* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download ETC/ACC
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Emissions trading wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Energiewende in Germany wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in New Zealand wikipedia , lookup
Carbon governance in England wikipedia , lookup
Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Kyoto Protocol and government action wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Climate Change conference wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Years of Living Dangerously wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Business action on climate change wikipedia , lookup
TFIAM 10-12 May 2004 Amiens EEA scenario 2005 project : sustainable emission pathways Hans Eerens RIVM ETC/ACC partners and others involved: • RIVM: IMAGE/TIMER/FAIR/EUROMOVE models, global scenarios, climate effects, coordination • NTUA: PRIMES/GEM-E3/PROMETHEUS models, European energy system • IIASA: RAINS model, European air quality • AEAT: non-CO2 GHGs and non-energy CO2 emissions • IPTS: POLES model, technology variants • AUTH: OFIS model, transport & urban Air Quality • NILU: Air Pollution State & policies • CCE: Air pollution effects on ecosystems/critical loads • EEA: project guidance, links with issues other than air and climate change ETC/ACC SCENARIOS IN SUPPORT OF EEA SOEOR2005 Objectives: • Explore air pollution and climate change implications of CAFE baseline and policy scenarios – Long-Range Energy Modelling (LREM) – Clean Air For Europe Kyoto ratified (CAFE-KR) • Explore alternative scenarios which meet sustainability goals also beyond CAFE – Sustainable Emissions Pathways (SEP) DRIVING FORCES, PRESSURE, STATE, IMPACTS AND RESPONSES IN SOEOR2005 TOOLS USED FOR SOEOR2005 MODEL ANALYSIS GEM-E3 PROMETHEUS OFIS AQ Impacts SEP OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING SUSTAINABLE EMISSIONS PATHWAYS SCENARIO FOR EEA’S SOEOR2005 REPORT Driving forces: population, economic growth Add 2030-2100 Add non CO2 GHGs CAFE LREM CAFE LREM-E NEC targets? Yes Kyoto targets? No NEC targets? Yes Kyoto targets? Yes* CAFE KR long-term targets? No Sustainable Emissions Pathways scenario (SEP) NEC targets? Yes Kyoto targets? Yes* Energy system details and variants Low Economic growth LREM-E/LE CAFE SEP-LE ETC/ACC for EEA/SoEOR2005 long-term targets? Yes THREE TIMEFRAMES FOR SOEOR2005 ANALYSIS Indicator value domestic GHG emissions EU15/OECD Europe Short term Cost-effectiviness Focus on pressures 120 Medium-term Focus on pressures, impact Long term Sustainability/infrastructure Focus on driving forces/impact LREM-E: existing policies, no kyoto implementation CAFE-KR full implementation kyoto, NEC Historical trend PRIMES/SEP IMAGE/SEP . Sustainable emission window paths (2 degree target) 0 year 1990 1997 2003 2007 2010 2017 2023 2030 2050 2070 2080 2100 ECONOMIC GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOEOR2005 European economic growth assumptions for LREM-E, CAFE-KR and SEP well in range of other projections, ranking moderate optimistic POPULATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOEOR2005 POPULATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOEOR2005 PRIMARY ENERGY DEMAND IN EU-15 AND EU10 FOR LREM-E, CAFE-KR AND SEP LONG-TERM OBJECTIVE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE Temperature increase IPCC Temperature increase (Degrees C) 6.0 LREM-E 5.0 4.0 Objective adopted by EU 3.0 S650e 2.0 SEP 1.0 0.0 pre-industrial level -1.0 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 • The EU long-term climate objective of 2oC is roughly consistent with stabilisation of CO2equivalent concentrations at 550 ppm for low to medium estimates of the climate sensitivity IMPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENT GLOBAL BURDEN SHARING OBJECTIVES FOR EUROPEAN EMISSIONS ALLOWANCES Burden sharing approach C&C2100 C&C2075 Multi stage 2 Multi stage 1 Multi stage 3 C&C2050 Jacoby rule Brazilian Proposal Preference score 2010 2020 2030 2050 gasses Remarks -9 -9 -9 -9 -15 -18 -18 -21 -24 -24 -34 -38 -46 -48 -51 -46 -58 -64 -72 -71 -68 -76 6 GHG’s 6 GHG’s 6 GHG’s 6 GHG’s 6 GHG’s 6 GHG’s No land-use related CO2 No land-use related CO2 No land-use related CO2 No land-use related CO2 No land-use related CO2 No land-use related CO2 -11 -11 -10 -25 -31 -39 -55 -80 -63 -80 -133 -81 CO2 CO2 CO2 Only energy CO2 Only energy CO2 Only energy CO2 For SoEOR2005, without prejudging negotiations outcomes, assume: -20% by 2020 and, -40 % by 2030 as a sustainability benchmark when evaluating scenarios AIR QUALITY TARGETS Pollutant Value (average time) nr of exceedances allowed/min exceedance area To be met in Human Health Ozone (T) PM10 (LV) PM10 (LV) SO2 (LV) SO2 (LV) NO2 (LV) NO2 (LV) 3 120 μg/m (8h average) 50 μg/m3 (24h average) 40 μg/m3 (annual mean) 350 μg/m3 (1h average) 125 μg/m3 (24h average) 200 μg/m3 (1h average( 40 μg/m3 (annual mean) < 76 days/3 year < 36 days/year None < 25 hours/year < 4 days /year < 19 hours/year None Ecosystem protection 3 Ozone(T) AOT40c of 18 (mg/m ).h (5 year average) Daylight hours May-July 3 AOT40c of 6 (mg/m ).h (5 year average over Reduction >33% compared to Ozone 22500 km2) 1990 Acifidication Critical load exceedances (year, averaged Reduction >50% compared to 2 over 22500 km ) 1990 3 NOx(LV) 30 μg/m (annual mean) > 1000 km2 SO2(LV) 20 μg/m3 (annual mean) > 1000 km2 SO2((LV) 20 μg/m3 (winter average) > 1000 km2 Long-term targets PM10 50 μg/m3 (24h average) None 3 PM10 20 μg/m (annual mean) None 3 Ozone 120 μg/m (8h average) None 3 Ozone AOT40c of 6 (mg/m ).h (5 year average) Daylight hours May-July Acifidication Critical load exceedances (year) None Eutrophication Critical load exceedances (year) None 2010 2005 2005 2005 2005 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2001 2001 2001 - EU SD AND ADOPTED (2010) ASSUMED (2020-30) ENERGY TARGETS EU Sustainable Development Strategy: 1%/yr GHG emission • reductions from 2012-2020 ; extended for SoEOR to 2030 • • • EU25(domestic): 2010 -5.3% 2020 -13% 2030 -23% EU Directive on renewables: electricity generation: 22.1% in 2010 (not met) extended for SoEOR to 27% (35) by 2020 and 35% (40) by 2030 EU Directive on biofuels in transport: 2% by 2005, 5.75% by 2010; ; extended for SoEOR2005 to 7.5% by 2020 and 10% by 2030 EU Directive on renewables: share of total energy use: 12% by 2010 (not met), at least 20% (15%, SEP 10%) by 2020; extended for SoEOR2005 to 20% (30, SEP 13%) by 2030 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GHG emissions EU-15 GHG emissions EU-25 5500 5500 5000 MtCO2/yr 5000 LREM 4500 LREM CO2eq SEP-Domestic 4500 CO2eq 4000 4000 SEP-Domestic 3500 CO2 3500 CO2 3000 3000 2500 2500 2000 1990 SEP SEP 2000 2010 2020 2000 2030 1990 2000 2010 2020 LREM-E CO2eq SEP CO2eq LREM-E CO2 CAFE-KR CO2 SEP CO2 Target EU-15/25 In SEP GHGs domestic reduction 20-27 % (2030), supplemented with flexible mechanism to meet proposed targets SEP 2030 As energy intensity improvements become more difficult and non-CO2 abatement options get exhausted, shift to fuel mix changes GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS • In LREM-E, Kyoto targets are not met. • In CAFE-KR (carbon prices €12/tCO2eq in 2010, €20 in 2020/2030), Kyoto targets are assumed to be met by domestic measures plus significant usage of Kyoto mechanisms; emissions increase after 2010 • In SEP (carbon prices €12/tCO2eq in 2010, €30 in 2020 and €65 in 2030) emission allowances are in line with EU longer-term climate target, but use of the Kyoto mechanisms is still needed • IN SEP, EU’s SD target (1% GHG reduction in 2010-2020) and renewable energy targets are not met -> technology variants (to be developed) AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS kT S (SO2), kt N (NOx, NH3), kt (VOC) 16000 14000 CAFE-KR, VOC 12000 10000 8000 CAFE-KR, SO2 6000 CAFE-KR, NOx 4000 2000 CAFE-KR, NH3 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 YEAR • 2010 targets for NEC pollutants are assumed to be reached regardless of costs in CAFE • Beyond 2010 emissions remain roughly stable in the scenarios Costs PRIMES uses behavioural costs (discount rates): 8% Large Utilities 12% Large industrial & commercial