View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Energy, Technology and Climate Change
The Joint Global Change Research Team
May 25, 2010
Cosmos Club
Washington, DC
A Common Thread in this Half of the Talk
The world is heading toward regionally heterogeneous commitments
and policy structures, and towards a world with a combination ofmarket-based, regulatory, and sectoral policy approaches.
At the same time, many world leaders are aligning themselves with
aggressive long-term climate goals such as a 2oC increase in global mean surface temperature.
Are these consistent?
Are these nth-best policies in the near-term on a track toward the aggressive climate goals?
What are the implications of this nth-best world? What are the indirect effects on nth-best policies?
How and how quickly must they evolve to stay on track for our long-term goals?
HOW LOW CAN WE GO?
It is “possible” to bring concentrations to levels 350 ppmv CO2-e.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095
ppmv
Reference
350 Overshoot
CO2-e Concentrations
But it would require pretty big changes to the global energy system.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095
EJ/yr
m geothermal
l solar
k wind
j hydro
i nuclear
h biomass w/ccsg biomass
f coal w/ccs
e coal
Electricity Generation
2300
Nuc
lear
Power
Plant
s
3 m
illion
1M
W
turb
ines
These sorts of energy technology deployment levels occur eventually in every stabilization scenario –what differs between is the timing.
Full Delay
Not-to-
Exceed
Not-to-
Exceed Overshoot
Not-to
Exceed Overshoot
Not-To-
Exceed Overshoot
Not-to
Exceed Overshoot
Not-To-
Exceed
1 ETSAP-TIAM + + + + + + + + + XX2 FUND + + + + + + + XX XX XX3 GTEM + + + + + XX + XX XX XXIMAGE + + + + + + XX XX XX XXIMAGE-BC -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- + XX XX XXMERGE Optimistic + + + + XX XX XX XX XX XXMERGE Pessimistic + + + + + + XX XX XX XXMESSAGE + + + + + XX + XX XX XXMESSAGE - NOBECS + -N/A- + + -N/A- -N/A- + XX XX XXMiniCAM Base + + + + + XX + + + XXMiniCAM LoTech + + + + + XX + XX XX XX
8 POLES + + + + + XX XX XX XX XX9 SGM + + + + + + XX XX XX XX10 WITCH + + + + + + XX XX XX XX
7
Model
4
5
6
450 CO2-e
Full Delay Full Delay
650 CO2-e 550 CO2-e
Which scenarios were EMF 22 modelers able to provide?
Full Delay
Not-to-
Exceed
Not-to-
Exceed Overshoot
Not-to
Exceed Overshoot
Not-To-
Exceed Overshoot
Not-to
Exceed Overshoot
Not-To-
Exceed
1 ETSAP-TIAM + + + + + + + + + XX2 FUND + + + + + + + XX XX XX3 GTEM + + + + + XX + XX XX XXIMAGE + + + + + + XX XX XX XXIMAGE-BC -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- + XX XX XXMERGE Optimistic + + + + XX XX XX XX XX XXMERGE Pessimistic + + + + + + XX XX XX XXMESSAGE + + + + + XX + XX XX XXMESSAGE - NOBECS + -N/A- + + -N/A- -N/A- + XX XX XXMiniCAM Base + + + + + XX + + + XXMiniCAM LoTech + + + + + XX + XX XX XX
8 POLES + + + + + XX XX XX XX XX9 SGM + + + + + + XX XX XX XX10 WITCH + + + + + + XX XX XX XX
7
Model
4
5
6
450 CO2-e
Full Delay Full Delay
650 CO2-e 550 CO2-e
Which scenarios were EMF 22 modelers able to provide?
Full Participation: All Begin Reductions Immediately
Group 1: Annex 1 (minus Russia)
Group 2: BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China)
2012 2030 2050 2070
Group 3: Remaining Countries
Delayed Participation: Regions Enter the Global Coalition over Time
2012 2030 2050 2070
The delayed participation case explores the potential impacts of a one single
possibility for delay in non-Annex I participation – it does not represent any real
policy proposal. Mechanisms such as offsets may lead to policy structures that lie between the two cases explored in this study.
