Cristina Pizarro-Irizar, Mikel González-Eguino

IAEE 2017 Vienna, 6 September, 2017

Implications of different mitigation portfolios

based on stakeholder preferences

MODELERS AND STAKEHOLDERS ARE CONCERNED

ABOUT DATA, BUT ON DIFFERENT WAYS…

MODELERS STAKEHOLDERS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. METHODOLOGY

3. RESULTS

4. CONCLUS IONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

OUTLINE

- Scenario-based model projections play an important role in evaluating different

mitigation options.

- Scenarios are commonly used to facilitate short and long-term decisions

associated with climate change, given the uncertainty in the underlying

environmental, social, political, economic and technological factors.

- However, results arising from model simulations could be attractive from a

theoretical standpoint, but unfeasible from a more practical angle.

- The role of stakeholders is to provide information to adjust the likely scenarios for

policy analysis and make them more realistic.

INTRODUCTION: OVERVIEW

The purpose of this analysis is:

1. To explore how stakeholder engagement can support scenario development

and pathway design for a low-emission and climate resilient future.

2. To quantify the trade-offs between positive and negative impacts of these

mitigation portfolios informed by the stakeholders

3. To observe if initial preferences change when stakeholders are provided with

more information on the trade-offs in the different scenarios (ongoing)

INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH GOALS

The key feature of this approach is the involvement of stakeholders

throughout the decision making process

METHODOLOGY: OVERVIEW

Step 1: Analysis of stakeholder initial preferences

Step 2: Simulations of stakeholder preferences

Step 3: Analysis of changes in stakeholder preferences

Tools –

▪ First online survey

Interim results –

Initial stakeholder preferences for pathways

(mitigation options)

Tools –

▪ Model: Scenario implementation in GCAM-

BC3 based on initial stakeholder

preferences

Interim results –

Model output: Trade-offs of different mitigation

options based on initial stakeholder preferences

Tools –

▪ Second online survey, based on the model

output

Interim results –

New stakeholder preferences for pathways

(mitigation options) based on the model output

Final output –

Did stakeholder preferences change as a result of the information provided by the model?

Step 4: Synthesis of the results

First Survey

- Stating initial preferences:

- Aimed at collecting information on how

stakeholders perceive and assess the

risks related to a changing climate and

which low emission pathways they

prefer to mitigate these risks

- 11 Questions

- 161 invitations, 38 responses

Second Survey

- Observing changes in preferences:

- Aimed at observing whether stakeholders changed

their initial preferences about mitigation technology

options after they were provided with additional

information about costs and implications of their

initial preferences

- 11 Questions + 3 Statements + 4 Control Questions

- 9 responses (yet!)

METHODOLOGY: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

Stakeholders: policy makers, private and public sector industries, scientists,

researchers, international associations, NGOs and finance community

TEMPERATURE (Q1)

- What is the

optimal

temperature

target that we

should aim for to

limit global

warming? (3ºC,

2ºC and 1.5ºC)

TECHNOLOGY (Q4-11)

- Which technologies

will be most

important in the

next 50 years?

- Which should

receive more public

support?

- What is the future

for each

technology?

CCS, Nuclear,

Renewable Energy,

Fossil Fuels, Biomass,

Others.

MITIGATION VS.

ADAPTATION (Q2-3)

- Which combination

of mitigation and

adaptation

measures would

you choose? (100%,

50%-50%, 25%-75%?)

- Should economic

growth prevail over

climate change

mitigation/

adaptation

measures?

METHODOLOGY: THE SURVEY

The G

lobal

Change

Ass

ess

ment

Model

(GCAM

)METHODOLOGY: THE MODEL

Source: Calvin et al. “Introduction to the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM)”. Joint

GCAM Community Modeling Meeting and GTSP Technical Workshop. December 3, 2015.

Technology options Characteristics

No climate policy All technologies available in GCAM are included.

All technologies available All technologies available in GCAM are included.

CCS is available from 2030 onwards.

No CCSAll technologies available except for CCS, which

is unavailable in the whole century.

