Land Use, Technology, and Climate Mitigation

Transcription

1 Land Use, Technology, and Climate Mitigation Leon Clarke Representing the Integrated Modeling and Energy Group at the Joint Global Change Research Institute Green Economies Dialogue Brasilia April 16, 212 The authors are grateful to the U.S. Department of Energy s Integrated Assessment Research Program for long-term research support.

2 Introduction My remarks will use the broad issue of long-term climate change mitigation as a basis to illustrate broader themes. I will rely heavily on integrated assessment modeling research we have conducted at the Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI). I will focus on: Linkages between climate mitigation goals and land use The role of technology in climate mitigation

3 GTSP Sponsors Phases 1,2, & 3 Acknowledgements Thanks to the organizers of this meeting. Thanks to the sponsors of the Global Energy Technology Strategy Program (GTSP) and the Integrated Modeling and Energy Program at JGCRI more generally for research support. 3

4 Reference Scenario Mitigation choices will have a large influence on land use patterns 1% 8% 6% 4% Tundra Desert Forest Pasture 55 ppmv CO2-e Stabilization Scenario When Terrestrial Carbon is NOT Valued 2% Grass/Shrub Biomass Crops % Urban Tundra Desert Forest Pasture Grass/Shrub Biomass Crops 1% 8% 6% 4% 2% Grass/Shrub Biomass Crops % % 8% 6% 4% Tundra Desert Forest Pasture Tundra Desert Forest Pasture 55 ppmv CO2-e Stabilization Scenario When ALL Carbon is 4 Valued 2% Grass/Shrub Biomass % Crops

5 Mitigation choices will have a large influence on land use patterns GtCO2 Bioenergy Production Cumulative Net Land Use Change Emissions 25 through No Policy 55 ppmv CO2-e (Universal Carbon Price) 55 ppmv CO2-e (only Fossil Fuels and Industry) influence of treatment of land in carbon policy No Policy influence of treatment of land in carbon policy 55 ppmv CO2-e (only Fossil Fuel and Industry) 55 ppmv CO2-e (Universal Carbon Policy)

6 What happens to cumulative emissions as we protect forests? GtC Cumulative LUC Emissions (25-295) Note: Positive means carbon is released into the atmosphere, i.e., a reduction in carbon stock. Negative means carbon accumulation, i.e., an increase in carbon stock % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 99%

7 What happens to cumulative emissions as we protect forests? GtC Cumulative LUC Emissions (25-295) % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 99%

8 What happens to cumulative emissions as we protect forests? GtC Cumulative LUC Emissions (25-295) % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 99%

9 What happens to cumulative emissions as we protect forests? GtC Cumulative LUC Emissions (25-295) % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 99%

10 Unless we protect more than 8% of forests, total forest area declines Global Forest Area, Including Carbon Parks million km % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 39. 8% 9% 99%

11 25$/kg 25$/kg Climate change will interact with land use and associated agricultural markets..16 Global wheat prices with and without climate change and climate change mitigation (No explicit land policy) , w/ Impacts 55, w/o Impacts Reference, w/ Impacts Reference, w/o Impacts

12 1,6 1,4 1,2 1, 8 IGSM 1,6 1,4 1,2 1, 8 MiniCAM ,6 1,4 1,2 1, Primary Energy from the CCSP Scenarios (Reference Scenario) MERGE From CCSP Product 2.1a: Scenarios of Emissions and Greenhouse Gas Concentrations 12

13 1,6 1,4 1,2 1, 8 IGSM 1,6 1,4 1,2 1, 8 MiniCAM ,6 1,4 1,2 1, Primary Energy from the CCSP Scenarios ( 75 ppmv CO 2 ) MERGE From CCSP Product 2.1a: Scenarios of Emissions and Greenhouse Gas Concentrations 13

14 1,6 1,4 1,2 1, 8 IGSM 1,6 1,4 1,2 1, 8 MiniCAM ,6 1,4 1,2 1, Primary Energy from the CCSP Scenarios ( 65 ppmv CO 2 ) MERGE From CCSP Product 2.1a: Scenarios of Emissions and Greenhouse Gas Concentrations 14

15 1,6 1,4 1,2 1, 8 IGSM 1,6 1,4 1,2 1, 8 MiniCAM ,6 1,4 1,2 1, Primary Energy from the CCSP Scenarios ( 55 ppmv CO 2 ) MERGE From CCSP Product 2.1a: Scenarios of Emissions and Greenhouse Gas Concentrations 15

16 1,6 1,4 1,2 1, 8 IGSM 1,6 1,4 1,2 1, 8 MiniCAM ,6 1,4 1,2 1, Primary Energy from the CCSP Scenarios ( 45 ppmv CO 2 ) MERGE From CCSP Product 2.1a: Scenarios of Emissions and Greenhouse Gas Concentrations 16

17 1,6 1,4 1,2 1, 8 IGSM 1,6 1,4 1,2 1, 8 MiniCAM ,6 1,4 1,2 1, equivalent to 55 ppmv CO e in ppmv CO 2 is roughly the long-term. At the IPCC s most likely climate sensitivity (3 o C), this corresponds Primary to a 3 Energy o C from the increase above preindustrial CCSP Scenarios levels in the long-term. ( 45 ppmv CO 2 ) MERGE From CCSP Product 2.1a: Scenarios of Emissions and Greenhouse Gas Concentrations 17

18 There are differing views on the role of technology in climate mitigation. Hoffert, M. et al. (22). challenged the notion that known technological options could achieve a broad range of atmospheric CO 2 stabilization levels, such as 55 ppm, 45 ppm or below over the next 1 years or more Hoffert, M., et al. (22), Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet. Science 298(1): Pacala, S. and R. Socolow. (24) indicate that Humanity can solve the carbon and climate problem in the first half of this century simply by scaling up what we already know how to do. Pacala, S. and R. Socolow. (24), Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 5 Years with Current Technologies. Science 35:

19 billion $ (25$, MER) An important role of technology is to reduce the costs of mitigation 45 ppmv Global Mitigation Policy: Global Mitigation Costs Most pessimistic technology assumptions Improvements to the cost, performance and availability of renewable energy, end use efficiency, nuclear energy, and carbon dioxide capture and storage Most advanced technology assumptions Recent research has explored the unique role of bioenergy coupled with CO 2 capture and storage in enabling very low stabilization levels

20 Technology for climate change is not only important in the energy sector. GtCO2/yr Cumulative Emissions from No crop productivity growth after 25: 29 GtCO2 FAO assumptions through 25 and.25%/yr crop productivity growth afterwards: 14 GtCO2 High convergence through 25 and.25%/yr crop productivity growth afterwards: -37 PgC Low Ag Productivity Growth Reference Ag Productivity Growth High Ag Productivity Growth The difference is 36 ppmv CO2 by

21 PgC/year Technology alone is not enough to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations Range over 384 technology scenarios WITHOUT any explicit climate policy Range 384 Technology Scenarios PPM CO Range 384 Technology Scenarios Pre-industrial CO 2 Concentration

22 Final Thoughts Climate change mitigation is tightly linked to land use patterns. Global trade makes land use leakage as or more challenging than industrial sector leakage. Meeting climate stabilization goals will require a dramatic transformation of the energy system. A primary role of technological change in climate mitigation is to reduce costs. Agricultural technological change is a key lever in climate mitigation. Addressing land use in the context of climate is different than addressing fossil and industrial emissions

23 Questions