Group 1: Annex 1 (minus Russia)
Group 2: BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China)
Group 3: Remaining Countries
Full Delay
Not-to-
Exceed
Not-to-
Exceed Overshoot
Not-to
Exceed Overshoot
Not-To-
Exceed Overshoot
Not-to
Exceed Overshoot
Not-To-
Exceed
1 ETSAP-TIAM + + + + + + + + + XX2 FUND + + + + + + + XX XX XX3 GTEM + + + + + XX + XX XX XXIMAGE + + + + + + XX XX XX XXIMAGE-BC -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- + XX XX XXMERGE Optimistic + + + + XX XX XX XX XX XXMERGE Pessimistic + + + + + + XX XX XX XXMESSAGE + + + + + XX + XX XX XXMESSAGE - NOBECS + -N/A- + + -N/A- -N/A- + XX XX XXMiniCAM Base + + + + + XX + + + XXMiniCAM LoTech + + + + + XX + XX XX XX
8 POLES + + + + + XX XX XX XX XX9 SGM + + + + + + XX XX XX XX10 WITCH + + + + + + XX XX XX XX
7
Model
4
5
6
450 CO2-e
Full Delay Full Delay
650 CO2-e 550 CO2-e
Which scenarios were EMF 22 modelers able to provide?
Participation and concentration pathway all influence the ability to achieve low stabilization levels.
8 2 2 012 6
Full Delay
Not-to-
Exceed
Not-to-
Exceed Overshoot
Not-to
Exceed Overshoot
Not-To-
Exceed Overshoot
Not-to
Exceed Overshoot
Not-To-
Exceed
1 ETSAP-TIAM + + + + + + + + + XX2 FUND + + + + + + + XX XX XX3 GTEM + + + + + XX + XX XX XXIMAGE + + + + + + XX XX XX XXIMAGE-BC -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- + XX XX XXMERGE Optimistic + + + + XX XX XX XX XX XXMERGE Pessimistic + + + + + + XX XX XX XXMESSAGE + + + + + XX + XX XX XXMESSAGE - NOBECS + -N/A- + + -N/A- -N/A- + XX XX XXMiniCAM Base + + + + + XX + + + XXMiniCAM LoTech + + + + + XX + XX XX XX
8 POLES + + + + + XX XX XX XX XX9 SGM + + + + + + XX XX XX XX10 WITCH + + + + + + XX XX XX XX
7
Model
4
5
6
450 CO2-e
Full Delay Full Delay
650 CO2-e 550 CO2-e
Technology also influences the ability to meet low-stabilization levels.
8 2 2 012 6
Full Delay
Not-to-
Exceed
Not-to-
Exceed Overshoot
Not-to
Exceed Overshoot
Not-To-
Exceed Overshoot
Not-to
Exceed Overshoot
Not-To-
Exceed
1 ETSAP-TIAM + + + + + + + + + XX2 FUND + + + + + + + XX XX XX3 GTEM + + + + + XX + XX XX XXIMAGE + + + + + + XX XX XX XXIMAGE-BC -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- -N/A- + XX XX XXMERGE Optimistic + + + + XX XX XX XX XX XXMERGE Pessimistic + + + + + + XX XX XX XXMESSAGE + + + + + XX + XX XX XXMESSAGE - NOBECS + -N/A- + + -N/A- -N/A- + XX XX XXMiniCAM Base + + + + + XX + + + XXMiniCAM LoTech + + + + + XX + XX XX XX
8 POLES + + + + + XX XX XX XX XX9 SGM + + + + + + XX XX XX XX10 WITCH + + + + + + XX XX XX XX
7
Model
4
5
6
450 CO2-e
Full Delay Full Delay
650 CO2-e 550 CO2-e
BioCCS is not the only
reason that models could
or could not produce particular scenarios
No BioCCSLegend:
REGIONAL ENERGY,
EMISSIONS AND
TECHNOLOGY
-120%
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
Change in CO2 Emissions Relative to 2000
ETSAP-TIAM
FUND
GTEM
IMAGE
IMAGE-BECS
MERGE Optimistic
MERGE Pessimistic
MESSAGE
MESSAGE-NOBECS
MiniCAM - Base
MiniCAM - Lo Tech
POLES
SGM
WITCH
2000 Emissions
Zero Emissions
650 CO2-e 550 CO2-e 450 CO2-e
Full
N.T.E.
