Download INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)

Integrated Assessment and IPCC:
Links between climate change and
sub-global environmental issues
presentation at
Task Force Integrated Assessment Modelling,
Brussels, 14-16 May 2001
Rob Swart
Head TSU IPCC Working Group III
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)
The IPCC Process
• IPCC was established in 1988 as an intergovernmental, integrated
assessment process by UNEP and WMO
• Scientists in interdisciplinary writing teams are responsible for the
substance of the assessments
•Governments determine the report outline, they review the 2nd
draft, and approve the Summary for Policymakers line by line
• Work from 3 Working Groups (climate system, impacts/ adaptation, mitigation) is integrated in a Synthesis Report ( 5 year cycle)
• Main client: UNFCCC/SBSTA
• More information: http://www.ipcc.ch
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)
Climate change and other
environmental issues in IPCC
• The Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) includes
scenarios for SO2, NOx, VOCs, CO in addition to all GHGs
• The Third Assessment Report evaluates the climatic changes (WG1)
and impacts (WG2) associated with these scenarios
• The Third Assessment Report (WG3) notes that integration of climate
change policies with other socio-economic and environmental policies
(“co-benefits”) can make policies more effective
• A WRI/RFF/OECD/IPCC Workhop on Ancillary Benefits was
organized in 2000; proceedings available from OECD
• A Special Report on Climate Change and Sustainable Development
has been proposed which would explicitly address synergies and tradeoffs between the various issues
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)
Figure 1.1a: An Integrated Assessment Framework for Considering
Climate Change
Climate System
•Temperature rise
•Sea level rise
•Precipitation change
Climate change
impacts
Feedbacks
Environmental
impacts
Enhanced
greenhouse
effect
Atmospheric
Concentrations
•Carbon dioxide
•Methane
•Nitrous oxide
•Aerosols
Human &
Natural Systems
•Floods and droughts
•Biodiversity
•Animal and plant health
Anthropogenic
emissions
Non-climate
change
stresses
Socio-Economic
Development Paths
•Main drivers are
population,
energy,economic growth,
technology and land use
Linking Climate Change to Sustainable Development
Adaptation,
Vulnerability
Mitigation
Climate
Change
Emissions
Alternative
Development
Pathways:
Economy,
Equity,
Technologies,
Population,
Lifestyles, and
Institutions,
Policy
Environmental
Social
Sustainable
Development
Economic
Special Report on Emission Scenarios
• Revision of 1992 reference scenarios (IS92)
• Based on 1994 IPCC evaluation
• IPCC 1996 request for new reference
scenarios, no additional climate initiatives
• Based on literature review, development of
storylines, quantification with 6 models,
open process, and 2 IPCC reviews
• Published 2000
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)
The SRES worlds
SRES Scenarios
Economic
A2
A1
Global
Regional
B1
B2
Environmental
y
og
er g
y
-use)
ol
nd
Te c h n
A
ic ulture
(La
En
Econom
y
gr
P
o pu lat
io n
Dr
iving Forces
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)
GLOBAL CO2 EMISSIONS FOR 6 SCENARIO GROUPS
(a) A1
40
(b) A2
40
30
A1F1 30
20
20
A2
A1B
10
10
A1T
0
1990
2010
2030
2050
2070
0
1990
2090
(c) B1
40
2010
2030
30
20
20
10
10
2070
2090
(d) B2
40
30
2050
B2
B1
0
1990
2010
2030
2050
2070
2090
0
1990
2010
2030
2050
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)
2070
2090
GLOBAL ENERGY CO2 SCENARIOS AND DATABASE
Total database range
Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions
SRES Scenarios and Database Range
(index, 1990 = 1)
10
8
Maximum in
Database
6
B2
A1B
2
1990 range
0
1900
B1
A1T
Minimum in Database
1950
2000
2050
2100
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)
Intervention
4
IS92 range
A1F1
A2
A1 AIM
A1 ASF
A1 IMAGE
180
A1 MESSAGE
A1 MINICAM
A1C AIM
A1C MESSAGE
A1C MINICAM
A1G AIM
150
A1G MESSAGE
Global sulfur dioxide emissions (MtS/yr)
A1G MINICAM
A1V1 MINICAM
A1V2 MINICAM
A1T AIM
A1T MESSAGE
120
A2 ASF
A2 AIM
A2G IMAGE
A2 MESSAGE
A2 MINICAM
90
A2-A1 MINICAM
B1 IMAGE
B1 AIM
B1 ASF
B1 MESSAGE
B1 MINICAM
60
B1T MESSAGE
B1HIGH MESSAGE
B1HIGH MINICAM
B2 MESSAGE
B2 AIM
B2 ASF
30
B2 IMAGE
B2 MINICAM
B2HIGH MINICAM
5%
25%
0
1990
mean
median
2010
2030
2050
2070
2090
75%
Fig
Figure 5-12: Standardized global SO2 emissions for SRES scenarios, classified into four
scenario families (each denoted by a different color code – A1, red; A2, brown; B1,
green; B2, blue). Marker scenarios are shown with thick lines without ticks, globally
harmonized scenarios with thin lines, and non-harmonized scenarios with thin, dotted
lines (see Table 4-3). Black lines show percentiles, means, and medians for SRES
scenarios.
