Evaluation of the Copenhagen Accord pledges and beyond

Transcription

1 Evaluation of the Copenhagen Accord pledges and beyond 29 November 2010 EU paviljon, Cancun Michel den Elzen

2 A. Evaluation of the Copenhagen Accord pledges

3 Context Work funded by: European Commission (ENTEC project) Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) & other ministries Methodology: Policy model FAIR & energy model TIMER Spreadsheet Use of submitted pledges/actions for 138 countries that were involved in the Copenhagen Accord, representing ~87% of global emissions) Reports: den Elzen, M.G.J. et al.,the Copenhagen Accord: abatement costs and carbon prices resulting from the submissions. Environ. Sci. Policy (2010), doi: /j.envsci den Elzen, M.G.J., Hof, A.F. et al.: Evaluation of the Copenhagen Accord: Chances Source: PBL-report, den Elzen et al., 2010 and risks for the 2 C climate goal. PBL Report,

4 Outline Presentation: Questions 4 1. What is the total reduction from the Annex I pledges? 2. How comparable are the pledges? 3. What is the total reduction from the non-annex I NAMAs? 4. What is the current emission gap for meeting 2 o C target? 5. What are mitigation options for narrowing the emission gap to the 2 o C target? 6. What are the risks of offers being watered down? 7. What are the implications for the post-2012 carbon market? 8. What is the impact of postponing emission reductions from 2020 to 2030?

5 Current pledges of Annex I countries do not equal 25-40% reduction (needed to meet 2 o C target) EU 20% (unilateral) and 30% below 1990 levels USA 17% below 2005 (dependent on domestic legislation) Japan 25% below 1990 levels Russia 15-25% below 1990 levels Mitigation offers are mostly conditional (provided that other countries commit to comparable reductions) Total reduction:12-18% below 1990 levels, whereas 25-40% is needed to meet 2 o C den Elzen, M.G.J., Hof, A.F. et al.: Evaluation of the Copenhagen Accord: Chances Source: PBL-report, den Elzen et al., 2010 and risks for the 2 C climate goal. PBL Report,

6 Current pledges of Annex I countries are not enough to meet 2 o C target Current Offer Low Emissions in 2020 Current Offer High Emissions in 2020 Base year Developed countries % on base year GtCO 2 eq % on base year GtCO 2 eq United States 17% % LULUCF : reductions decrease by 3%, dependent on Japan 25% % EU LULUCF accounting 20% rules % Australia 5% % Russia New surpluses: reductions 15% increase 2.82 by 6% 25%(low Canada 17% % Ukraine pledge) and 4% (high 20% pledge), 0.74 dependent 20% on BAU Belarus 5% % Norway 30% % Kyoto surpluses: reductions decrease by 6%, dependent on transfer rules New Zealand 10% % Switzerland 20% % Other Annex I Total Annex I (A1) Excl. LUCF, incl surplus AAUs Incl. LUCF, excl surplus AAUs* 12% 16% % 19% den Elzen, M.G.J., Hof, A.F. et al.: Evaluation of the Copenhagen Accord: Chances Bron: PBL, Den Elzen et al., 2010 and risks for the 2 C climate goal. PBL Report,

7 Where do countries stand? Comparison of pledges with comparable effort reduction ranges. To meet Annex I target of 30% below 1990 levels Canada, Russia, Ukraine s pledges are far below comparable effort reduction ranges. USA s pledge is also too low Only high pledge of EU and Japan are in line with comparable effort ranges den Elzen, M.G.J., Hof, A.F. et al.: Evaluation of the Copenhagen Accord: Chances Source: Mitigation, Adaptation Strat., den Elzen et al.2010 and risks for the 2 C climate goal. PBL Report,

8 Outline Presentation: Questions 8 1. What is the total reduction from the Annex I pledges? 2. How comparable are the pledges? 3. What is the total reduction from the non-annex I NAMAs? 4. What is the current emission gap for meeting 2 o C target? 5. What are mitigation options for narrowing the emission gap to the 2 o C target? 6. What are the risks of offers being watered down? 7. What are the implications for the post-2012 carbon market? 8. What is the impact of postponing emission reductions from 2020 to 2030?