Delay
N.T.E.
Full
N.T.E.
Delay
N.T.E.
Full
O.S.
Delay
O.S.
Full
N.T.E
.
Delay
N.T.E.
Full
O.S.
Delay
O.S.
How can a single country determine whether it is taking actions consistent with long-term goals.
Scenarios that could not be modeled under criteria of study.
80 Percent Reduction Below to 2000
50 Percent
Reduction Below 2000
U.S. Mitigation in 2050 from EMF 22
587 CO2-e peak
530 CO2-e peak
502 CO2-e peak
523 CO2-e peak
There is a real difference between actual reductions and commitments that could be met through offsets.
-120%
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
Change in CO2 Emissions Relative to 2000
ETSAP-TIAM
FUND
GTEM
IMAGE
IMAGE-BECS
MERGE Optimistic
MERGE Pessimistic
MESSAGE
MESSAGE-NOBECS
MiniCAM - Base
MiniCAM - Lo Tech
POLES
SGM
WITCH
2000 Emissions
Zero Emissions
650 CO2-e 550 CO2-e 450 CO2-e
Full
N.T.E.
Delay
N.T.E.
Full
N.T.E.
Delay
N.T.E.
Full
O.S.
Delay
O.S.
Full
N.T.E
.
Delay
N.T.E.
Full
O.S.
Delay
O.S.
Scenarios that could not be modeled under criteria of study.
U.S. Mitigation in 2050 from EMF 22 These are actual
fossil and industrial emissions in the U.S.
Other countries are mitigating at the
same price as the U.S.; in some cases,
with explicitly equal prices on land carbon.
Decreasing U.S. emissions through
fossil and industrial offset purchases
would result in higher prices outside
of the U.S. than inside it.
Real-world policies may be real-complicatedAn illustrative multi-track regime: Targets + Policy Commitments
Electricity Transportation Industry Buildings
Australia/New Zealand,
Canada, Europe, Former
Soviet Union, Japan, United
States
Economy-Wide Carbon Constraint
CO2 emissions relative to 2005
(80%, 50%, 20%)
Africa Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(NA, NA, 10%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, NA, 40%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, NA, 65%)
China Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
India Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, NA, 80%)
Korea Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(30%, 50%, 90%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(20%, 40%, 100%)
Latin America Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Middle East Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Southeast Asia Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Africa, China, India, Korea,
Latin America, Middle
East, Southeast Asia
Crediting
% of emissions reductions sold to developed world
(50%, 25%, 0%)
Exploring “multi-track” pathways to long-term goals.
Economy-wide targets
Policy-based commitments
National-level sectoral targets/standards
Sectoral agreements
Sector-specific policies applied across regions
Funds for adaptation and technology
0
5
10
15
20
25
1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095
Fossil and Industrial CO2 Emissions (GtC/yr)
Reference
Cost-Minimizing 550
Cost-Minimizing 450
450 ppmv CO2 Overshoot
Objective: visualize and assess
illustrative “multi-track” architectures
integrating different types of mitigation commitments
Real-world policies may be real-complicatedAn illustrative multi-track regime: Targets + Policy Commitments
Electricity Transportation Industry Buildings
Australia/New Zealand,
Canada, Europe, Former
Soviet Union, Japan, United
States
Economy-Wide Carbon Constraint
CO2 emissions relative to 2005
(80%, 50%, 20%)
Africa Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(NA, NA, 10%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, NA, 40%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, NA, 65%)
China Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
India Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, NA, 80%)
Korea Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(30%, 50%, 90%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(20%, 40%, 100%)
Latin America Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Middle East Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Southeast Asia Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Africa, China, India, Korea,
Latin America, Middle
East, Southeast Asia
Crediting
% of emissions reductions sold to developed world
(50%, 25%, 0%)
Real-world policies may be real-complicatedAn example from our work on multi-track regimes
Electricity Transportation Industry Buildings
Australia/New Zealand,
Canada, Europe, Former
Soviet Union, Japan, United
States
Economy-Wide Carbon Constraint
CO2 emissions relative to 2005
(80%, 50%, 20%)
Africa Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(NA, NA, 10%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, NA, 40%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, NA, 65%)
China Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
India Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, NA, 80%)
