Technology and Climate Policy in the Post-Copenhagen World: GTSP Research

Transcription

1 Technology and Climate Policy in the Post-Copenhagen World: GTSP Research Jae Edmonds The Global Energy Technology Strategy Annual Meeting May 23, 2011 The Cosmos Club, Washington, DC

2 Acknowledgements! Thanks to all of the sponsors of the GTSP and to the PNNL integrated assessment modeling program for research support. 2

3 Overview of the Presentation! Update on GCAM! The Post-Copenhagen World! Multiple Motivations! The Importance of Technology! Comparability in a Mosaic World! Interactions with Other Issues! Chinese local air quality and the rate of climate change! REDD policies in a Mosaic world! An Uncertain Future 3

4 4 UPDATE ON GCAM

5 GCAM Human and Natural Earth Systems MAGICC The Energy System Ocean Carbon Cycle Energy Demand Technologies Energy Demand Energy Markets Energy Production. Transformation & Use The Economy Regional Labor Force Regional Labor Productivity Technology Regional Land Categories and Characteristics Regional GDP Demand Crops Livestock Forests products Supply Crops Livestock Biocrops Foresty Products Regional Resource Bases Regional Energy Conversion Technologies Agriculture and Land Use Energy Supply Commercial Biomass Ag-Land Markets Land rent Crop prices Livestock prices Forest product prices Biomass prices GHG Emissions Land Use Change Emissions Production Crops Livestock Forests products Biomass energy Land Use Crops Livestock Managed Forests Unmanaged Terrestrial Carbon Cycle Atmospheric Composition, Radiative Forcing, & Climate 5

6 Major new developments 1. Variable time steps (5-year time steps) and beyond Global Primary Energy [EJ] Other Renewables Nuclear Biomass Natural Gas Oil Coal Global Electricity Genera4on [EJ] Geothermal Wind Solar Hydro Nuclear Biomass Gas Oil Coal Global Final Energy [EJ] Hydrogen Electricity Gas Liquids Trad Biomass Biomass Coal

7 Major new developments 1. Variable time steps (5-year time steps) and beyond GCAM-AEZ: USA Wheat Yields 2. GCAM 3 the new agriculture-land-use model GCAM- AEZ (more on this at the Technical Workshop) 7

8 Major new developments 1. Variable time steps (5-year time steps) and beyond GCAM-old: USA Wheat Yields 2. GCAM 3 the new agriculture-land-use model GCAM- AEZ (more on this at the Technical Workshop) 8

9 Major new developments 1. Variable time steps (5-year time steps) and beyond GCAM-AEZ: USA Wheat Yields 2. GCAM 3 the new agriculture-land-use model GCAM- AEZ (more on this at the Technical Workshop) 9

10 GCAM Human and Natural Earth Systems MAGICC The Energy System Ocean Carbon Cycle Energy Demand Technologies Energy Demand Energy Markets Energy Production. Transformation & Use The Economy Regional Labor Force Regional Labor Productivity Technology Regional Land Categories and Characteristics Regional GDP Demand Crops Livestock Forests products Supply Crops Livestock Biocrops Foresty Products Regional Resource Bases Regional Energy Conversion Technologies Agriculture and Land Use Energy Supply Commercial Biomass Ag-Land Markets Land rent Crop prices Livestock prices Forest product prices Biomass prices GHG Emissions Fresh Water Land Use Change Emissions Production Crops Livestock Forests products Biomass energy Land Use Crops Livestock Managed Forests Unmanaged Terrestrial Carbon Cycle Atmospheric Composition, Radiative Forcing, & Climate 10

11 Major new developments 1. Variable time steps (5-year time steps) and beyond GCAM 3 the new agriculture-land-use model GCAM- AEZ (more on this at the Technical Workshop) 3. Fresh Water GCAM Fresh Water Supply Model GCAM Domestic Water Consumption 11

