What science tells us about global emission pathways and the below 2 C target and how to assess INDC submissions

Transcription

1 Clima East International climate negotiations workshop Riga, Latvia, June 2015 What science tells us about global emission pathways and the below 2 C target and how to assess INDC submissions Michel den Elzen 1

2 2 Contents Global greenhouse gas emission pathways towards meeting the 2 o C climate target (IPCC AR5) How to assess INDC submissions against what has to be done in order to avert dangerous climate change? 17 December 2013 Michel den Elzen

3 CLIMATE CHANGE 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change Michel den Elzen Lead AuthorChapter 13 Conributing Author Chapter 6 dreamstime

4 What does the AR5 WGIII tell us about mitigation action required to limit global warming to 2 C/1.5 C?

5 Without additional mitigation, global mean surface temperature is projected to increase by 3.7 to 4.8 C over the 21 st century. Based on WGII AR5 Figure

6 Stabilization of atmospheric concentrations requires moving away from the baseline regardless of the mitigation goal. Based on Figure 6.7 6

7 Stabilization of atmospheric concentrations requires moving away from the baseline regardless of the mitigation goal. 72 to41% below 2010 levels by 2050 ~3 C Based on Figure 6.7 7

8 Achieving low levels of temperature change requires to limit cumulative CO 2 emissions Cumulative CO 2 emissions Temperature change Baseline Baseline Avoided temperature increase Emissions budget for 2 C is about GtC (historical emissions are about 1850 GtCO 2 )

9 Relationship between global GHG emissions and the likelihood of different temperature targets Concentration Levels CO2eq Concentrations in 2100 (CO2eq) Category label (concentration range) 9 Subcategories Emissions budgets Cumulative CO2 emission 3 (GtCO2) Emissions reductions Change in CO2eq emissions compared to 2010 in (%) Likelihood of temperature change Temperature change (relative to ) 5,6 Likelihood of staying below temperature level over the 21 st century C 2.0 C 3.0 C 4.0 C < 430 Only a limited number of individual model studies have explored levels below 430 ppm CO2eq 450 Total range 1,10 More unlikely to to -78 Likely ( ) than likely 500 ( ) 550 ( ) No overshoot of 530 ppm CO2eq to to -73 Overshoot of 530 ppm CO2eq to to -90 No overshoot of 580 ppm CO2eq to to -59 Overshoot of 580 ppm CO2eq to to -86 ( ) Total range to to -50 Unlikely More likely than not About as likely as not More unlikely than likely 12 Likely Likely More likely than ( ) Total range to to -21 Unlikely not More unlikely ( ) Total range to 54-7 to 72 than likely Unlikely 11 >1000 Total range to to 178 Unlikely 11 Unlikely More unlikely than likely

10 Mitigation involves substantial upscaling of low-carbon energy. 10

11 Mitigation involves substantial upscaling of low-carbon energy. Based on Figure

12 Delaying mitigation increases the difficulty and narrows the options for limiting warming to 2 C. immediate action 12

13 Delaying mitigation increases the difficulty and narrows the options for limiting warming to 2 C. 13

14 Delaying mitigation increases the difficulty and narrows the options for limiting warming to 2 C. 14

15 Delaying mitigation is estimated to increase the difficulty and narrow the options for limiting warming to 2 C. delayed mitigation immediate action 15

16 Delaying mitigation is estimated to increase the difficulty and narrow the options for limiting warming to 2 C. 16

17 Delaying mitigation is estimated to increase the difficulty and narrow the options for limiting warming to 2 C. Sweden & France after the oil crisis 17

18 Delaying mitigation is estimated to increase the difficulty and narrow the options for limiting warming to 2 C. Collapse of the former Soviet Union Europe WWI & II (>4%) 18

19 Delaying mitigation is estimated to increase the difficulty and narrow the options for limiting warming to 2 C. 19

20 Delaying mitigation is estimated to increase the difficulty and narrow the options for limiting warming to 2 C. Based on Figures 6.32 and

21 Delayed mitigation significantly increases the challenge to reach low concentration targets Source: Figure SPM.5

22 Delayed mitigation significantly increases the challenge to reach low concentration targets Current Cancun Pledges imply increased mitigation challenges for reaching 2 C But it also leads to significant benefits (in terms of avoided climate damages and other benefits: like greater productivity, energy security..) Source: Figure SPM.5

23 What does the AR5 WGIII tell us about mitigation action required to limit global warming to 2 C/1.5 C?

24 Reduction proposals (2020) for Copenhagen Accord (2009), as anchored in Cancun Agreements (2010) 22 June 2015 Michel den Elzen

25 Thirteen Parties have submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) for Paris(15 June 2015) Not shown: Ethiopia, Gabon, Japan, Morocco, Liechtenstein, Andorra 22 June 2015 Michel den Elzen

