GCAM Scenarios and Latin America Leon Clarke for the GCAM Team October 2, 212 San Jose, Costa Rica
2 Overview of GCAM
GCAM: The Global Change Assessment Model 14 Region Energy/Economy Model Regions 151 Agriculture and Land Use Model Regions! GCAM is a global integrated assessment model! GCAM links Economic, Energy, Land- use, and Climate systems! Emissions of 16 greenhouse gases and short- lived species: CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, halocarbons, carbonaceous aerosols, reac?ve gases, sulfur dioxide.! Runs through 295 in 5- year Ame- steps.! GCAM is implemented using object- oriented programming, providing a robust and flexible plagorm for future work.! Documenta?on available at: wiki.umd.edu/ gcam! Started in 1978 a DOE- SC investment to address the need for an explicit research tool to assess the link between human energy systems and carbon emissions (part of the Carbon Cycle Program back then).! 1984 first integra?on of GCAM (then called Edmonds- Reilly) with the DOE carbon cycle model.! Formerly known as MiniCAM 3
Overview of Human Systems in GCAM Energy System Labor Force Resource Bases Energy Conversion Technologies Energy Demand Technologies Energy Supply Coal, Gas, Oil Renewables Electricity Hydrogen Energy Demand Transporta?on Buildings Industry Energy Markets Fossil fuel prices Electricity prices Hydrogen prices Fossil and Industrial Emissions Ocean Carbon Cycle Regional GDP Other Markets Emissions Permits PorGolio Standards Atmospheric Composi?on, Radia?ve Forcing, & Climate Labor ProducAvity Economy Agriculture and Land Use Agricultural Technologies Land CharacterisAcs Agricultural Demand Crops Livestock Forest Products Agricultural Supply Crops Livestock Forest Products Bioenergy Agricultural Markets Crops prices Livestock prices Forest Product prices Bioenergy prices Land Use and Land Use Change Emissions Land Use & Land Cover Terrestrial Carbon Cycle Climate System 4
Current GCAM Energy-Economic Regions
Proposed GCAM Energy-Economic Regions
151 Different AgLU Supply Regions Will increase with changed energyeconomic regional configuration
GCAM Nesting Structure
Latin America Responses to Carbon Prices A Diagnostic (of sorts) 9
Fossil and Industrial CO2 Emissons Across Scenarios 2 15 1 Reference $1 Price $3 Price $5 Price MMTC/Year 5 199 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 21-5 - 1-15 - 2
Net Land Use Change Emissions Across Scenarios 1 5 MMTC/Year - 5-1 199 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 21 Reference $1 Price $3 Price $5 Price - 15-2
Total CO2 Emissions Across Scenarios 2 15 1 MMTC/Year 5 199 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 21-5 - 1-15 Reference $1 Price $3 Price $5 Price - 2
Land Allocation the Reference Scenario 2, Thousand km 2 18, 16, 14, 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, Urban Tundra Desert Forest Shrubs Grass Pasture Biomass Crops 199 25 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Land Allocation the $5 Price Scenario 2, Thousand km 2 18, 16, 14, 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, Urban Tundra Desert Forest Shrubs Grass Pasture Biomass Crops 199 25 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Land Use Across Scenarios in 23 2, Thousand km 2 18, 16, 14, 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, Urban Tundra Desert Forest Shrubs Grass Pasture Biomass Crops 25 Reference $1 Price $3 Price $5 Price
Land Use and LAMP! One potentially extremely valuable contribution of LAMP would be to better articulate the potential role of land use and land use and land use change in climate mitigation in Latin America.! There are questions about the optimal approach to land use and land use change in Latin America.! There are questions about what realistic scenarios of land use and land use change should be.! The notion of a full price on carbon in land starting immediately is probably not realistic.! But neither is the notion of real climate mitigation in the fossil and industrial sector without consideration of land use options.! What are some meaningful alternatives?! In addition, climate change will probably alter the characteristics of all the options and therefore alter the choices among options.