Korea Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(30%, 50%, 90%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(20%, 40%, 100%)
Latin America Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Middle East Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Southeast Asia Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Africa, China, India, Korea,
Latin America, Middle
East, Southeast Asia
Crediting
% of emissions reductions sold to developed world
(50%, 25%, 0%)
Real-world policies may be real-complicatedAn example from our work on multi-track regimes
Electricity Transportation Industry Buildings
Australia/New Zealand,
Canada, Europe, Former
Soviet Union, Japan, United
States
Economy-Wide Carbon Constraint
CO2 emissions relative to 2005
(80%, 50%, 20%)
Africa Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(NA, NA, 10%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, NA, 40%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, NA, 65%)
China Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
India Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, NA, 80%)
Korea Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(30%, 50%, 90%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(20%, 40%, 100%)
Latin America Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Middle East Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Southeast Asia Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Africa, China, India, Korea,
Latin America, Middle
East, Southeast Asia
Crediting
% of emissions reductions sold to developed world
(50%, 25%, 0%)
Real-world policies may be real-complicatedAn example from our work on multi-track regimes
Electricity Transportation Industry Buildings
Australia/New Zealand,
Canada, Europe, Former
Soviet Union, Japan, United
States
Economy-Wide Carbon Constraint
CO2 emissions relative to 2005
(80%, 50%, 20%)
Africa Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(NA, NA, 10%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, NA, 40%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, NA, 65%)
China Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
India Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, NA, 80%)
Korea Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(30%, 50%, 90%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(20%, 40%, 100%)
Latin America Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Middle East Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Southeast Asia Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids
(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU
(NA, 30%, 75%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Africa, China, India, Korea,
Latin America, Middle
East, Southeast Asia
Crediting
% of emissions reductions sold to developed world
(50%, 25%, 0%)
0.00%
0.05%
0.10%
0.15%
0.20%
0.25%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Emissions Reduction (Fossil and Industrial CO2)
Costs (Fraction of GDP)
Multi-track regimes lead to less efficient allocation
of emissions mitigation, across regions, sectors, and technologies.
2020
First-best(fully efficient)550650
450
Targets+ Sectoral Agreements
Targets+ Policy Commitments
Targets+ Policy Commitments+ Sectoral Agreements
Inefficient
policies are ….inefficient.
The devil is in
the details of
the policy itself.
Inefficient
policies are ….inefficient.
The devil is in
the details of
the policy itself.
0.00%
0.05%
0.10%
0.15%
0.20%
0.25%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Emissions Reduction (Fossil and Industrial CO2)
Costs (Fraction of GDP)
2020
First-best(fully efficient)550650
450
Targets+ Sectoral Agreements
Targets+ Policy Commitments
Targets+ Policy Commitments+ Sectoral Agreements
Multi-track regimes lead to less efficient allocation
of emissions mitigation, across regions, sectors, and technologies.
0.00%
0.05%
0.10%
0.15%
0.20%
0.25%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%Emissions Reduct ion (Fossil and Industrial CO2)
Costs (Fraction of GDP)
0.00%
0.10%
0.20%
0.30%
0.40%
0.50%
0.60%
0.70%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%Emissions Reduction (Fossil and Industrial CO2)
Costs (Fraction of GDP)
It becomes increasingly challenging to use
these policy structures as mitigation becomes more stringent
The 450 ppmv overshoot pathway with
Targets & Policy Commitments could not
be met without either expanding coverage of the multi-track policy or transitioning to a fully-efficient regime
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Emissions Reduction (Fossil and Industrial CO2)
Costs (Fraction of GDP)
First-best(fully efficient)550650
450
Targets+ Sectoral Agreements
Targets+ Policy Commitments
Targets+ Policy Commitments+ Sectoral Agreements
Global Target
2020
2035
2050
The questions about policy structures like these are about tradeoffs and policy evolution.
