implications of the indcs for reaching long-term … of the indcs for reaching long-term climate...
TRANSCRIPT
Implications of the INDCs for reaching long-term climate policy objectives
Insights from IAM scenarios
Christoph Bertram, Gunnar Luderer, Elmar Kriegler, and many others
IAMC meeting, Potsdam, 16.11.2015
2
INDCs and delayed scenario literature
Literature
Reference
High 2030
Low 2030
Immediate 2oC
Historic
PBL INDC range
and best guess
Greenhouse gas emissions
80 GtCO2eq/yr
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Source: EDGAR (JRC/PBL, historical emissions), PBL INDC Tool calculations
(www.pbl.nl/indc) and IPCC AR5 scenario database
0
20
40
60
Figure D of the policy report „Beyond the numbers: Understanding the Transformation Induced by INDCs”, October 2015, by the MILES project consortium
2030 emissions implied by INDCs are in the range of delayed scenario literature:
LIMITS (Tavoni et al. 2014, Kriegler et al. 2013, etc.)
AMPERE (Riahi et al. 2015, Kriegler et al. 2015, etc.)
RoSE (Luderer et al. 2013)
Various single-model studies (Rogelj et al. 2012, 2013, Luderer et al. 2013, Bertram et al. 2015, etc.)
→All but the most recent assessed in IPCC AR5 WGIII (Chapter 6: Clarke et al. 2014, SPM: IPCC 2014)
Challenges of delayed policy scenarios
3
• Short-term excess emissions, compensated by even lower emissions
• Rapid emission reduction in the medium term
• Negative emissions become even more crucial
• Inertia in energy system: carbon lock-in and insufficient ramp-up of alternatives
• Reduced co-benefits of climate policy, faster warming
• Overall higher economic implications and political and institutional requirements
Riahi et al. (2015): Locked into Copenhagen pledges — Implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals, Tech Forecast Soc Change 90A.
Fast decarbonization
4
Fast decarbonization & fast low-carbon up-scaling without much preparation
Annual GHG emissions
Adapted from IPCC AR5 Figure SPM.5
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20 2010 2020 2030
6
3
0
-3
-6
-9
-12
Annual rate of change in CO2 emissions 2030-2050
(%/y
r)
(Gt
CO
2eq
/yr)
Low-carbon energy share of Primary Energy
100
80
60
40
20
0 (%
)
20
30
2
05
0
21
00
20
30
2
05
0
21
00
20
30
2
05
0
21
00
+90
%
+16
0%
+24
0%
Carbon lock-in
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
(TW
)
20 150
Equ
ival
ent
emis
sio
ns
(Gt
CO
2)
Fore
gon
e ge
ner
atio
n (T
W-y
ears
)
Coal Power Generation Capacity without CCS
30
15
25
10
5
0
Early retirement of Coal Power Generation Capacity
2035-2100
100
50
0
200
Bertram C, et al (2015) Carbon lock-in through capital stock inertia associated with weak near-term climate policies. Technol Forecast Soc Change 90 A: 62–72.
2010
IPCC AR5 cost implication of delay
• Rather small impact on aggregated costs
• Problem of taking infeasible models into account
6
IPCC AR5 WGIII Table SPM.2 (part.)
28 (14-50)
15 (5-59)
44 (2-78)
37 (16-82)
% increase in mitigation costs due to delay relative to immediate mitigation
7
Growth reduction in decade
after implementation of policy
(%/y
r)
Transitional costs much more sensitive to delay
• Factor 3 higher short-term impact
• Robust result across 3 different energy-economy models
Luderer, G., Bertram, C., Calvin, K., Cian, E. D. & Kriegler, E. Implications of weak near-term climate policies on long-term mitigation pathways. Climatic Change 1–14 (2013).
Carbon market value
8
Total value of emissions covered
under carbon pricing scheme
Current annual oil market volume
Tn U
S$
20
10 /
yr
Luderer G, et al (2013) Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets. Environ Res Lett.
• Massive institutional challenge
• Political feasibility?