Nuclear phase-out

All technologies available but assuming a nuclear

energy phase out consisting of no addition of new

nuclear plants beyond those under construction

and existing plants operating until the end of

their lifetime.

Limited solar/wind

All technologies available except for solar/wind,

which are limited to a maximum of annual global

electricity generation.

Limited biomassAll technologies available except for biomass,

which is limited to a maximum of 100 EJ per year.

METHODOLOGY: SCENARIOS

MODEL RESULTS: ENERGY MIX, 2 ºC TARGET

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2050

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2100

0

1

2100

Biomass CCS Biomass Renewable Energy Nuclear

Coal CCS Coal Natural Gas CCS Natural Gas

Oil CCS Oil

MODEL RESULTS: ENERGY MIX, 1 .5 ºC TARGET

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2050

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2100

0

1

2100

Biomass CCS Biomass Renewable Energy Nuclear

Coal CCS Coal Natural Gas CCS Natural Gas

Oil CCS Oil

MODEL RESULTS: CO 2 EMISS IONS

-10000

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

MT

C

2ºC

-10000

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

MT

C

1.5ºC

04000

1990 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100No Climate Policy All technologies available Limited biomass

Limited solar/wind No CCS Nuclear phase out

MODEL RESULTS: CO 2 EMISS IONS BY REGIONC L I M AT E P O L I C Y 2 º C

04000

1990 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100No Climate Policy All technologies available Limited biomass

Limited solar/wind No CCS Nuclear phase out

-400

0

400

800

1200

1600

MT

C

EU 27

-150

-75

0

75

150

225

300

MT

C

Canada

MODEL RESULTS: M IT IGATION COSTSL I M I T E D S C E N A R I O S C O M PA R E D TO A L L T E C H N O L O G I E S AVA I L A B L E

73%

8%

53%

15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Limited biomass Limited solar/wind No CCS Nuclear phase out

2ºC

130%

X X

24%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

Limited biomass Limited solar/wind No CCS Nuclear phase out

1.5ºC

Technology options

GDP share in 2100

2ºC 1.5ºC

All technologies available 3% 6%

Limited biomass 5% 14%

Limited solar/wind 3% -

No CCS 5% -

Nuclear phase-out 4% 7%

MODEL RESULTS: M IT IGATION COSTS OVER GDP

RESULTS: CHANGE IN PREFERENCEST E M P E R AT U R E / M I T I G AT I O N V S . A D A P TAT I O N

Temperature target

- First Round: 71% chooses 1.5ºC.

- Second Round: 14% chooses 1.5ºC.

Mitigation vs. Adaptation

- Both Rounds: 57-63% chooses 50%-50%.

RESULTS: CHANGE IN PREFERENCEST E C H N O L O G Y O P T I O N S

Most important

(1st-2nd)

Public support

(1st-2nd)

CCS 14%

Nuclear

Renewables 86% 86%

Bioenergy 0%-14% 0%-43%

Efficiency 86%-100% 71%-57%

Natural gas 14%-0%

Coal 14%-0%

Oil

Storage 14%-0%

PRELIMINA

RY

1. It is possible to achieve the below 2ºC temperature target even if some technologies are

limited or not available.

• Important effect on mitigation costs

• Solar/Wind and CCS are essential to limit global temperature to 1.5ºC.

2. The technology portfolio determines the timing and speed of the emissions reductions.

• Abatement should start earlier if technologies such as CCS/Biomass are not

available/limited.

• The later the mitigation efforts start, the faster the emissions reductions should be.

3. Stakeholders found the information provided in the survey useful.

• Switch from 1.5ºC to 2ºC in the second survey.

• Improved opinions towards the future development of CCS and Biomass.

CONCLUS IONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

We are increasing the number of surveys!

N a m e : C r i s t i n a P i z a r r o - I r i z a r

E - m a i l : c r i s t i n a . p i z a r r o @ b c 3 r e s e a r c h . o r g

m a r i a c r i s t i n a . p i z a r r o @ e h u . e u s