12 THE POST-COPENHAGEN WORLD 12

13 A Post-Copenhagen World! From the Framework Convention (1992 UNFCCC) to Kyoto (1997 COP3) the dream was a unified, comprehensive, & global program to stabilize GHG concentrations.! Where, When and How flexibility ruled.! In the decade between Den Haag (2000 COP6) and Copenhagen (2009 COP15)! that paradigm broke apart on the rocks of who and how much?! The world is unlikely to assemble a unified program. What are the implications?! Messy policies! More expensive emissions mitigation! Technology is even more important 13

14 14 Technology is more valuable in a Mosaic world! Improving technology always lowers costs.! Cost reductions are even larger with inefficient policies. Trillions (10^12) Present Discounted (@5% 2005 to 2095) 2000 Constant USD Advanced Renewables, Nuclear, & End- Use Tech Full Participation (450ppm) Delayed Participation (450ppm) Advanced Bioenergy & CCS Tech Advanced All Technologies

15 Technology is not a Silver Bullet 25 Range over 348 technology scenarios 800 PgC/year Range 348 Technology Scenarios PPM CO Range 348 Technology Scenarios Pre- industrial CO 2 Concentration

16 16 MULTIPLE MOTIVATIONS

17 Climate Policy Will Be Designed in the Context of Other Motivations! Economic Prosperity! Security! Fairness! Justice and Morality! Environmental Effectiveness! Cost Effectiveness Environment Economy Security 17

18 0.25% 0.20% 0.15% 0.10% 0.05% 0.00% Multi-track regimes lead to less efficient allocation of emissions mitigation, across regions, sectors, and technologies. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Emissions Reduction (Fossil and Industrial CO 2) Costs (Fraction of GDP) 0.25% Targets + Sectoral Agreements 0.20% challenging to use Targets these 0.15% policy + Policy structures Commitments + Sectoral Agreements Costs (Fraction of GDP) 2020 It becomes increasingly as mitigation becomes 0.10% more stringent % 3.50% Targets 3.00% + Policy Commitments 0.05% 2.50% First-best (fully efficient) 0.00% 2.00% Targets + Policy Commitments 0% 5% 10% 1.50% 15% + 20% Sectoral Agreements Emissions Reduction (Fossil and Industrial CO 2 ) 1.00% Global Target Costs (Fraction of GDP) 0.70% 0.60% 0.50% 0.40% 0.30% 0.20% 0.10% 0.00% % 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Emissions Reduction (Fossil and Industrial CO 2) Costs (Fraction of GDP) 0.50% 0.00% ! Inefficient policies are.inefficient. 2050! The devil is in the details of the policy Targets + Sectoral Agreements itself. Targets + Policy Commitments 450 First-best (fully efficient) 18 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Emissions Reduction (Fossil and Industrial CO 2 )

19 Stabilization in Three, Really Difficult, Steps The original vision, going into the 1997 Kyoto Protocol negotiations, was that a comprehensive agreement would be negotiated based on the principle of cap-and-trade. Reality is turning out to be much more complicated. 1. Getting things started. 2. Global comprehensive regime. 3. Getting from 1 to 2. Global Fossil Fuel Carbon Emissions PgC per Year Historical Emissions 750 ppm Stabilization 650 ppm Stabilization 550 ppm Stabilization 450 ppm Stabilization Reference Scenario Getting started Transition Comprehensive Regime

20 20 REDD REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM DEFORESTATION AND FOREST DEGRADATION

21 REDD in a reference scenario ASSUMPTIONS! There is no price on carbon anywhere.! We assume that some fraction of unmanaged forests are banked in carbon parks.! Carbon parks cannot be converted to managed ecosystems.! Carbon parks do not prevent land-use change emissions due to changes in carbon density of managed systems. 21

22 REDD in a reference scenario! Carbon parks have almost no effect on bioenergy production.! Carbon parks reduce cumulative land-use change emissions the more extensively they are deployed. PgCO Cumulative Land- use Change Emissions Cumulative Emissions Reference 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 22 Fraction of Forests in Carbon Parks

23 How much does a REDD program help? 23 Fraction of Forest Included in the Program Reduction in Land-Use Emissions (PgC) Marginal Rate of Emissions Mitigation for the Next 1% Added to the REDD System 0-10% PgC 10-50% PgC 50-90% PgC 90-95% PgC Reference Case Cumulative Land-use Change Emissions ~ 350 PgC

