climate change: indian perspectives post copenhagen
DESCRIPTION
Climate Change: Indian Perspectives Post Copenhagen. Prodipto Ghosh , Ph.D Distinguished Fellow The Energy & Resources Institute 20 August 2010. The Energy Challenge. Some 600 million fellow Indians, c. 10% of global population , live without electricity! - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Climate Change: Indian Perspectives Post Copenhagen
Prodipto Ghosh, Ph.DDistinguished Fellow
The Energy & Resources Institute20 August 2010
The Energy Challenge
Some 600 million fellow Indians, c. 10% of global population, live without electricity! Traditional biomass is the primary cooking fuel for over 700 million Indians 34.7% and 79.9% population below income level of $1 and $2 a day respectively Lack of access to commercial energy leads to Illiteracy, Gender
Inequality/Disempowerment, High IMR and MMR, Poor Health & and hence a low HDI India’s per capita commercial energy consumption is about 20% of the world average,
4% that of the US and 28% that of China Sustained GDP growth of 8-9% a year will enable India over the next 25 years to lift the
bottom 40% of her citizens to an acceptable level of economic & social well being – this will require provision of modern energy to them
2
Myth 1:
“India has a very high level of energy intensity (inefficiency?) of its economy (and has done nothing about it)!”
3
India’s Decreasing Energy Intensity
4
Energy intensity of GDP (kgoe/$ 2000 PPP) based on IEA data
0.15
0.17
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.25
0.27
0.29
0.311971
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
TP
ES
(kg
oe)/
GD
P (
$200
0 P
PP
)
5
G Cal / tcs
9.3
9.08.9
8.88.7 8.7
8.48.3
8.18.0 7.9
7.77.6 7.5
7.3
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
199
0-9
1
199
1-9
2
199
2-9
3
199
3-9
4
199
4-9
5
199
5-9
6
199
6-9
7
199
7-9
8
199
8-9
9
199
9-0
0
20
00
-01
20
01-
02
20
02
-03
20
03
-04
20
04
-05
Specific Energy Consumption in Integrated Steel Plants
Source: Steel Authority of India Ltd.
22% reduction in SEC from 1990-91 to
2004-05
Actual impact higher as
share of D/R rising
6Source: BEE, 2007
7Source: BEE, 2007
Trends in Energy Consumption of Ammonia & Urea Plants
8
12.48
8.87
9.3
6.59
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Gca
l/to
n
AMMONIA UREA
25% REDUCTION
26% REDUCTION
World’s Best: 7.0 Gcal/ton of Ammonia
India’s Best: 7.2 Gcal/ton of Ammonia
FAI Target: 6.5 Gcal/ton of Ammonia
Already average of top 25% ammonia plants more efficient than world’s top 25% plants
Source: Fertiliser Association of India (FAI)
9
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
CO2 2004/GDP in 2000$ at PPP % of US GDP in 2000$ at PPP per Capita % of US
The fossil fuel CO2 intensity of the Indian economy in 2004 was the same as Japan; better than Germany!
Data: “Growth and CO2 Emissions – How do different countries fare?” : Roger Bacon and Soma Bhattacharya: World Bank, 2007:
Myth 2:
“India’s low per-capita GHG emissions reflect its low per capita incomes, but India is extremely inefficient when it comes to CO2 intensity of consumption!”
10
GHG emissions depend upon lifestyles!
• India’s low per-capita GHG emissions are only partly due to poverty. A significant part is due to inherently sustainable lifestyles that do not change significantly as people become better-off!
