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
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
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
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 1990. 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
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 2015. 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
The published INDCs: contents and formats Format: short documents, free access http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/submission%20pages/submissions.aspx 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
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
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 2012 10 major emitters from the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project(DDPP), 28% of emissions in 2012 10 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): 1990-2012 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
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
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 2012 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2012 INDC USA EU inconditionnel/ min 2030 2030/référence 2030/2012 conditionnel/ inconditionnel conditionnel average economic incondition max /min /max référence growth nel/min 5960 6128 6722 6768 6278 5632 4833 4710-30% -32% /2005-14% -16% 5587 5039 4942 4989 4685 4431 3352 3352-40% -40% /1990-24% -24% 3858 4680 4793 7342 10534 12916 16427 14012 27% 8% 43% Triad 15405 15847 16457 19098 21497 22980 24612 22075 7% -4% Canada Mexico Brazil South Africa December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 10 conditionnel /max 697 715 744 1022 864 848 670 670-30% -30% /2005-21% -21% 514 518 576 631 673 711 759 623-22,0% -36% /BAU 7% -12% 1787 1894 1964 2386 1982 2083 1360 1360-43% -43% /2005-35% -35% 360 379 404 464 432 429 614 398 PPD PPD /PPD 43% -7% 3364 2652 2553 2467 2319 2577 3077 2902-25% -30% /1990 19% 13% 1232 1346 1341 1348 1236 1512 1005 1011-25% -25% /2005-34% -33% 279 432 491 536 625 682 536 536-37% -37% /BAU -21% -21% 495 499 597 675 668 619 499 486-26% -28% /2005-19% -21% 1415 1664 1900 2048 2627 3064 6966 6262 6,5 to 5 or 127% 104% 1128 1275 1403 1837 2018 2064 1800 in 2005 2046 1700-29% -41% /BAU -1% -18% Russia Japan South Korea Australia India Indonesia 28% DDPP-10 11270 11375 11974 13413 13445 14589 17531 15947 20% 9% United Arab Emirates 75 96 118 148 210 244 318 318 30% 30% /2012 30% 30% Egypt 143 160 192 254 283 328 427 427 30% 30% /2012 30% 30% Iran 293 382 463 592 544 573 745 745 30% 30% /2012 30% 30% Saudi Arabia 211 269 320 398 504 612 795 795 30% 30% /2012 30% 30% Kazakhstan 369 251 201 273 330 361 313 276-15% -25% /1990-13% -24% Malaysia -147-97 -50 414 404 444 510 510 15% 15% /2012 15% 15% Taiwan 138 187 251 291 298 285 328 328 15% 15% /2012 15% 15% Turkey 225 248 306 332 404 476 440 in 2012 928 928-21% -21% /BAU 95% 95% Thailand 229 295 301 358 393 444 env. 378 in 2012 (p 444 416-20% -25% /BAU 0% -6% Ukraine 966 563 441 433 380 400 580 580-40% -40% /1990 45% 45% International Aviation 299 314 361 429 491 524 1557 906 /BAU 197% 73% International Shipping 378 428 477 533 626 669 866 736 0% -15% /BAU 30% 10% 10% Sup400-2012 3181 3095 3382 4453 4868 5359 7810 6965 46% 30% Other Annex 1 countries 340 246 251 253 294 288 238 238-17% -17% Other emerging countries 333 304 390 517 628 692 1460 1147 111% 66% Other high income oil exporters 86 114 136 183 215 251 351 301 40% 21% 19% Rest of World 7038 6848 7217 7678 8475 8697 13450 11528 55% 33% Total (bottom-up) 37654 37829 39806 45594 49422 52855 65451 58200 24% 10%
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
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 2050. Source: IPCC WG3 AR5 SPM 2014. 2015 December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 12
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) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 IPCC 2 C scenarios and INDCs Value 2010 Range BAU (UNEP) Range INDCs 0 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095-10 -20 Years Source: IPCC WG3 AR5 SPM, 2014; GICN, 2015 December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 13
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
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
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
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
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
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
December 1st 2015 O. Boucher, P. Criqui, H. Benveniste (GICN) 20