9 Mitigation actions non-annex I insufficient and depending on financing by Annex I China improvement intensity 40-45% & non-fossil target 15% India improvement intensity 20-25% Reduction depends on GDP growth, so uncertain Estimate: - China 0-6% reduction below BAU - India 0-3% (national climate plan: 9%) Brazil reduction below BAU 36-39%, South Africa 34%; South Korea 30%, Indonesia 26% Reduction depends on international financing Total reduction:8-10% below BAU levels, whereas 15-30% is needed to meet 2 o C target den Elzen, M.G.J., Hof, A.F. et al.: Evaluation of the Copenhagen Accord: Chances Source: PBL-report, den Elzen et al., 2010 and risks for the 2 C climate goal. PBL Report,

10 Mitigation actions non-annex I insufficient and depending on financing by Annex I den Elzen, M.G.J., Hof, A.F. et al.: Evaluation of the Copenhagen Accord: Chances and risks for the 2 C climate goal. PBL Report,

11 Outline Presentation: Questions What is the total reduction from the Annex I pledges? 2. How comparable are the pledges? 3. What is the total reduction from the non-annex I NAMAs? 4. What is the current emission gap for meeting 2 o C target? 5. What are mitigation options for narrowing the emission gap to the 2 o C target? 6. What are the risks of offers being watered down? 7. What are the implications for the post-2012 carbon market? 8. What is the impact of postponing emission reductions from 2020 to 2030?

12 Current offers & action plans ( ) do not meet the 2 o C target (44-46); gap of 3-5 GtCO 2 eq den Elzen, M.G.J., Hof, A.F. et al.: Evaluation of the Copenhagen Accord: Chances Source: PBL-report, den Elzen et al., 2010 and risks for the 2 C climate goal. PBL Report,

13 Additional mitigation options close most if not all of the 2 o C emission gap den Elzen, M.G.J., Hof, A.F. et al.: Evaluation of the Copenhagen Accord: Chances and risks for the 2 C climate goal. PBL Report,

14 .. but there are also risks of watering down (lower targets, carry-over surpluses, high LULUCF) den Elzen, M.G.J., Hof, A.F. et al.: Evaluation of the Copenhagen Accord: Chances and risks for the 2 C climate goal. PBL Report,

15 Outline Presentation: Questions What is the total reduction from the Annex I pledges? 2. How comparable are the pledges? 3. What is the total reduction from the non-annex I NAMAs? 4. What is the current emission gap for meeting 2 o C target? 5. What are mitigation options for narrowing the emission gap to the 2 o C target? 6. What are the risks of offers being watered down? 7. What are the implications for the post-2012 carbon market? 8. What is the impact of postponing emission reductions from 2020 to 2030?

16 Abatement costs Annex I are % of GDP in 2020, carbon price 13 USD for low and 16 for high pledges den Elzen, M.G.J. et al.,the Copenhagen Accord: abatement costs and carbon prices resulting from the submissions. Environ. Sci. Policy (2010), doi: /j.envsci

17 Submitted actions of non-annex I countries have abatement costs of % of GDP in 2020 den Elzen, M.G.J. et al.,the Copenhagen Accord: abatement costs and carbon prices resulting from the submissions. Environ. Sci. Policy (2010), doi: /j.envsci

18 Reduction targets, banking of surpluses, land use, credits & baseline assumptions highly affect outcome 2020 Scenario Emission reduction targets Annex I relative to 1990 levels Non- Annex I relative to baseline carbon price International Global USD /tco 2 Total abatement costs (including financial transfers for financing) Billion USD Annex I excl. Russia & Ukraine Russia & Ukraine Seven major emerging economies Default (high pledge) a. Full use/trading surplus AAUs b. No use/trading surplus AAUs Rest of Non- Annex I a. Full emission trading b. No emission trading a. No land use credits b. High estimate land use credits den Elzen, M.G.J. et al.,the Copenhagen Accord: abatement costs and carbon prices resulting from the submissions. Environ. Sci. Policy (2010), doi: /j.envsci

19 Reduction targets, banking of surpluses, land use, credits & baseline assumptions highly affect outcome Default(high pledges) Fulluseof surplusaaus Global Annex IexclRussia&Ukraine Russia& Ukraine Seven major Non-Annex I countries Rest of Non-Annex I Nouseof surplusaaus Full emission trading No emission trading No land use and forestry credits estimate of land use and forestry credits Percentage of GDP den Elzen, M.G.J. et al.,the Copenhagen Accord: abatement costs and carbon prices resulting from the submissions. Environ. Sci. Policy (2010), doi: /j.envsci

20 Outline Presentation: Questions What is the total reduction from the Annex I pledges? 2. How comparable are the pledges? 3. What is the total reduction from the non-annex I NAMAs? 4. What is the current emission gap for meeting 2 o C target? 5. What are mitigation options for narrowing the emission gap to the 2 o C target? 6. What are the risks of offers being watered down? 7. What are the implications for the post-2012 carbon market? 8. What is the impact of postponing emission reductions from 2020 to 2030?