24 How does one compare level of effort when emissions regimes are heterogeneous? COMPARABILITY 24

25 The trouble with comparability! The trouble with comparability is that if you force everyone to do the same thing in one dimension, they will have to be different in other dimensions.! No agreement as to what the RIGHT metric of effort really is! equal percentage reduction from a historic year (which year?),! equal percentage reduction from a future year (How do we predict that?),! equal percentage reduction in GDP per capita,! not to be confused with what the right emissions allowance should be.! If you change the metric for comparison, the nominal emissions mitigation can dramatically different.! What if the US returned to 1990 emissions levels in 2020? 25

26 2020 CO2 Emission Reduction Targets Measured Relative to 2020 BAU level 20% 10% equal reduction from baseline 1990 equal reduction from baseline 2005 equal MAC equal TAC/GDP equal TAC/GDP (no trade) % change from 2020 emission level 0% - 10% - 20% - 30% 26-40% USA FSU EU15+ Japan Canada Australia_NZ EU27+ ANNEX I

27 2020 CO2 Emission Reduction Targets Measured Relative to 2005 level 20% 10% equal reduction from baseline 1990 equal reduction from baseline 2020 equal MAC equal TAC/GDP equal TAC/GDP (no trade) % change from 2005 emission level 0% - 10% - 20% - 30% 27-40% USA FSU EU15+ Japan Canada Australia_NZ EU27+ ANNEX I

28 2020 CO2 Emission Reduction Targets Measured Relative to 1990 level 20% 10% equal reduction from baseline 2005 equal reduction from baseline 2020 equal MAC equal TAC/GDP equal TAC/GDP (no trade) % change from 1990 emission level 0% - 10% - 20% - 30% 28-40% USA FSU EU15+ Japan Canada Australia_NZ EU27+ ANNEX I

29 INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER ISSUES 29

30 Chinese Air Quality! China is the largest fossil fuel CO 2 emitter.! It has severe local air quality issues.! It is also the world s largest sulfur emitter. 30

31 True-color MODIS image from October 22, Source:

32 Radiative Forcing: Aerosols are estimated reduce radiative forcing by almost as much as CO 2 increases it! 5.0 Radiative Forcing (4.5 W/m 2 ) (3.7 W/m 2 ) W/m Ozone (trop) Strat H2O from CH4 Surface Albedo (BC on snow ) Linear contrails Solar irradiance CFCs Non-CFC Halocarbons N 2 O CH ppm-e (1.7 W/m 2 ) 450 (2.6 W/m 2 ) 400 (2 W/m 2 ) CO 2 Total Anthropogenic (All gases and short-lived species) 335 (1 W/m 2 ) (0 W/m 2 ) -0.5 Total Aerosols (Cloud effects) -1.0 Total Aerosols (direct) Surface Albedo (land) Ozone (strat)

33 CHINESE Sulfur Emissions Without Additional Controls TgSO 2 /yr CHINA Sulfur Emissions 33

34 CHINESE Sulfur Emissions and GLOBAL Mean Surface Temperature with Accelerated Sulfur Emissions Policies With Emissions Controls Without Additional Controls Without Additional Controls TgSO 2 /yr 80 degrees C CHINA Sulfur Emissions Global Mean Surface Temperature Change from Preindustrial 34

35 CHINESE Sulfur Emissions and GLOBAL Mean Surface Temperature with Accelerated Sulfur Emissions Policies With Emissions Controls Without Additional Controls With Emissions Controls Without Additional Controls TgSO 2 /yr 80 degrees C CHINA Sulfur Emissions Global Mean Surface Temperature Change from Preindustrial 35

36 Rate of Climate Change With and Without Accelerated Chinese Sulfur Controls degrees C/decade Reference CHINA Emissions Controls 0.05 Global Mean Surface Temperature Change

37 Rate of Climate Change With and Without Accelerated Chinese Sulfur Controls degrees C/decade With CHINA SULFUR Emissions Controls Reference CHINA Emissions Controls 0.05 Global Mean Surface Temperature Change

