INDCs and 2 C trajectories

Transcription

1 INDCs and 2 C trajectories Groupe Interdisciplinaire sur les Contributions Nationales Interdisciplinary Group on National Contributions Funded by: December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 1

2 The Interdisciplinary Group on National Contributions (GICN) Hervé Le Treut(IPSL, UPMC): coordinator Olivier Boucher(LMD, IPSL, CNRS): co-coordinator Hélène Benveniste (IPSL) : scientific secretary Philippe Ciais (LSCE, IPSL, CEA) François-Marie Bréon (LSCE, IPSL, CEA) Franck Lecocq (CIRED, AgroParistech) Céline Guivarch (CIRED, ENPC) Thomas Gasser (LSCE, IPSL, CIRED) Patrick Criqui (EDDEN, CNRS-UGA) Sandrine Mathy (EDDEN, CNRS-UGA) Emmanuel Prados (INRIA-Grenoble) David Salas (Météo-France) Roland Séférian (Météo-France) Valentin Bellassen (INRA, Dijon) v December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 2

3 Introduction: from Kyoto to Paris Accounting of INDCs INDCs and 2 C trajectories Summing-up INDC studies December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui (GICN) 3

4 From Kyoto and Copenhagen to Paris: Kyoto Protocol (1997, COP3) : a new approach Industrialized countries (ANNEX B) signed a protocol for reducing GHG emissions by at least 5% between 2008 and 2012 compared to From Kyoto to Copenhagen (2009, COP15) : A top-down approach to international negotiation with an underlying scheme of global cap + burden sharing + emission trading Negotiations failed on a global agreement, except on two points (the 2 C target and the Green Climate Fund and finance issue) Copenhagen was thus a failure, but also a fresh start From Copenhagen to Paris, towards a new era: A bottom-up approach initially based on a national pledge and review system and eventually on the INDCs, to be proposed by every Party The agreement will build on these contributions and on the solutions proposed to ease the situation of less advanced countries, in terms of financing of the mitigation and adaptation effort December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 4

5 INDCs: an overview INDC = Intended Nationally Determined Contributions Elaborated on a national level by governments Do not yet represent firm or legally binding commitments Pre-COP21 INDCs were to be published by all Parties since March On December 1 st 2015, published INDCs represent 149 parties (including the European Union) and 176 countries 93% of 2010 global GHG emissions 94% of global population December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 5

6 The published INDCs: contents and formats Format: short documents, free access Main content: Emissions reductions targets Possible supplemental information: Adaptation targets (especially for developing countries) Renewable energy targets Forest management targets Other measures Three dimensions for assessing INDCs: Qualification of each INDC intrinsic ambition Aggregation with a consistent methodology Comparison with 2 C global emission pathways December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 6

7 Introduction: from Kyoto to Paris Accounting of INDCs INDCs and 2 C trajectories Summing-up INDC studies December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui (GICN) 7

8 GICN accounting for INDCs Difficulty: no precise definition of what should be included in INDCs. Each party is free to define the object (type of GHG), the variable (absolute, baseline, intensity), the dates, the economic sectors concerned In the GICN study, we consider four country groupings: The Triad (US, Europe, China) representing 43 % of GHG emissionsin major emitters from the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project(DDPP), 28% of emissions in major emitters non-ddpp, 10% of emissions in 2012 Rest of World, 19% of emissions in 2012: Annex I countries, emerging countries, oil exporters and rest. All-GHG emissions (EDGAR without Land Use) and Land Use emissions (FAO): Available INDCs are translated into all-ghg emissions in 2030, with reasoned assumptions for a limited number of countries/regions December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 8

9 How we deal with intensity targets China and India, two major countries in the negotiation: Targets in terms of carbon intensity: MtCO 2 /GDP unit for China, MtCO 2 eq/gdp unit for India Full quantification requires assumptions on economic growth Selected assumptions on GDP growth: China: from current 7%/yr, decreasing to 5 or 4%/yr in 2030 India: from current 6.5%/yr, decreasing to 5 or 4%/yr in 2030 In the low growth hypothesis (4%/yr), Chinese emissions peak before 2030 The yearly decrease rate in carbon intensity (overall 60-65% C intensity reduction over the period) becomes higher than economic growth rate shortly before 2030 India s emissions continue to rise over the period, even under low growth With India s per capita emissions at one third that of China today, the reduction in carbon intensity until 2030 is less pronounced (33-35%) December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 9