Policy instrument mix to keep targets within reach
High positive effect of dedicated technology policies in combination with carbon tax
• Support for low-carbon technologies
• Regulation of high-carbon (coal power without CCS)
• Phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies and introduction of transport fuel taxes
9
Delayed with Tax + combined
tech. policies
60
55
50
45
(%/d
ecad
e)
40
35
30
25
Delayed with
moderate c-tax only
Immediate optimal pricing
Clim
ate action
gap
Energy price increase Max 2010-2050 (%/decade)
Bertram C et al (2015): Complementing carbon prices with technology policies to keep climate targets within reach. Nature Clim Change 5, March 2015.
10
Global INDC scenarios
Literature
Reference
High 2030
Low 2030
Immediate 2oC
Historic
Greenhouse gas emissions
80 GtCO2eq/yr
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Source: REMIND model calculations, EDGAR (JRC/PBL, historical emissions), PBL INDC Tool calculations
(www.pbl.nl/indc INDC range and best estimate, vertical black line and circle) and IPCC AR5 scenario
database
MILES scenarios
INDC−extended INDC−2oC Bridge−2oC
Immediate−2oC
0
20
40
60
Figure D of the policy report „Beyond the numbers: Understanding the Transformation Induced by INDCs”, October 2015, by the MILES project consortium
INDCs:
• Lots of low-carbon support
• Some regulation of high carbon
• Carbon pricing?
Key advantages of explicit carbon price signal:
• Long-term requirement, so experience is crucial
• Potential source for predictable climate finance
• Easier comparability of effort and cooperation
Bridge-2oC: anticipation of high carbon prices after 2030 already from 2020 onwards, but INDC policies until 2030
→ smooth emissions trajectory
11
Immediate restructuring of investments
Figure 49 of the policy report „Beyond the numbers: Understanding the Transformation Induced by INDCs”, October 2015, by the MILES project consortium
Average annual investment into power generation capacity
150 billion $US
0
25
50
75
100
125
0
250
500
+365 +475 +158 -46
Low-carbon (renewables, nuclear, fossils
with CCS)
1 500 billion $US
750
1 000
1 250
-6
-44 -69
-89 +865 +639 +395
-70
2012
INDC−2oC Bridge−2oC Immediate−2oC INDC−2oC Bridge−2oC Immediate−2oC
Horizontal lines in the background mark the respective 2012 historic value (IEA 2014b)
Source: REMIND model analysis and IEA
2012
Fossils without CCS
2020 2030
2030 2050
2020 2030
2030 2050
2020 2030
2030 2050
2020 2030
2030 2050
2020 2030
2030 2050
2020 2030
2030 2050
Conclusion
• Importance of policies implied by INDCS
• Long-term target only kept within reach if dedicated carbon phase-out and long-term carbon pricing are prepared for
Thank you!
12
Literature (graphs) • Bertram C, Johnson N, Luderer G, et al (2015a) Carbon lock-in through capital stock inertia associated with
weak near-term climate policies. Technol Forecast Soc Change 90, Part A:62–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.001
• Bertram C, Luderer G, Pietzcker RC, et al (2015b) Complementing carbon prices with technology policies to keep climate targets within reach. Nature Clim Change 5:235–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2514
• IPCC (2014) Summary for Policymakers. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, et al. (eds) Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambirdge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, http://www.mitigation2014.org
• Luderer G, Bertram C, Calvin K, et al (2013a) Implications of weak near-term climate policies on long-term mitigation pathways. Climatic Change 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0899-9
• Luderer G, Pietzcker RC, Bertram C, et al (2013b) Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets. Environ Res Lett 8:034033. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034033
• MILES consortium (2015) Beyond the numbers: Understanding the transformation induced by INDCs, IDDRI Studies No 05/2015, http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Analyses/MILES%20report.pdf
• Riahi K, Kriegler E, Johnson N, et al (2015) Locked into Copenhagen pledges — Implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals. Technol Forecast Soc Change 90, Part A:8–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.016
13