Decision-makers put different emphases on different criteria.
Environmental Effectiveness
Equity
Economic Efficiency
Political Feasibility
If these are a starting point, how and how quickly must they evolve?
Why might regional actions vary:
different resource bases, different energy systems, different
political structures, different weightings of societal issues, different institutional capabilities to take on action, ……
Note: 190 million households in urban residential and
183 million households in rural residential in 2005
China Buildings’ Energy Use by Fuel (2005)
Space Heating in Rural Residential
Reference Policy
How might rural buildings in China respond to an economy-wide carbon price?
Price effects from carbon policy would push to extend the use of traditional bioenergy.
3,900+ GtCO2
Capacity
2,309 GtCO2
Capacity
1,600 CO2sources emitting 3,890 MtCO2/yr
1,715 sources emitting 2,900 MtCO2/yr
Dahowski, RT, Dooley, JJ, Davidson, CL, Bachu, S and Gupta, N. Building the Cost Curves for CO2 Storage: North America. Technical Report 2005/3.
International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. Dahowski RT, X Li, CL Davidson, N Wei, and JJ Dooley. 2010. Regional Opportunities for
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in China: A Comprehensive CO2 Storage Cost Curve and Analysis of the Potential for Large Scale Carbon Dioxide
Capture and Storage in the People’s Republic of China . PNNL-19091, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.
Bottom-up assessments of CCS deployment opportunities for the US (2010) and China (2010).
SECTORAL ENERGY,
EMISSIONS AND
TECHNOLOGY
Studies generally indicate that the electricity sector is more responsive to carbon prices than transportation.
TransportationElectricity
U.S. CO2 Emissions: No Climate Policy
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
GtCO2/yr
ADAGE MRN-NEEM
EPPA IGEM MERGE (opt) MiniCAM (base)
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
GtCO2/yr
ADAGE MRN-NEEM
EPPA IGEM
MERGE (opt) MiniCAM (base)
Studies generally indicate that the electricity sector is more responsive to carbon prices than transportation.
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
GtCO2/yr
ADAGE MRN-NEEM
EPPA IGEM MERGE (opt) MiniCAM (base)
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
GtCO2/yr
ADAGE MRN-NEEM
EPPA IGEM
MERGE (opt) MiniCAM (base)
TransportationElectricity
U.S. CO2 Emissions: 287 GtCO2-e
Studies generally indicate that the electricity sector is more responsive to carbon prices than transportation.
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
GtCO2/yr
ADAGE
MRN-NEEM
EPPA
IGEM
MERGE (opt)
MiniCAM (base)
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
GtCO2/yr
ADAGE MRN-NEEM
EPPA IGEM
MERGE (opt) MiniCAM (base)
TransportationElectricity
U.S. CO2 Emissions: 203 GtCO2-e
Studies generally indicate that the electricity sector is more responsive to carbon prices than transportation.
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
GtCO2/yr
ADAGE
MRN-NEEM
EPPA
IGEM
MERGE (opt)
MiniCAM (base)
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
GtCO2/yr
ADAGE MRN-NEEM
EPPA IGEM
MERGE (opt) MiniCAM (base)
TransportationElectricity
U.S. CO2 Emissions: 167 GtCO2-e
How far much can be done with only an RPS (including bio) and a CAFE standard?
Four Scenarios: a Global Policy Experiment
Reference
CAFE Only
Vehicle efficiency improves linearly to 58 mpg by 2050
RPS Only
97% renewable electricity generation by 2050
CAFE + RPS
Vehicle efficiency improves linearly to 58 mpg by 2050
97% renewable electricity generation by 2050
The policies have their desired sectoral effects….
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2005 2020 2035 2050
GtC
O2/
yr
Electricity Transportation
Buildings Industry
Land-Use Change
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2005 2020 2035 2050
GtC
O2/
yr
Electricity Transportation
Buildings Industry
Land-Use Change
Electricity emissions
are driven to zero by 2050
Reference CAFE + RPS
The policies have their desired sectoral effects….