• Some international comparisons illustrate the point:
11
12Source: TERI analysis (various data sources)
CO2 emission from food sector--from Field (production) to Table (processed food)-excluding cooking
0.1 0.1
1.7 1.8 1.9 2.02.2
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
India China UnitedKingdom
Germany Netherlands Australia United States
ton
CO
2/m
kca
l of
food
ene
rgy
Production related CO2 emission (tonne CO2/million kcal of food energy)
Processing related CO2 emissions (tonne CO2/million kcal of food energy)
Total CO2 emissions (tonne CO2/million kcal of food energy)
13
30
47.353
70
0
20
40
60
80
US Germany Japan India
48
10
23
0
5
10
15
20
25
USA UK Germany India
Average rate of recycling (%) (excl. re-use)
GHG emissions from waste (gm/’000$GDPppp)
Municipal solid waste
Source: TERI Analysis, based on National Communications of different countries
16
118
193
0
50
100
150
200
250
India EU (15 countries) USA
14
Estimated CO2 emissions from passenger transport
(gm/passenger-km)
Source: TERI Analysis, various data sources
Per-capita consumption of construction materials per-unit of inhabited land area
1 43 451794
1599
1907
74 220.4
630
456
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Aluminium Cement Steel
(thou
sand
ton
nes/
capi
ta/s
q. k
ilom
etre
s)
I ndia J apan EU- 15 USA
15
What will India’s GHG emissions be in the future?
What does it cost to mitigate GHG emissions?
Results of three coordinated modeling studies:
NCAER-CGE: GDP growth rate projections till 2030
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
2005
-06
2007
-08
2009
-10
2011
-12
2013
-14
2015
-16
2017
-18
2019
-20
2021
-22
2023
-24
2025
-26
2027
-28
2029
-30
Year
Gro
wth
rat
e (in
per
cent
age)
17
While GDP growth slows slightly till 2030, the CAGR of GDP is 8.84%
18
India’s Per capita GHG emissions till 2030
18
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032
McKinsey
NCAER-CGE
IRADe-AA
TERI-MoEF
TERI-Poznan
Year
Per capita emissions, tons CO2e
Per capita GHG emissions projections for India from 5 studies in Illustrative Scenarios (2010-2030)
The projections range from 2.77 tons/capita CO2e (NCAER-CGE) to 5.0 tons/capita CO2 (TERI-Poznan). Except for the last all studies indicate that India’s per capita GHG emissions in 2030 will be below the 2005 global average of 4.22 tons!
19
India’s Aggregate GHG emissions till 2030
19
012345678
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032
McKinsey
NCAER-CGE
IRADe-AA
TERI-MoEF
TERI-Poznan
Year
Total GHG emissions, billion tons CO2e
Aggregate GHG emissions projections for India from 5 studies in Illustrative Scenarios (2010-2030)
The projections range from 4.0 billion tons CO2e (NCAER-CGE) to 7.3 billion tons (TERI-Poznan)
Declines in energy and CO2e intensities of the economy:
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
2003
-04
2005
-06
2007
-08
2009
-10
2011
-12
2013
-14
2015
-16
2017
-18
2019
-20
2021
-22
2023
-24
2025
-26
2027
-28
2029
-30
Year
kg C
O2/U
S$ of
GDP
at P
PP
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
Yearkg
oe/$
GDP
at PP
P
20
CO2e intensity, kg/$GDP at PPP
Energy intensity, Kgoe/$GDP at PPP
Both CO2e and energy intensities of the economy decline steadily till 2030. Even at present they are among the lowest in the world!
Costs of GHG Mitigation
• Model results for:
NCAER-CGE: GHG mitigation and GDP losses from imposition of carbon taxes
TERI-MoEF: Energy system incremental investment and economic costs from CO2 constraints
Undiscounted Incremental Investment Cost for CO2
Reductions from Illustrative Scenario (2011-31)
22
Undiscounted Incremental Investment
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Progressive CO2 emissions reduction from illustrative scenario in year 2031(in %)
Bill
ion
US
$
10% reduction: ~ US$ 215 Billion
20% reduction: ~ US$ 493 Billion
30% reduction: ~ US$ 798 Billion
Undiscounted Incremental Energy System Cost for
CO2 reductions from Illustrative Scenario (2011-31)
23
10% reduction: ~ US$ 240 Billion
20% reduction: ~ US$ 499 Billion
30% reduction: ~ US$ 1062 Billion
Undiscounted Incremental System Cost
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Progressive CO2 emission reduction from Illustrative scenario in year 2031(in %)
Bill
ion
US
$
Loss of GDP in the Carbon Tax Scenario (2010-11 to 2030-31)
-668-1194
-2173
-4013-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
$10 Carbon Tax $20 Carbon Tax $40 Carbon Tax $80 Carbon TaxScenarios
Loss
of G
DP
REV +ve
Undiscounted Cummulative GDP Loss
US $ billion (constant 2005)
Loss of GDP in the Carbon Tax Scenario (2010-11 to 2030-31)
-632-1109
-2035
-3563-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
$10 Carbon Tax $20 Carbon Tax $40 Carbon Tax $80 Carbon TaxScenarios
Loss
of G
DP
REV neutral
Undiscounted Cummulative GDP Loss
US $ billion (constant 2005)
Myth 3:
“Indian policymakers are oblivious to the potentially catastrophic impacts of climate change on its people!”