21 Postponing emission reductions from 2020 to 2030 increases climate risks and long-term costs Meeting the same 2050 target is feasible, but under higher climate risks and higher costs Full compensation, i.e. equal cumulative emissions not feasible under standard technological assumptions. This would require: reductions of more than 4% per year over the period; extreme reliance on biomass use and CCS (BECS) den Elzen, M.G.J., et al. (2010b). Postponing emission reductions from 2020 to 2030 increases climate risks and long-term costs - A letter. Climatic Change 99(1-2), Source: Climatic Change Letters, den Elzen et al.2010

22 Postponing emission reductions from 2020 to 2030 increases climate risks and long-term costs Environmental cost: higher cumulative emissions result in 15% lower probability of meeting 2 degree target Future carbon price and cost (% of GDP) much higher than in default case; discounted costs 40% lower (lower mitigation effort- delayed action) Default pathway Delayed pathway Cumulative reductions 2000 to 2050 (GtCO 2 ) Probability of exceeding 2 C 39% [21-59]% 55% [33-74]% Averaged annual reduction rate period 2030 to 2050 global United States EU Global abatement costs as % of GDP Cumulative discounted costs 2000 to % 5.0% 3.9% 3.7% 6.0% 5.0% 0.4% 0.01% 1.4 % 2.4 % 12 Trillion USD (2005) 7 Trillion USD (2005) den Elzen, M.G.J., den Elzen, M. G. J., van Bron: Vuuren, Climatic D. Change P. and Letters, van Vliet, J. (2010b). Postponing emission reductions from 2020 den to ELzen 2030 et increases al.2010 climate risks and longterm

23 Conclusions (1) The present mitigation offers of Annex I countries (12-18%) are insufficient to meet 2 o C target EU and Japan: only the more ambitious pledge would be just in line with the comparable-effort reduction range USA: not In line, unless additional REDD-financed reductions. Canada s pledge is much below their comparable effort reduction range Russia and the Ukraine: above BAU (new hot air) Mitigation actions non-annex I countries are insufficient to meet 2 o C target and depend on financing by Annex I Reductions subject to uncertainties (baseline, GDP growth, interpretation national plans)

24 Conclusions (2) Current high offers lead to GtCO 2 e, whereas GtCO 2 e is required for 2 o C. Thus there is gap of 3-5 GtCO 2 e. Additional options that may narrow the 2 o C emission gap are: eliminating LULUCF credits Annex I avoiding new hot air China adopting national climate plan Important risks that could water down are: lower reduction targets (USA, Japan) high estimate LULUCF credits banking of Kyoto hot air Postponing emission reductions from 2020 to 2030 increases climate risks and long-term abatement costs

25 Conclusions (3) Global abatements costs are projected to be around billion USD (low versus high pledges) The costs relative to GDP seem to be similar in Annex I and main Non- Annex I countries According to our calculations, the countries with the lowest costs are Russia, the Ukraine, India and China The numbers found are subject to considerable uncertainty. Three of the most important uncertainties include surplus AAUs of Russia and the Ukraine, land-use and forestry rules, and the domestic reduction requirement.

26 B. Implications of long-term targets for the developing countries

27 Outline presentation: questions 1. What are cost-effective pathways, incl. Copenhagen Accord pledges, with a medium likelihood of meeting the 2 degree target? And how does this match with existing target for 2050 (i.e. G8)? 2. What do the global 50% and Annex I 80-95% reduction targets by 2050 imply for the emissions left for the non-annex I countries, like China and India, that do not have such targets? What is the impact of the 80-95% Annex I reduction target? 3. How different are these targets for China and India, compared to those calculated from the allocation approaches used by the IPCC AR4? 4. What would the 2050 reduction targets for China and India imply for their energy transition? Is it technically feasible to meet these targets? Will it affect their economic development?

28 Our 400 & 450ppm cost-effective emission pathways show 2050 emissions around the G8 target of 50% Global 2050 target: 450 ppm BECS: 22% 450 ppm default: 37% 400 ppm BECS: 46% below 1990 levels Probability exceeding 2 o C: 450 ppm BECS: 58% 450 ppm default: 52% 400 ppm BECS: 48%

29 Outline presentation: questions 1. What are cost-effective pathways, incl. Copenhagen Accord pledges, with a medium likelihood of meeting the 2 degree target? And how does this match with existing target for 2050 (i.e. G8)? 2. What do the global 50% and Annex I 80-95% reduction targets by 2050 imply for the emissions left for the non-annex I countries, like China and India, that do not have such targets? What is the impact of the 80-95% Annex I reduction target? 3. How different are these targets for China and India, compared to those calculated from the allocation approaches used by the IPCC AR4? 4. What would the 2050 reduction targets for China and India imply for their energy transition? Is it technically feasible to meet these targets? Will it affect their economic development?