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2005 2020 2035 2050
GtC
O2/
yr
Electricity Transportation
Buildings Industry
Land-Use Change
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2005 2020 2035 2050
GtC
O2/
yr
Electricity Transportation
Buildings Industry
Land-Use Change
Transportation
emissions are
reduced substantially by 2050
Reference CAFE + RPS
The policies have their desired sectoral effects…. but there are indirect effects.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2005 2020 2035 2050
GtC
O2/
yr
Electricity Transportation
Buildings Industry
Land-Use Change
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2005 2020 2035 2050
GtC
O2/
yr
Electricity Transportation
Buildings Industry
Land-Use Change
Emissions in buildings
and industry increase as
the sector substitute for electricity
Reference CAFE + RPS
What is the implication of indirect effects on emissions?
Coverage is critical
to prevent limit
indirect effects.
It is not viable to just
go after high priority
sectors in the long-
term.
The effects of
second-best policies
evolve over time
with the stringency
of the mitigation
goal.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005 2020 2035 2050
Global CO2 Emissions (GtCO2/yr)
Reference
CAFE + RPSNo Indirect Effects
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095
GtC
/yr
Reference550 w/ Land Price500 w/ Land Price450 w/ Land Price550 w/o Land Price500 w/o Land Price450 w/o Land Price
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095
GtC
/yr
550 w/ Land Price500 w/ Land Price450 w/ Land PriceReference550 w/o Land Price500 w/o Land Price450 w/o Land Price
The implications of excluding land use from climate policy could be substantial.
Land Use Change CO2 Emissions Fossil and Industrial CO2 Emissions
A pulse of land use change
emissions when land use is excluded.
Greater reductions in fossil fuel and
industrial emissions when land use is excluded.
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No Offsets Domestic
Offsets
Domestic
+ Latin
America
Offsets
Domestic
+ Tropical
Offsets
Domestic
+ Global
Offsets
Cu
mu
lati
ve
20
05
to
20
50
(G
tCO
2)
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No Offsets Domestic
Offsets
Domestic
+ Latin
America
Offsets
Domestic
+ Tropical
Offsets
Domestic
+ Global
Offsets
Cu
mu
lati
ve
20
05
to
20
50
(G
tCO
2)
Did you get what you paid for?
Purchased Offsets(Change in Annex 1 Fossil and
Industrial Emissions)
Change in Land Use Change Emissions from Reference
Note: Negative indicates an decrease in LUC emissions relative to the reference
An experiment based on a 50% reduction in fossil and industrial emissions from Annex 1.
What are the implications of a changing climate on land use change emissions?
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095
GtC/yr
No Policy w/o Impacts
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095
GtC/yr
No Policy w/o Impacts
No Policy w/ Impacts
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095
GtC/yr
No Policy w/o Impacts
No Policy w/ Impacts
500 ppmv w/o Impacts
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095
GtC/yr
No Policy w/o Impacts
No Policy w/ Impacts
500 ppmv w/o Impacts
500 ppmv w/ Impacts
THE VALUE OF TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
42
Energy technology development must consider not
just improvements to existing technology, but also basic science to support mitigation in 2050 and beyond.
The time scale of emissions mitigation is a century or more.
Investments in basic scientific
research in the first half of the
21st century can be transformed
into energy technologies that
can become a major part of the
global energy system in the second half of the century.
Emissions Mitigation 2005 to
2050 and 2050 to 2095
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
750 ppm 650 ppm 550 ppm 450 ppm
2005 to 2050 2050 to 2095
The public goods nature of climate change extends to technology
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Global Abatement Cost
Tri
llio
n 2
00
0$
(D
isco
un
ted
)
Reference
Technology
Advanced Technology
outside U.S. Only
Global Advanced
Technology
Advanced Technology
in U.S. Only
From our Harvard Project paper on delayed participation and technology
The public goods nature of climate change extends to technology
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
US Abatement Cost
Tri
llio
n 2
00
0$
(D
isco
un
ted
)
Reference
Technology
Advanced Technology
outside U.S. Only
Global Advanced
Technology
Advanced Technology
in U.S. Only
From our Harvard Project paper on delayed participation and technology
FRAMING THE DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
Recommended