38 38 AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE

39 Into the Matrix: A New Scenario Architecture! The Scenario Matrix Architecture (SMA): The concept of multiple scenarios to systematically explore key uncertainties, useful to IAV and IAM researchers, clustered into families defined by 1. Shared socio-ecological pathway (SSP) assumptions, 2. Shared policy assumptions (SPA) about mitigative stringency, and A Matrix of Scenarios Shared Socio-ecological Pathways (SSPs) & Mitigation Ref SSP6 SSP9 SSP13 RCP 8.5 # # 39! The SSPs: Assumptions about the state of global and regional society and ecosystems as they evolve over the course of the 21 st century.! Systematically explore key uncertainties in mitigative and adaptive capacity. RCP 6.0 RCP 4.5 RCP 2.6

40 Populations for the SSPs [billion] SSP6 SSP9 SSP13 (Based on UN World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision Long Range Projections, released in 2011) 40

41 41 Constructed GDP Scenarios [trillion 2000 USD]

42 Reference Scenario 2100 Radiative Forcing [W/m2] level 0.0 SSP13 RCP8.5 SSP9 SSP6 RCP6.0 RCP4.5 RCP2.6 42

43 Mitigation under the Three SSPs! We assumed a common global price of carbon applied to ALL emissions (fossil fuel and land-use change).! RCP 2.6 is an overshoot scenario! Other stabilization scenarios are not-to-exceed.! We observe difference in the initial price required to stabilize among the SSPs.! Of course, the big difference in price is between stabilization goals 43

44 Global Energy Prices (Indexed to 2005)! Higher population leads to more rapid increase in energy prices, particularly for crude oil and bio-energy. 44

45 Global Land Use! Greater population leads to greater crop land use, rapidly displacing the land use for forest, pasture, and bio-energy. 45

46 Land Use Change Emissions in Reference Scenarios! SSP13 results in the dramatic increase in land use change emissions throughout the century. 46

47 Reprise! Update on GCAM! The Post-Copenhagen World! Multiple Motivations! The Importance of Technology! Comparability in a Mosaic World! Interactions with Other Issues! Chinese local air quality and the rate of climate change! REDD policies in a Mosaic world! An Uncertain Future 47

48 48 DISCUSSION

49 49 BACKUP SLIDES

50 Net Land Use Change Emissions & Fossil Fuel and Industrial CO 2 Emissions For a given CO 2 concentration limit In the UTC regime ILUC disappears as an issue. In the FFICT regime high carbon prices drive bioenergy demands and ILUC 25,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 Land Use Change Emissions 550 UCT 500 UCT 450 UCT Reference 550 FFICT 500 FFICT 450 FFICT 20,000 15,000 Fossil Fuel and Industrial CO 2 Reference 550 UCT 500 UCT 450 UCT 550 FFICT 500 FFICT 450 FFICT TgC/yr 10,000 TgC/yr 10,000 5,000 5, , , Lower FF emissions are needed in FFICT regime to offset land use change emissions

51 Corn Price When Carbon Is Valued But No Bioenergy Is Produced 51! Significant crop price escalation occurs if carbon is valued, even in the absence of purpose grown bioenergy production.! Prior to 2040 the influence of bioenergy is negligible.! Prior to 2040 crop price escalation, relative to the reference scenario, is predominantly driven by the value of carbon. Index 2005= Corn Price Reference Reference Reference (no (no purpose-grown purpose-grown Reference bioenergy) bioenergy) Reference 500 UCT (no (no purpose-grown bioenergy) 500 UCT (no purpose-grown bioenergy) Reference 500 UCT UCT (no (no purpose-grown purpose-grown bioenergy) bioenergy) 500 FFICT

52 Policy without architecture! An international regime built around independent actions, employing heterogeneous policy instruments! Inevitably yields less than optimal emissions mitigation,! Gets messy fast, and! Produces a very different global energy system.! For the LinkS project we examined a hypothetical protocol in which emissions were controlled using a policy regime based on the EU 20/20/20 proposal.! 20% reduction in emissions! 20% reduction in primary energy use! 20% share of energy from renewables! In 2020

