildings, transport (20%) Oil-imports Insurance (buildings, infrastructure) Bank lending Sector/ country strategies, avoid lock-in into old technologies in developing countries Policies promoting LPG, kerosene and electricity for cooking Notably development projects (25%) Extra emissions over biomass (<2 %) IPCC Rural energy The Summary for Policy Makers , the Technical Summary and the full Report (subject to editing) can be downloaded from www.mnp.nl/ipcc Further information: IPCC Working Group III Technical Support Unit at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency: ipcc3tsu@mnp.nl IPCC