Two Extreme Options for Land Use Policy 3 Land- Use Change Emissions 2 1 GtCO 2 /yr -1-2 Reference Carbon Price on Land No Land Policy -3 25 22 235 25 265 28 295 Note: Policy Cases Stabilize at 3.7 W/m 2
Two Extreme Options for Land Use Policy 25 Terrestrial Carbon Stock 6 Global Forest Cover 2 5 GtC 15 1 Reference 5 Carbon Price on Land No Land Policy 25 22 235 25 265 28 295 million km 2 4 3 2 1 Reference Carbon Price on Land No Land Policy 25 22 235 25 265 28 295 Note: Policy Cases Stabilize at 3.7 W/m 2
Two Extreme Options for Land Use Policy No Land Policy Maximum Annual Bioenergy ConsumpAon: 44 EJ/yr CumulaAve ReducAon in Energy System CO 2 Emissions: 76% Carbon Price on Land Maximum Annual Bioenergy ConsumpAon: 24 EJ/yr CumulaAve ReducAon in Energy System CO 2 Emissions: 58% Note: Policy Cases Stabilize at 3.7 W/m 2
Land Policy Scenarios Name Climate Policy Bioenergy Land Policy Protected Areas Reference None No Constraints None None Carbon Price on Land 3.7 W/m 2 No Constraints Full Carbon Tax None Carbon Price on Land, 1% 3.7 W/m 2 No Constraints 1% Carbon Tax None No Land Policy 3.7 W/m 2 No Constraints None None Bio Constraint, 1 EJ 3.7 W/m 2 1 EJ/yr None None Bio Constraint, 3 EJ 3.7 W/m 2 3 EJ/yr None None Bio Tax, Coal 3.7 W/m 2 Treated as Coal None None Bio Tax, Oil 3.7 W/m 2 Treated as Oil None None Bio Tax, Gas 3.7 W/m 2 Treated as Gas None None Protected Land, 99% 3.7 W/m 2 No Constraints None 99% of all natural ecosystems Protected Forest, 99% 3.7 W/m 2 No Constraints None 99% of forests Protected Forest, 5% 3.7 W/m 2 No Constraints None 5% of forests Protected Forest, 1% 3.7 W/m 2 No Constraints None 1% of forests
Primary Energy: Reference Scenario 7 6 EJ/yr 5 4 3 2 1 Geothermal Solar Wind Hydro Nuclear Trad Bio Commercial Bio Coal Gas Oil 199 25 21 22 23 24 25
Primary Energy: $1 Price Scenario 7 6 EJ/yr 5 4 3 2 1 Geothermal Solar Wind Hydro Nuclear Trad Bio Commercial Bio Coal Gas Oil 199 25 21 22 23 24 25
Primary Energy: $3 Price Scenario 7 6 EJ/yr 5 4 3 2 1 Geothermal Solar Wind Hydro Nuclear Trad Bio Commercial Bio Coal Gas Oil 199 25 21 22 23 24 25
Primary Energy: $5 Price Scenario 7 6 EJ/yr 5 4 3 2 1 Geothermal Solar Wind Hydro Nuclear Trad Bio Commercial Bio Coal Gas Oil 199 25 21 22 23 24 25
Primary Energy Across Scenarios: 23 5 45 EJ/yr 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 Geothermal Solar Wind Hydro Nuclear Trad Bio Commercial Bio Coal Gas Oil 25 Reference $1 Price $3 Price $5 Price
Electricity: Reference Scenario 2 EJ/yr 18 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 199 25 21 22 23 24 25 Geothermal Solar Wind Hydro Nuclear Bio w/ccs Bio Coal w/ccs Coal Gas w/ccs Gas Oil w/ccs Oil
Electricity: $1 Price Scenario 2 EJ/yr 18 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 199 25 21 22 23 24 25 Geothermal Solar Wind Hydro Nuclear Bio w/ccs Bio Coal w/ccs Coal Gas w/ccs Gas Oil w/ccs Oil
Electricity: $3 Price Scenario 2 EJ/yr 18 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 199 25 21 22 23 24 25 Geothermal Solar Wind Hydro Nuclear Bio w/ccs Bio Coal w/ccs Coal Gas w/ccs Gas Oil w/ccs Oil
Electricity: $5 Price Scenario 2 EJ/yr 18 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 199 25 21 22 23 24 25 Geothermal Solar Wind Hydro Nuclear Bio w/ccs Bio Coal w/ccs Coal Gas w/ccs Gas Oil w/ccs Oil
Electricity Across Scenarios: 23 1 EJ/yr 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 25 Reference $1 Price $3 Price $5 Price Geothermal Solar Wind Hydro Nuclear Bio w/ccs Bio Coal w/ccs Coal Gas w/ccs Gas Oil w/ccs Oil
Some Thoughts on the Energy System! What are the hydroelectric utilization options?! Is this much CCS really feasible?! How much gas is Latin America sitting on?! What about the potential for other supply options?