entities 17.5% Households spending Recalculation to social costs (as in RAINS), 4% discount rate, assuming decisions have been taken) (Billion Euro) 2010 2020 2030 Behavioural costs 26 30 21 Social costs 25 39 32 Declining energy costs results in less capital investments, GLOBAL CLIMATE IMPLICATIONS OF SCENARIOS Rate of global temperature change Global temperature change (compared to 1961-1990 average) 0,35 change (oC) 3 2,5 change (oC/decade) 3,5 baseline SEP 2 1,5 1 0,5 0,25 0,2 0,15 0,1 baseline SEP 0,05 0 0 2000 0,3 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 • In LREM-E, the EU climate goal is exceeded around 2050 • In SEP, the global mean temperature increase remains below the EU objective in this century • In SEP, also the rate of change is lowered to facilitate adaptation of social and ecological systems 2100 EXAMPLE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AT EUROPEAN LEVEL Climate Change induced Species disappearance 1995-2100 Database 1400 species, 270-1100 per country LREM-E SEP UNCERTAINTY TREATMENT IN SOEOR2005 • Measuring and monitoring: are statistics/measurement data precise? – Noted, not addressed in report • Representativess indicators: Are impacts avoided if climate/air quality goals are met? Is GDP an adequate measure for welfare? – Noted, not addressed in report • Model dynamics: do models adequately represent real world? – Differences models (PRIMES, POLES, TIMER) discussed in report • Assumptions about the future: how uncertain is the future? – – – – No probabilities analysed Results compared with other studies Low economic growth variant; low/high carbon price sensitivities Technology variants SCENARIOS FOR SOEOR2005: PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 1 • CAFE-KR is consistent with NEC and Kyoto targets if domestic measures (up to €12/tCO2eq by 2010) are complemented by usage of international mechanisms (trading, CDM). • CAFE LREM-E meets NEC targets but is inconsistent with the EU’s climate and renewable energy targets due to increasing GHG emissions and slow penetration of renewables ---->. • Additional (global) action will be needed to facilitate a transition to a more sustainable Europe in terms of air pollution and climate change -> SEP • In SEP carbon prices go from €12/tCO in 2010 to €65 in 2030, cost-effective action requires a major part of the GHG emissions reductions reached through international mechanisms. 2eq SCENARIOS FOR SOEOR2005: PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 2 • SEP does initiate changes, but does not yet (2030) requires a fundamental “transition” in the European energy system. • A sustainability transition meeting all EU’s climate and energy targets appears to be feasible, but at significant costs (400 Euro/household/year in 2030); there is not one optimal solution > SEP variants. • Integrated CC&AP policies can result in cost savings, avoidance of trade-offs, and effective abatement of air pollutant and GHG emissions. • A sustainability transition in Europe has to be viewed in a global context. • The costs for medium term GHG emissions reductions are significant dependent on the assumed economic growth, as shown by a lower economic growth variant. SoEOR2005 variants 2003: • Low economic growth • Renewables Considered for 2004: • Hydrogen economy/C-capture-storage • CAP reform • Nuclear – Phase-out – increased • External/internal burden sharing regimes LREM-E LOW ECONOMIC GROWTH VARIANT • LREM-E assumes moderately optimistic GDP growth -> a similarly pessimistic variant has been explored • In the low economic growth variant, the effect of lower activity levels outweighs the effect of slower technological development • Hence, GHG emissions are significant lower than in the base case, making it easier to meet NEC and Kyoto targets • The emissions in the energy-intensive industry, the power and transport sectors are particularly sensitive to economic growth assumptions?? SEP: NEC assumptions • Variant 1: – Continue with NEC 2010 • Variant 2: – NEC 2010, followed by: – Proposed EU- wide target for 2020 (costeffective) – MFR scenario for 2030