26 These thirteen countries represent about 32% of global emissions in 2010 Country % of global GHG emissions Unconditional INDC (conditional*) base year Switzerland 0.1% -35% -50% 1990 EU % - -40% 1990 Norway 0.1% - -40% 1990 Mexico (incl. LULUCF) 1.5% -22%(-36%*) BAU 2030 US (incl. LULUCF) 11.9% -26% to -28% Russia 4.5% - -25% to -30% 1990 Canada 1.4% - -30% 2005 Morocco 0.2% -13%(-32%*) BAU 2030 Ethiopia 0.2% - -64%* BAU 2030 Japan (announced G7) 2.5% - -26% 2013 Not shown: Gabon, Liechtenstein, Andorra June 2015 Michel den Elzen

27 Reduction effort compared to different base-year levels: Country Unconditional INDC (conditional*) base year: BAU(2030) Switzerland -50% -51% -51% EU 28-40% -35% -29% Norway -40% -43% -43% Mexico (incl. LULUCF) +36% (+11%) +16%(-5%*) +1%(-17%*) -22%(-36%*) US (incl. LULUCF) -27% to -29% -37% to -39% -34% to -36% Russia -25% to -30% 12% to 17% 8% to 12% Canada -13% -30% -26% Japan (announced G7) -18% -25.4% -20% Not shown: Gabon, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Morocco, Ethiopia June 2015 Michel den Elzen

28 The INDCs could reduce the global emissions by 2.5 GtCO 2 e, which is about 15% of the 2 o C emission gap Global greenhouse gas emissions, including CO 2 emissions from land use Gt CO 2 eq per year Emissions (GtCO 2 eq) in 2030 Current policies 61 INDCs 58.5 Level needed for 2 C 42 Reduction by INDCs ~2.5 Emissions gap ~ C emission gap: 18.9 Gt to 16.3 Gt June 2015 Michel den Elzen Legend History Business-as-usual(PBL) Current policies Current policies, PBL best INDCs UnconditionalINDCs, PBL ConditionalINDCs, PBL Emissions levels consistent with2 C (UNEP, 2014) 2 C pathway, median 2020 pledge (UNEP, 2014)

29 EU INDC: domestic 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 INDC is more ambitious than current policies, consistent with 2 C (~42% below 1990), but above per capita convergence range (45%) Mt CO 2 eq per year Current policies: den Elzen et al., 2015, Enhanced policy scenarios for major emitting countries, June 2015 Michel den Elzen Emissions Current policies BAU (PBL, OECD) History LULUCF projections LULUCF history Per capita convergence (2 C) 2 degree pathway (LIMITS) Emission targets 2020 Pledge 2030 INDC * towards 2 tco 2 /capita by degree LIMITS (Fig 4): Tavoni, M. et al. Nature Clim. Change 5, pp *

30 US INDC: domestic 26-28% below 2005 by 2025 INDC is more ambitious than current policies, at upper end of 2 C range & per capita convergence range, but uncertain due to land use Mt CO2 eq per year Emissions Current policies BAU (PBL, OECD) History Per capita convergence (2 C) 2 degree pathway (LIMITS) Emission targets 2020 Pledge 2025 INDC There is uncertainty around land use emission projections for the 2 degree scenarios 22 June 2015 Michel den Elzen

31 China: announcement 20% non-fossil share in primary energy consumption and peak around 2030 INDC is more ambitious than current policies, but announcement is above 2 C & convergence range. Large uncertainty around peak level Mt CO2 eq per year Emissions Announcements Current policies History BAU (PBL, OECD) Per capita convergence (2 C) 2 degree pathway (LIMITS) 6000 Emission targets Pledge 2000 China: -1.5% 2030 INDC of emission per energy consumption (NF), -3% energy intensity of GDP, 22 June 2015 Michel needed den Elzen for peaking

32 PBL INDC tool: to show the impact INDCs on GHGs Select a country and explore impact of INDC and current policies on GHG emissions June 2015 Michel den Elzen

33 UNEP 2015 INDC assessment Assessment of literature on INDCs from global models and national scenarios (updates: September, November, January) Core group of experts: Michel den Elzen (Netherlands), Taryn Fransen (US), Amit Garg (India), Niklas Höhne (Germany), Fu Sha(China), Roberto Schaeffer (Brazil), Harald Winkler (South Africa), 22 June 2015 Michel den Elzen

34 PBL reports ( Recent policy brief Enhancing mitigation ambitions in the major emitting countries: analysis of current and potential climate policies, INDC assessment Regular updates infographics (updates: September, November 2015, January 2016), see: PBL Policy brief before Paris (November 2015) Inventory of globalco 2 emissionsof 2014 (september) Assessment of international initiatives (September 2015) UNEP Emissions gap report (November 2015) June 2015 Michel den Elzen