10 INDCs Source: GICN, 2015 The aggregation of INDCs With a careful consideration of conditional/non conditional INDCs, uncertainties regarding intensity targets and influence of LULUCF, we find a range of aggregated INDCs between 58 and 65 GtCO 2 eq in 2030 MtCO2e GHG EDGAR INDC USA EU inconditionnel/ min /référence 2030/2012 conditionnel/ inconditionnel conditionnel average economic incondition max /min /max référence growth nel/min % -32% / % -16% % -40% / % -24% % 8% 43% Triad % -4% Canada Mexico Brazil South Africa December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 10 conditionnel /max % -30% / % -21% ,0% -36% /BAU 7% -12% % -43% / % -35% PPD PPD /PPD 43% -7% % -30% / % 13% % -25% / % -33% % -37% /BAU -21% -21% % -28% / % -21% ,5 to 5 or 127% 104% in % -41% /BAU -1% -18% Russia Japan South Korea Australia India Indonesia 28% DDPP % 9% United Arab Emirates % 30% / % 30% Egypt % 30% / % 30% Iran % 30% / % 30% Saudi Arabia % 30% / % 30% Kazakhstan % -25% / % -24% Malaysia % 15% / % 15% Taiwan % 15% / % 15% Turkey in % -21% /BAU 95% 95% Thailand env. 378 in 2012 (p % -25% /BAU 0% -6% Ukraine % -40% / % 45% International Aviation /BAU 197% 73% International Shipping % -15% /BAU 30% 10% 10% Sup % 30% Other Annex 1 countries % -17% Other emerging countries % 66% Other high income oil exporters % 21% 19% Rest of World % 33% Total (bottom-up) % 10%

11 Introduction: from Kyoto to Paris Accounting of INDCs INDCs and 2 C trajectories Summing-up INDC studies December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui (GICN) 11

12 The 2 C trajectories: considering different carbon budgets The interpretation of the 2 C compatibility crucially depends on: The emission dynamics before and after 2030 The assumptions regarding the possibility of significant negative emissions in the second half of the century. Different carbon budgets associated with the 2 C 2030 emission levels and consequent rates of emission goal, with or without negative emissions. Source: reduction and development of low carbon energy between IPCC WG1 AR5, UNEP Gap Report, 2014, GICN 2030 and Source: IPCC WG3 AR5 SPM December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 12

13 INDCs compared to IPCC 2 C pathways The range of consolidated INDCs as computed by GICN is compatible only with those IPCC AR5 trajectories that correspond to: a delayed action a sharp downturn in 2030 negative emissions by the end of the century GHG emissions (GtCO2eq) IPCC 2 C scenarios and INDCs Value 2010 Range BAU (UNEP) Range INDCs Years Source: IPCC WG3 AR5 SPM, 2014; GICN, 2015 December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 13

14 Use of the REDEM software to compute soft landing emission pathways REDEM draws on the concept of soft landing in emissions to compute national or world CO 2 emission trajectories in order to generate trajectories that are compatible with observed CO 2 emissions until 2014 (emissions and their trends) exogenous cumulative CO 2 emissions to 2100 REDEM main parameters are the date of the peak in the emission declining rate and a curvature factor The software also allows to handle a pool of negative CO 2 emissions Non CO 2 gas are introduced on top of CO 2 emissions, based on the median of IPCC RCP2.6 scenarios REDEM derives trajectories for different probabilities of reaching a given temperature level, according to the timing of action (early-mid-late) December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 14

15 INDCs compared to REDEM 2 C pathways (1) without negative emissions Trajectorieswithout negative CO 2 emissions for different probabilities of reaching the 2 C target and different maximum effort dates, against aggregated INDCs. December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 15

16 INDCs compared to REDEM 2 C pathways (2) with negative emissions Trajectorieswith negative CO 2 emissions (500 GtCO 2 eq) for different probabilities of reaching the 2 C target and different maximum effort dates, against aggregated INDCs. December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 16

17 Introduction: from Kyoto to Paris Accounting of INDCs INDCs and 2 C trajectories Summing-up INDC studies December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui (GICN) 17

18 Summing up INDCs assessment studies Differences in treatment of -baseline 2010 emissions -land use emissions -C intensity targets -small countries December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 18

19 Conclusions at the beginning of COP21 Changes in climate negotiations since COP15 in Copenhagen have introduced the necessity of combining the top-down and bottom-up approaches for the 2 C target. This necessity is here to stay after COP21. Our analysis shows that existing INDCs are a significant step towards 2 C compatible pathways, but that they still do not ensure a sufficient probability of success. The 2 C target has been adopted in Copenhagen with consideration of scientific analyses in the IPCC reports. But the remaining gap between the aggregated INDCsfor 2030 and the 2 C trajectories reveals the importance of the national socio-economic constraints to be overcome. To catch up with a 2 C trajectory, the ambition of INDCs for 2030 will have to be reinforced in future negotiation cycles, while major efforts will have to be undertaken as soon as possible in order to achieve accelerated decarbonization rates after 2030 through structural transformation, low carbon technologies and negative emissions. December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 19

20 December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 20