Clima East International climate negotiations workshop Riga, Latvia, 25-26 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 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
CLIMATE CHANGE 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change Michel den Elzen Lead AuthorChapter 13 Conributing Author Chapter 6 dreamstime
What does the AR5 WGIII tell us about mitigation action required to limit global warming to 2 C/1.5 C?
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 19.4 5
Stabilization of atmospheric concentrations requires moving away from the baseline regardless of the mitigation goal. Based on Figure 6.7 6
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
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 600-1200 GtC (historical emissions are about 1850 GtCO 2 )
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 (%) 4 2011 2100 2050 2100 Likelihood of temperature change Temperature change (relative to 1850 1900) 5,6 Likelihood of staying below temperature level over the 21 st century 8 1.5 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 630 1180-72 to -41-118 to -78 Likely (430 480) than likely 500 (480 530) 550 (530 580) No overshoot of 530 ppm CO2eq 960 1430-57 to -42-107 to -73 Overshoot of 530 ppm CO2eq 990 1550-55 to -25-114 to -90 No overshoot of 580 ppm CO2eq 1240 2240-47 to -19-81 to -59 Overshoot of 580 ppm CO2eq 1170 2100-16 to 7-183 to -86 (580 650) Total range 1870 2440-38 to 24-134 to -50 Unlikely More likely than not About as likely as not More unlikely than likely 12 Likely Likely More likely than (650 720) Total range 2570 3340-11 to 17-54 to -21 Unlikely not More unlikely (720 1000) Total range 3620 4990 18 to 54-7 to 72 than likely Unlikely 11 >1000 Total range 5350 7010 52 to 95 74 to 178 Unlikely 11 Unlikely More unlikely than likely
Mitigation involves substantial upscaling of low-carbon energy. 10
Mitigation involves substantial upscaling of low-carbon energy. Based on Figure 7.16 11
Delaying mitigation increases the difficulty and narrows the options for limiting warming to 2 C. immediate action 12
Delaying mitigation increases the difficulty and narrows the options for limiting warming to 2 C. 13
Delaying mitigation increases the difficulty and narrows the options for limiting warming to 2 C. 14
Delaying mitigation is estimated to increase the difficulty and narrow the options for limiting warming to 2 C. delayed mitigation immediate action 15
Delaying mitigation is estimated to increase the difficulty and narrow the options for limiting warming to 2 C. 16
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
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
Delaying mitigation is estimated to increase the difficulty and narrow the options for limiting warming to 2 C. 19
Delaying mitigation is estimated to increase the difficulty and narrow the options for limiting warming to 2 C. Based on Figures 6.32 and 7.16 20
Delayed mitigation significantly increases the challenge to reach low concentration targets Source: Figure SPM.5
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
What does the AR5 WGIII tell us about mitigation action required to limit global warming to 2 C/1.5 C?
Reduction proposals (2020) for Copenhagen Accord (2009), as anchored in Cancun Agreements (2010) 22 June 2015 Michel den Elzen www.pbl.nl/indc/
Thirteen Parties have submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) for Paris(15 June 2015) Not shown: Ethiopia, Gabon, Japan, Morocco, Liechtenstein, Andorra www.pbl.nl/indc/ 22 June 2015 Michel den Elzen
These thirteen countries represent about 32% of global emissions in 2010 Country % of global GHG emissions Unconditional INDC (conditional*) 2010 2025 2030 base year Switzerland 0.1% -35% -50% 1990 EU 28 9.6% - -40% 1990 Norway 0.1% - -40% 1990 Mexico (incl. LULUCF) 1.5% -22%(-36%*) BAU 2030 US (incl. LULUCF) 11.9% -26% to -28% - 2005 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 www.pbl.nl/indc/ 26 22 June 2015 Michel den Elzen
Reduction effort compared to different base-year levels: Country Unconditional INDC (conditional*) base year: 1990 2005 2010 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 27 18 June 2015 Michel den Elzen www.pbl.nl/indc/
The INDCs could reduce the global emissions by 2.5 GtCO 2 e, which is about 15% of the 2 o C emission gap 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 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 ~19 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2 C emission gap: 18.9 Gt to 16.3 Gt 28 22 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) www.pbl.nl/indc/
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 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0-1000 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Current policies: den Elzen et al., 2015, Enhanced policy scenarios for major emitting countries, www.pbl.nl/en 29 5 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 2050 2 degree LIMITS (Fig 4): Tavoni, M. et al. Nature Clim. Change 5, pp. 119-126 *
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 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 Mt CO2 eq per year 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 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
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 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 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 4000 2020 Pledge 2000 China: -1.5% 2030 INDC of emission per 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 energy consumption (NF), -3% energy intensity of GDP, 22 June 2015 Michel needed den Elzen for peaking
PBL INDC tool: to show the impact INDCs on GHGs www.pbl.nl/indc/ Select a country and explore impact of INDC and current policies on GHG emissions 32 22 June 2015 Michel den Elzen
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
PBL reports (www.pbl.nl/en) Recent policy brief Enhancing mitigation ambitions in the major emitting countries: analysis of current and potential climate policies, http://www.pbl.nl/en INDC assessment Regular updates infographics (updates: September, November 2015, January 2016), see: www.pbl.nl/indc 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) 34 22 June 2015 Michel den Elzen