Comparison of GHG mitigation efforts

between Annex 1 countries

Markus AmannInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

Objectives

• Impartial, coherent and transparent comparison of GHG mitigation potentials and costs in Annex 1 countries

– using a multi-disciplinary systems approach,

– based on publicly available data,

– taking into account co-benefits on air pollution,

– independent assessment, financed through IIASA’s core funds.

• Results, input data and an interactive calculator freely available in the public domain:

http://gains.iiasa.ac.at

Methodology

Bottom-up approach:

• all gases and sectors,

• at detailed technical level (several 100 source categories, 300+ mitigation measures, etc.)

• systems approach (integrated perspective covering demand and supply sectors),

• consistent with UNFCCC 2005 inventories,

• employing exogenous activity projections,

• technical, economic and market potentials (before trading).

Based on earlier work with IIASA’s GAINS (Greenhouse gas – Air pollution Interactions and Synergies) model

Marginal cost curves for each Party

Japan

USA

EU27

Russia

Interest rate: 20%

An initial implementation

• For largest Annex 1 countries (98% of 1990 emissions), EU27 presented in aggregate

• Based on activity projections of IEA World Energy Outlook 2008 and FAO World Agriculture Perspective

• Key assumptions:– Only currently available technologies– Natural turnover of capital stock, no premature scrapping– No behavioural changes– Domestic measures only– LULUCF excluded for now

• Initial analysis compiled from publicly available information, received only limited review by national experts up to now

Baseline GHG emissions projectionsfor IEA WEO2008 projection

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

1990 2005 2020Yea r

Em

issi

on

s re

lati

ve t

o 1

990

A us tralia

New Z ealand

Canada

Norw ay

United S tates of A meric a

S w itz erland

J apan

A nnex-I

EU27

Rus s ian Federation

Ukraine

Analysis not completed yet for: Belarus, Croatia, Turkey, Cyprus, Malta

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

-25%-20%-15%-10%-5%0%5%

Emissions relative to 1990

Tota

l co

st (

% o

f G

DP2

02

0) 20%

4%

Total costs for GHG mitigation, Annex 1, 2020 for different interest rates (excl. LULUCF)

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

-25%-20%-15%-10%-5%0%5%

Emissions relative to 1990

Tota

l co

st (

% o

f G

DP2

02

0) 20%

4%

-0.2%

-0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

-60%-50%-40%-30%-20%-10%0%10%20%30%40%50%

Emissions relative to 1990

Tota

l co

st (

share

of

GD

P2020)

Total cost curves for 2020 (% of GDP) (10% interest rate, excl. LULUCF)

AUS NZ CA NO US CH JP EU

RU UKR

Comparison of mitigation effortsfor a 16.5% reduction of total Annex 1 emissions Efficiency vs. equity

AUCAEUJPNZNORUCHUKRUS

Change Per- Carbon Costs Costs per-to 1990 capita price % GDP capita

AUCAEUJPNZNORUCHUKRUS

Change Per- Carbon Costs Costs per-to 1990 capita price % GDP capita

AUCAEUJPNZNORUCHUKRUS

Change Per- Carbon Costs Costs per-to 1990 capita price % GDP capita

AUCAEUJPNZNORUCHUKRUS

Change Per- Carbon Costs Costs per-to 1990 capita price % GDP capita

On-line calculator on the Internethttp://gains.iiasa.ac.at/MEC

Co-benefits on air pollutant emissionsAnnex 1, 2020

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

-15%-10%-5%0%5%

GHG emissions (relative to 1990)

Air

pollu

tion e

mis

sions

rela

tive t

o B

ase

line 2

020

NOxSO2

PM2.5

The GAINS calculator refers to Annex 1 measures onlyEstimates for other countries are available

GHG mitigation cost curves for China, 2020 (GAINS-Asia estimates for 4% interest rate)

Marginal costs

-60

-30

0

30

60

90

120

150

0 1 2 3 4

GHG mitigation potential (Gt CO2eq)

Carb

on

pri

ce (

€/t

CO

2)

Co-benefits onair pollution

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200%250%300%350%

GHG emissions relative to 1990

Air

pollu

tion

em

issi

on

s re

lati

ve t

o b

ase

line

SO2 NOx PM2.5

-0.2%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

200%250%300%350%

GHG emissions relative to 1990

GH

G m

itig

ati

on

cost

s (%

of

GD

P in

20

20

)

Total costs

Conclusions

• IIASA’s GAINS analysis:

– Coherent and impartial comparison of mitigation efforts

– Analysis based on publicly available data

– Transparency: Open access to results and all input data:

http://gains.iiasa.ac.at

– Review workshop in May/June 2009

• The analysis quantifies impacts of objective reasons for differences in mitigation efforts.

• Different equity criteria deliver different rankings of countries.

• The GAINS calculator provides a practical tool for comparing mitigation efforts along multiple criteria.