26
Adaptation to Climate Change
• India is historically vulnerable to climate variability: floods, droughts, vector borne disease, cyclones, ocean storm surges, etc.
• For over 6 decades, India has had large, nationally funded programmes to address climate variability and disasters.
27
28
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
Years
Perc
ent E
xpen
ditu
re
Expenditure on adaptation as % of total Govt. expenditure
Expenditure on adaptation as % of GDP
India’s fiscal expenditures on programs directly related to adaptation to climate variability was 2.63% of GDP in 2006-07! This is more than its annual defence expenditure.
29
The Global Regime:
The Story So far…
30
Myth: The climate change negotiations are about “saving the only planet we have!”
Working paradigm of (all) negotiators: Climate Change negotiations are primarily economic negotiations, to determine future global economic patterns and strategic potentials.
31
-0.5000 -0.4000 -0.3000 -0.2000 -0.1000 0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000
United States of America
Germany
United Kingdom
Canada
France
J apan
Australia
Italy
Denmark
Sweden
Norway
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Uruguay
South Africa
Cuba
Peru
Uganda
Brazil
Nigeria
Bangladesh
Indonesia
China
India
Historical Responsibility for Climate Change of Selected Developing and Developed Countries, 1850-2005
Recap: Bali Road Map
• Negotiations under Art 3.9 of Kyoto Protocol for second commitment period after 2012 + some proposed amendments (AWG-KP)
• Negotiations under the UNFCCC for a comprehensive “Long-term cooperative action” (AWG-LCA)
• 9 Negotiation sessions held between Bali (Dec 2007 and Copenhagen (Dec 2009)
32
Bali Road Map…Slow progress was made in the negotiations in both tracks due
to deep differences in objectives of countries (and mistrust about their intentions).
Before Copenhagen it became clear that closure was not feasible a Copenhagen, and that negotiations would have to continue
The idea was mooted by several developed countries that Copenhagen should yield a “Political Declaration”, and give a mandate for negotiations under both tracks to continue
After an extremely convoluted process, the Copenhagen accord was negotiated at the level of Heads of State/Governments
33
Copenhagen Accord
• Status: Not a multilateral outcome under the UNFCCC, a best a Plurilateral Accord between acceding States. Legally binding nature of accord is in doubt, but clearly, in political terms acceding Parties commit themselves to its provisions.
• Will require extensive further negotiations before it can be operationalized (if at all). However, since Accord is not endorsed by the UNFCCC, the question is in which forum will it be operationalized?
34
• Copenhagen: Overall Political Assessment
• India and BASIC: Significantly protected their development space; emerged as strong collective political bloc with common interests; significance beyond climate change
• US: Obtained its pre-conditons for passage of “cap and trade” Bill in US Congress, i.e. Internationazed action by China & India, transparency wrt their actions, Financing architecture to invlve WB, existing MFIs). However, actual passage of Bill remains in doubt.
• EU: Clear loser: None of its key objectives were met: apportionment of carbon space distorted in favour of developed countries; comparability of mitigation actions with US; legally binding commitments of all developed countries and emerging economies. Hold over SIDS and LDCs is fragile
• G-77: Copenhagen revealed significant divergences within group!
35
Prospects:
• Copenhagen Accord has received only tepid endorsement from several major Parties (and no explicit endorsement by China, India). Unlikely to be operationalized w/o closure on AWG-LCA and AWG-KP
• Announced goals are extremely modest in relation to scale of problem
• Fate of US energy and climate Bill is key! Passage (and prospects of negotiations are impacted by controversy over IPCC findings, economic downturn, upcoming Congressional elections).
36
37