32 Climate Impacts in Latin America
Changes in buildings energy expenditures under climate change scenario Costs of increased demand for cooling outweigh savings from decreased hea?ng in all but the coldest regions Cooling services are costly, because cooling relies on more expensive purchased electricity Change in Per Capita Expenditures [25 USD] 3 2 1-1 - 2-3 22 Difference between climate change and no climate change scenario 25 295 22 25 295 22 25 295 22 25 295 22 25 295 22 25 295 22 25 295 comm others comm heating comm cooling resid others resid heating resid cooling total Driving Factors Changes in service demands Device efficiencies Fuel composi?on by service Fuel prices Change in Per Capita Expenditures [25 USD] 3 2 1-1 - 2-3 22 USA Canada Western Europe 25 295 22 25 295 22 25 295 Japan Australia_NZ Korea China 22 25 295 22 25 295 22 25 295 22 25 295 comm others comm heating comm cooling resid others resid heating resid cooling total India Former Soviet Union Eastern Europe Middle East Latin America Southeast Asia Africa
Impact of Climate Change on Agricultural Productivity: Commodity Prices.16 Global wheat prices with and without climate change and climate change miagaaon (No explicit land policy).16.14.14.12.12.1.1 25$/kg.8 25$/kg.8.6.6.4.4.2. 55, w/ Impacts 55, w/o Impacts 25 22 235 25 265 28 295.2. Reference, w/ Impacts Reference, w/o Impacts 25 22 235 25 265 28 295 34
Water Scarcity in 295 35
Electricity Sector Impacts! We are currently exploring electricity impacts on! Wind! Thermoelectric power plants! Hydroelectric power
37 Other Issues: The Implications of U.S. Climate Policy on International Trade
Scenarios! Baseline:! LowTech - all low tech (US23F)! BioRE - advanced bioenergy and renewables (US1G)! NucCCS - advanced nuclear and CCS (US21F)! Adv - all advanced supply tech (US15F)! AdvEE - all advanced supply tech and high end-use efficiency (US13F)! Emission constraints: (indexed to 25)! Unconstrained (baseline)! USA 5% abatement by 25! USA 8% abatement by 25! Other Constraints! Trade: free trade of biomass, no constraints! Restrict: the U.S. does not import biomass! Restrict-Protect: USA 9% forest protection, bio trade restriction! Restrict-Global Protect: Global 9% forest protection, bio trade restriction 38
Biomass import: USA 25 6 5 4 ProtecAng forests alters biomass trade consistent with intuiaon. import export municipal waste residue biomass purpose grown EJ 3 2 1 RestricAng imports increases domesac producaon. S D S D S D S D S D S D S D 25 not protect USA protect Global protect not protect USA protect Global protect trade restrict
Corn export: USA 25 4 35 import export Corn Consumption Corn Production Mt 3 25 2 15 1 5 RestricAng trade turns the U.S. into a corn importer. S D S D S D S D S D S D S D ProtecAng forests increases U.S. corn imports. 25 not protect Without restricaons on trade, the U.S. is a corn exporter. USA protect trade Global protect not protect USA protect restrict Global protect
41 Thoughts for LAMP Scenarios
Thoughts on LAMP Scenarios! Land use and forestry! What is the potential for afforestation?! What is the potential for continued deforestation?! How might bioenergy production and trade interact with both of these?! What are meaningful land use policies?! What are meaningful scenarios of biomass production and exports/imports?! Energy Systems! What are the characteristics of the options?! Climate impacts! Buildings, electricity, land use and forestry! Climate policy! Carbon tax scenarios are useful to indicate potential and costs as well as to compare across models.! Stabilization scenarios are also useful for global models to understand the reductions associated with Latin America in meeting particular climate goals.! But it would be interesting to do some scenarios that are more focused on more tactical policy questions. The challenge is identifying the question and then defining the scenarios.! At the least, we need to define meaningful land use policies.
Questions