53 Policies can get messy fast: Assumptions applying the EU20/20/20 proposal to the world E. Europe W. Europe GHG (20%) EE (20%) RES (20%) TE (10%) GHG (50%) EE (50%) RES (50%) TE (25%) GHG (80%) EE (80%) RES (80%) TE (50%) GHG (80%) EE (80%) RES (80%) TE (50%) GHG (80%) EE (80%) RES (80%) TE (50%) GHG (80%) EE (80%) RES (80%) TE (50%) Australia/NZ Canada China Japan USA GHG (20%) EE (20%) RES (20%) TE (10%) GHG (50%) EE (50%) RES (50%) TE (25%) GHG (80%) EE (80%) RES (80%) TE (50%) GHG (80%) EE (80%) RES (80%) TE (50%) GHG (80%) EE (80%) RES (80%) TE (50%) FSU India L. America GHG (20%) EE (20%) RES (20%) TE (10%) GHG (50%) EE (50%) RES (50%) TE (25%) GHG (80%) EE (80%) RES (80%) TE (50%) GHG (80%) EE (80%) RES (80%) TE (50%) Africa Mid. East Korea S.E. Asia GHG (20%) EE (20%) RES (20%) TE (10%) GHG (50%) EE (50%) RES (50%) TE (25%) GHG (80%) EE (80%) RES (80%) TE (50%)

54 Global Electricity Generation in Global 20/20/20+ and economically efficient GHG Only Global

55 SSPs SSP1 Storyline 1: The storyline is a verbal description of the scenario. All nonquantitative aspects of the scenario are included in the storyline. Quantitative Variables that define IAM reference noclimate-policy scenario 1. E.g. reference scenario population by region by year. Quantitative Variables that define reference noclimate-policy scenario 1, but which are not IAM drivers. E.g. governance index or ecosystem productivity and sensitivity. SSP2 Storyline 2: The storyline is a verbal description of the scenario. All nonquantitative aspects of the scenario are included in the storyline. Quantitative Variables that define IAM reference noclimate-policy scenario2. E.g. reference scenario population by region by year. Quantitative Variables that define reference noclimate-policy scenario 2, but which are not IAM drivers. E.g. governance index or ecosystem productivity and sensitivity. Etc.

56 The Reference Scenario for an SSP! Our focus today will be on the quantitative assumptions that feed the GCAM IAM in terms of only TWO variables: Population & Economic Activity. Regional Climate Change Temperature, Precip, Storm intensity, Other Quantitative Variables that define reference no- climate- policy scenario 1, but which are not IAM drivers. E.g. governance index or ecosystem productivity and sensitivity. Quantitative Variables that define IAM reference no- climate- policy scenario 1. E.g. reference scenario population by region by year. Storyline 1: The storyline is a verbal description of the scenario. All non- quantitative aspects of the scenario are included in the storyline. SSP1 IAM Other IAM assumptions Quantitative Variables that define reference noclimate-policy scenario 1, but which are not IAM drivers. E.g. governance index or ecosystem productivity and sensitivity. Regional GDP, Pop, Energy prices, Energy mix, Commodity prices, Land prices, Crop prices, Trade, Land cover, GHG Emissions, pollutant emissions, Etc. Present Storyline 1: The storyline is a verbal description of the scenario. All nonquantitative aspects of the scenario are included in the storyline. SSP1 Reference Scenario

57 The Five Shared Policy Assumptions (SPAs) and The Three Shared Climate Assumptions (SCAs)! We explore three population pathways based on the NEW UN longrange projections (extension of 2008 revision)! High fertility rate scenario! Medium fertility rate scenario! Low fertility rate scenario! 5 SPAs representing a range of mitigative stringency:! No policy case (Ref)! End-of-the-century radiative forcing reaching 6.0, 4.5, 3.7, and 2.6! 3 SCAs representing a range of climate sensitivity:! Climate sensitivity of 2 o C, 3 o C, and 5 o C per doubling of CO 2! This gives 15 scenarios for each Shared Socio-ecosystem Pathway (SSP) 57