AMS-Europe:

Adaptation and MitigationStrategies for Europe

Carlo Jaeger, Richard Klein

The Elbe flood 2002

Damagesfromextremeweatherevents

1955 –2000

The Research Challenge

• What is a consistent portfolio of mitigation

and adaptation strategies?

• What kind of institutions are needed to implement

such strategies?

Adaptation Funds

Marshall plans

Emissions Trading

Some Major Options:

-Non-Fossil Energy Systems Solar / Wind / Geothermic / etc. Fission / Fusion-Decarbonized Fossil Energy Systems Oceanic / Geological C-Capturing- New Urban Systems Transport Heating / Air Condition Lifestyles

Stakeholder Dialogue

Scenarios

Strategies

Adapt-ation

Miti-gation

400, 550, 800, 1000 ppm

Portfolio and Timing

SectorsRegionsInstruments

SectorsRegions

Instruments

Thresholds Thresholds

Options Options

Architecture of the AMS-Europe Project

WD Scenarios: Jean-Charles Hourcade: WP 1.1 Concentrations / Emissions / Economic growth Nebojsa Nakicenovic: WP 1.2 Long-term price dynamics Rik Leemans: WP 1.3 Impact scenarios WD Adaptation Neil Adger: WP 2.1 A theory of vulnerability and adaptive capacity Richard Klein: WP 2.2 A European vulnerability map Pavel Kabat: WP 2.3 Multi-scale realism in adaptation Pier Vellinga: WP 2.4 Risk sharing arrangements and financial arrangements n.n. WP 2.5 Synergies between adaptation, mitigation, and sustainability WD Mitigation Jonathan Köhler: WP 3.1 Socio-economic driving forces and boundary conditions n.n. WP 3.2 Synergies of, mitigation, adaptation and other sustainability issues Eberhard Jochem: WP 3.3 Techno-economic evaluation of mitigation options and mixes Alexander Wokaun: WP 3.4 Economic-environmental evaluation of mitigation options Ottmar Edenhofer: WP 3.5 Innovation based mitigation policies WD Strategies Bert Metz: WP 4.1 Long-term goals and decision-making Sander van der Leeuw: WP 4.2 Bottom-up regional realism John Schellnhuber: WP 4.3 Strategy portfolio and co-benefits of adaptation and mitigation Lennart Olsson: WP 4.4 European policy in a global context WD Cross-Cutting Activities

Klaus Hasselmann: WP 5.1 Stakeholder Dialogue Martin Welp: WP 5.2 Public participation and media Carlo Jaeger: WP 5.3 Computational tools, systems analysis, tools for integration

Public Participation in Sustainability ScienceA Handbook

Edited by Bernd Kasemir, Jill Jäger, Carlo C. Jaeger, Matthew T. Gardner

Cambridge University Press2003

1

Environmental Vulnerability Assessment

WHY ENVIRONMENTAL VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT?

• Academic interest: to produce information that helps to understand how a system is potentially affected by and responds to a change in climatic conditions, as well as other changes.

• Policy interest: to contribute to policymaking by presenting this information to stakeholders and recommending adaptation measures, including their implementation considerations.

2

Environmental Vulnerability Assessment

VULNERABILITY IN ATEAM

• The degree to which an ecosystem service is sensitive to global change plus the degree to which the sector that relies on that service is unable to cope with the changes.

• Vulnerability = f (exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity).

• Focus is on human use of ecosystems!

3

Environmental Vulnerability Assessment

human sector

human sector

human sector

ecosystem

sensitivity

global change

exposure adaptive capacity

vulnerability

• Human sectors rely on one or more ecosystem services.• Human sectors interact with each other.• Humans sectors are the vulnerable entity.

4

Environmental Vulnerability Assessment

maps of vulnerability

multiple scenarios of change in 21st century:

climate,land use,N deposition

modellingframework

changes in ecosystem

servicescombined indicators

dialogue between stakeholders and scientists

changes in adaptive capacity

downscaling SRES

CD

ATEAM

CIAMN

AOG CM

C IAM - C o m m unity Inte g ra te d Asse ssm e nt M o d ule sN

M o d ula r Struc ture

C lim a te M o d ule s

Ec o no m y M o d u le s

EM IC

EM IC

Ra m se y M o d e lEnd o g e no us

G ro wth M o d e l

End o g e no usG ro wth M o d e l

BIO M E II

Bio sp he ric Re sp o nse M o d ule s

DG VM

Cellula

rAuto

mato

n

C e llu la rAuto m a to n

DG VM

Po lic y Exe rc ise

C o nte xtAd e q ua teInte g ra te dM o d e l

Sta ke ho ld e r Issue s

Po lic y Exe rc ise

CIAMN-Community Integrated Assessment ModulesSoftware documentation

www.european-climate-forum.net/internal/harrysdocu

Integrated Assessment Modeling:Modules for Cooperation

 C.C.Jaeger, M.Leimbach, C.Carraro, K.Hasselmann, J.C.Hourcade, A.Keeler, R.Klein

www.feem.it/web/activ/_wp.html

Emissions in the UmBAU-Scenario in GtC

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Year

GtC

Carbon sequestered

Energy related

Land use change

Energy Related Investment Shares in the UmBAU-Scenario

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Year

Energy R&D

Fossil energy sector

Fossil resource sector

Renewable energy sector

Energy Related Investment Shares in the BAU-Scenario

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Year

Energy R&D

Fossil energy sector

Fossil resource sector

Renewable energy sector

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

Time

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

Age

024

6

8

Density

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

Time

Dynamics of capital stock withheterogeneous age density

World GDP in Tril. US$ 95

0

50

100

150

200

250

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Year

UmBAU

BAU

Learning by Doing and

Increasing Returns to ScaleMarginal

AbatementCosts

MarginalDamages

E*Optimal

Emissions

MC

MD

E**Optimal

Emissions

Rent of Resource Owner

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Year

%

UmBAU

BAU

Who is afraid of Climate Policy?

Kyoto and Beyond

The Opportunity

Strategic Assessment of relevant Mitigation and Adaptation Options