95%
200
Range of sulfur-control
scenarios in the database
Maximum in database
150
IS92
100
1990 range
A2
A1
B2
50
Sulfur - control
Global Sulfur Dioxide Emissions
(MtS)
Total database range
Sulfur - non-control, and non-classified scenarios
250
B1
Minimum in database
0
1930
1960
1990
2020
2050
2080
2100
Figure TS-10: Global anthropogenic SO2 emissions (MtS) – historical development from
1930 to 1990 and (standardized) in the SRES scenarios. The dashed colored time-paths
depict individual SRES scenarios, the solid colored lines the four marker scenarios, the
solid thin curves the six IS92 scenarios, the shaded areas the range of 81 scenarios from
the literature, the gray shaded area the sulfur-control and the blue shaded area the range
of sulfur-non-control scenarios or “non-classified” scenarios from the literature that
exceeds the range of sulfur control scenarios. The colored vertical bars indicate the range
of the SRES scenario families in 2100. Database source: Grübler (1998).
A1 AIM
A1 ASF
160
A1 IMAGE
A1 MESSAGE
A1C AIM
A1C MESSAGE
Global nitrogen oxides emissions (MtN/yr)
A1G AIM
A1G MESSAGE
A1T AIM
120
A1T MESSAGE
A2 ASF
A2 AIM
A2G IMAGE
A2 MESSAGE
B1 IMAGE
80
B1 AIM
B1 ASF
B1 MESSAGE
B1T MESSAGE
B1HIGH MESSAGE
B2 MESSAGE
40
B2 AIM
B2 ASF
B2 IMAGE
5%
25%
mean
0
1990
median
2010
2030
2050
2070
2090
75%
95%
Figure 5-9: Standardized global NOx emissions in SRES scenarios, classified into four
scenario families (each denoted by a different color code – A1, red; A2, brown; B1,
green; B2, blue). Marker scenarios are shown with thick lines without ticks, globally
harmonized scenarios with thin lines, and non-harmonized scenarios with thin, dotted
lines (see Table 4-3). Black lines show percentiles, means, and medians for SRES
scenarios.
The IPCC WG III TAR in one view
• Technologies are available today to keep climate change
impacts limited in the long term and stop the growth of
global GHG emissions in the short term
• The costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol can be kept
low, provided implementation is done efficiently and longterm costs can be kept relatively low if optimum timing is
chosen
• The real problem of controlling emissions is to overcome the
many political, economic, social and behavioural barriers to
implementing mitigation options
• There is a strong link between sustainable development and
climate change mitigation: look for synergies and avoid
trade-offs
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)
Findings SRES/TAR related to acidifying
compounds and ozone precursors
• In most SRES scenarios, after an initial increase, sulfur
emissions are assumed to decrease worldwide after a few
decades, due to concerted policy action
• This is one of the main reasons that in the TAR the projected
climate effects (temperature, sea level) exceed those in earlier
IPCC reports
• GHG mitigation can have very important ancillary benefits for
regional and local air pollution, and vice versa
• More detailed analysis at the regional level is needed,
especially for future emissions of NOx and other ozone
precursors, and options for abatement synergy
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)
Excerpts from SPM IPCC WG3
• “Some mitigation actions may yield extensive benefits in areas outside of
climate change: for example, they may reduce health problems; increase
employment; reduce negative environmental impacts (like air pollution);
protect and enhance forests, soils and watersheds; reduce those subsidies and
taxes which enhance greenhouse gas emissions; and induce technological
change and diffusion, contributing to wider goals of sustainable development.
Similarly, development paths that meet sustainable development objectives
may result in lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions.”
• “The effectiveness of climate change mitigation can be enhanced when
climate policies are integrated with the non-climate objectives of national and
sectorial policy development and be turned into broad transition strategies to
achieve the long-term social and technological changes required by both
sustainable development and climate change mitigation. Just as climate
policies can yield ancillary benefits that improve well being, non-climate
policies may produce climate benefits.”
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)
A1 AIM
Global non-methane volatile organic compounds emissions (Mt/yr)
A1 ASF
600
A1 IMAGE
A1 MESSAGE
A1C AIM
A1C MESSAGE
A1G AIM
A1G MESSAGE
A1T AIM
A1T MESSAGE
A2 ASF
400
A2 AIM
A2G IMAGE
A2 MESSAGE
B1 IMAGE
B1 AIM
B1 ASF
B1 MESSAGE
B1T MESSAGE
200
B1HIGH MESSAGE
B2 MESSAGE
B2 AIM
B2 ASF
B2 IMAGE
5%
25%
mean
0
1990
median
2010
2030
2050
2070
2090
75%
95%
Figure 5-10: Standardized global emissions of NMVOCs for SRES scenarios, classified
into four scenario families (each denoted by a different color code – A1, red; A2, brown;
B1, green; B2, blue). Marker scenarios are shown with thick lines without ticks, globally
harmonized scenarios with thin lines, and non-harmonized scenarios with thin, dotted
lines (see Table 4-3). Black lines show percentiles, means, and medians for SRES
scenarios.
A1 AIM
A1 ASF
4000
A1 IMAGE
A1 MESSAGE
A1C AIM
Global carbon monoxide emissions (MtCO/yr)
A1C MESSAGE
A1G AIM
A1G MESSAGE
A1T AIM
3000
A1T MESSAGE
A2 ASF
A2 AIM
A2G IMAGE
A2 MESSAGE
B1 IMAGE
2000
B1 AIM
B1 ASF
B1 MESSAGE
B1T MESSAGE
B1HIGH MESSAGE
B2 MESSAGE
1000
B2 AIM
B2 ASF
B2 IMAGE
5%
25%
mean
0
1990
median
2010
2030
2050
2070
2090
75%
95%
Figure 5-11: Standardized global emissions of CO for SRES scenarios, classified into
four scenario families (each denoted by a different color code – A1, red; A2, brown; B1,
green; B2, blue). Marker scenarios are shown with thick lines without ticks, globally
harmonized scenarios with thin lines, and non-harmonized scenarios with thin, dotted
lines (see Table 4-3). Black lines show percentiles, means, and medians for SRES
scenarios.