Understanding INDCs Overview of the MILES Project Thomas Spencer, IDDRI [And the whole MILES consortium!] thomas.spencer@iddri.org Institut du Développement Durable et des Relations Internationales 41 rue du Four 75006 Paris - France www.iddri.org
Overview of the MILES project Country EU/Coordination China India Brazil Japan EU USA Global Team IDDRI Tsinghua University, Renmin University, Energy Research Institute TERI, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad COPPE RITE, NIES E3 Lab - NTUA PNNL, SDSN PIK, PBL, IIASA, CCMC Understanding implications of 2015 for national and aggregate trajectories Improving modelling capacities in developing and developed countries Better integration of global and national scenarios Model improvements
Why try to understand the INDCs at granular level? Distinction between INDCs and INDC scenarios: INDCs: headline targets and ambitions (often limited information) INDC scenarios: detailed, internally coherent, credible explorations of pathways towards achieving INDCs (based on national policy visions, expert judgement, modelling, structured accounting frameworks,) Why? How is just as important as how much Derive policy relevant information: size of future markets, key areas for policy efforts, gaps in policy efforts implied by INDCs Detailed understanding of national circumstances and multiple indicators of understanding Credibility, feasibility and transparency
Methodology Common data template Drivers: GDP, population, sectoral activity levels Emissions: energy + industrial CO2, all Kyoto gases, CO2 by sector Energy production and demand by sector and fuel Other indicators as appropriate National teams submit data based on an INDC scenario implementing as closely as possible the INDC + national policy vision, explored within the available accounting + modelling framework Validation, presentation and sensitivity analysis
tco2/tj An example of preliminary results - Japan Electricity mix and carbon intensity, 2010 and 2030 100% 120 90% 80% 100 Other Other renewables Biomass 70% 80 Hydro 60% Solar 50% 60 Wind 40% Nuclear 30% 40 Oil 20% 10% 20 Gas w/o CCS Coal w CCS Coal w/o CCS 0% 2010 2030 NIES INDC scenario 2030 RITE INDC scenario 0 Carbon intensity of electricity production (right axis)
TJ/M$ tco2/tj An example of preliminary results - EU The three pillars of decarbonization in the EU, 2010-2030 Figure 1: energy intensity of GDP 2010-2030, European Union Figure 2: carbon intensity of electricity production 2010-2030, European Union Figure 3: electrification of final energy demand 2010-2030 (%), European Union 4 3 2 1 0 2010 2020 2030 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2010 2020 2030 27% 26% 25% 24% 23% 22% 21% 20% 19% 2010 2020 2030
An example of preliminary results Kaya analysis of decarbonization in the EU, 2010-2030 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% Carbon Intensity of Energy Energy intensity of GDP GDP per capita Population CO2 emissions -15% -20% -25% -30% 2020/2010 2030/2020
tco2/tj GJ/m$ An Example of the USA Analysis 6 Energy Intensity CO2 intensity of electricity 5 180 4 160 140 3 120 100 2 80 60 1 40 20 0 2010 2020 2025 0 2010 2020 2025
Co-benefits Starting from the estimated greenhouse gas or alternatively CO 2 emission reductions implied by the INDCs, co-benefits, synergies and trade-offs will be estimated for the year 2030. Two dimensions will be explored: (1) energy trade and independence, (2) local air pollution.
NIES INDC Enhanced Action Low-Nuclear NIES INDC Enhanced Action Low-Nuclear Fuel import bills (billion USD 2013 ) Import dependency (%) An example of indicative results - Japan 300 250 200 150 94% 75% 75% 79% 41% 41% 46% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Natural gas Coal 100 40% 30% Oil 50 20% 10% Import dependency 0 0% 2013 2030 2050
Understanding aggregate effects In the energy-economy model REMIND with 11 regions, INDC emission targets implemented regionally via carbon prices and/or more granular policy representations LU CO2 emissions are analysed with the MAgPIE model, used as exogeneous inputs in REMIND scenarios Four scenarios: Base: Business-as-usual without climate policies INDC: INDC targets until 2030 and extrapolation thereafter INDC-2 C: INDC targets until 2030, 2 C compatible carbon price after 2030 2 C: 2 C compatible carbon price starting in 2020
Example of preliminary results
Example of preliminary results
Preliminary conclusions Granularity is important for understanding implications of INDCs INDCs, although more transparent than CPH pledges, do not provide all information needed - hence need to look at INDC scenarios Initial analysis suggests that INDCs do imply an acceleration of climate action in major economies compared to pre-paris trends Particularly in the electricity sector massive growth of renewables And in energy efficiency Question-marks around whether required post 2030 technology and policy options are being adequately prepared (electrification, industrial emissions, CCS, carbon pricing, etc) INDCs seem likely to lead to a significant deviation from BAU, but not coherent with an optimal 2 degrees trajectory Key elements for the future: dynamism and focused future commitments/cooperation