30 The emissions implications for NAI by 2050 are more determined by the global emission target than by the 80-95% range of AI reductions World = 50% decrease vs 1990 World = 70% decrease vs 1990 World = 35% decrease vs 1990 If Annex I does reduction% vs 1990 Then Non Annex I does vs baseline Then Non Annex I does vs 2005 Per capita emissions Non- Annex I Annex I world 80% -70% -41% % -64% -30% % -85% -71% % -79% -59% % -58% -19% % -53% -8% A global 50% target implies 30-40% reduction below 2005 for non-ai, and lower reductions below 1990 for the EU (60-90%) than for the USA (80-95%)

31 Converging per-capita emissions by 2050 leads to 80-85% reduction AI below 1990 and 20-35% non-a I below 2005 Then Annex I does vs 1990 Then Non Annex I does vs baseline Then Non Annex I does vs 2005 per capita Annex I per capita Non- Annex I per capita world World = 50% decrease vs % -67% -36% World = 70% decrease vs % -65% -32% World = 35% decrease vs % -58% -17% A global 50% target implies per capita emissions would converge at around 85% AI reduction

32 A 50% global target and per-capita convergence: emissions China peak by , then reduce 55-65% by 2050 GtCO2eq Greenhouse gas em issions (excl. Land use CO2) Brazil China India South Africa USA EU time (years) India s emissions would peak by , and then decrease to a level of 60-95% above 2005 levels Including high ambitious CPH pledges

33 Outline presentation: questions 1. What are cost-effective pathways, incl. Copenhagen Accord pledges, with a medium likelihood of meeting the 2 degree target? And how does this match with existing target for 2050 (i.e. G8)? 2. What do the global 50% and Annex I 80-95% reduction targets by 2050 imply for the emissions left for the non-annex I countries, like China and India, that do not have such targets? What is the impact of the 80-95% Annex I reduction target? 3. How different are these targets for China and India, compared to those calculated from the allocation approaches used by the IPCC AR4? 4. What would the 2050 reduction targets for China and India imply for their energy transition? Is it technically feasible to meet these targets? Will it affect their economic development?

34 The following climate regimes for differentiation of future commitments have been explored 1. Equal Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) or tax approach (dependent on assumed MACs) 2. Contraction & Convergence (C&C) 3. Common-but-differentiated convergence (CDC) 4. Multi-Stage approach (not shown, reductions between C&C and CDC) Approaches 2, 3 and 4 used for the IPCC AR4 Box 13.7 For 400 ppm (BECS) and 450 ppm (default)

35 Reductions below 1990 levels, Annex I reductions within 80-95% range, except for equal MAC/Tax

36 China s reductions to below 2005 levels are about the world s average (35-50%), but are lower for equal MAC approach

37 Reductions below BAU levels: China s reductions are around the world s average (65-70%), India lower

38 Outline presentation: questions 1. What are cost-effective pathways, incl. Copenhagen Accord pledges, with a medium likelihood of meeting the 2 degree target? And how does this match with existing target for 2050 (i.e. G8)? 2. What do the global 50% and Annex I 80-95% reduction targets by 2050 imply for the emissions left for the non-annex I countries, like China and India, that do not have such targets? What is the impact of the 80-95% Annex I reduction target? 3. How different are these targets for China and India, compared to those calculated from the allocation approaches used by the IPCC AR4? 4. What would the 2050 reduction targets for China and India imply for their energy transition? Is it technically feasible to meet these targets? Will it affect their economic development?

39 Emission reduction challenge for China (400 ppm) GtCO2eq Baseline Converging per capita emissions Equal tax/mac Emissions China Target: 55% below 2005; 80% below BAU Actual emissions: 35%below 2005; 70% below BAU Seller credits Buyer credits time (years)

40 Energy transition China (400ppm BECS): energy efficiency, CCS and biofuels GtCO2/yr 14 Energy CO2 emissions of China Emission Efficiency Renewables Nuclear Biofuels CCS Other Fuel switch

41 Conclusions The emissions implications for non-ai, by 2050, will be determined more by the stringency of the global emission target (i.e. above or below 50%) than by the 80-95% range of AI reductions. Under a global 50% reduction target with convergence in percapita emissions, all major developing countries would have to reduce their emissions compared to baseline, but China has an emission reduction target of 50% below 2005 levels, while India would still be allowed an increase compared to 2005 levels (peaking by 2030).