FAIR 2.1 Tool for analyzing mitigation commitments and costs of countries/regions for different post- 2012 regimes Michel den Elzen, the Netherlands Environmental

FAIR 2.1

Tool for analyzing mitigation commitments and costs of countries/regions for different post-2012 regimes

Michel den Elzen, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, associated with RIVM

Michel den Elzen, Countries’ mitigation commitments under the “South-North dialogue” proposal, SBSTA-22, Bonn2

Overview

• Part 1: General

• Part 2: FAIR 2.1 region

• Part 3: FAIR 2.1 country

• Part 4:“South-North dialogue” proposal compatible with 2oC quantification

• Part 4: Conclusions


Part 1: General


• To explore and evaluate the environmental and abatement costs implications of possible future international climate policy regimes for differentiation of mitigation commitments

• The model is not made to promote any particular regime, but to allow for comparing regimes in consistent and transparent way

• NB:– Developed to support long-term policy development, but also used for analysing near-term

policy issues

– Developed to support Dutch climate policy, but used / available for other Parties as well.

Objective FAIR 2.0


• Contents:– links “differentiation of commitments” to “adequacy of commitments– based on established science (IPCC)– includes many proposed regimes options– includes emission trading and costs

• Form:– PC computer model– geographical user interface– relatively simple to use– Interactive

Features of FAIR


Some proposals for climate change regimes– Brazilian Proposal (Brazil / RIVM)*

– Multi-criteria (CICERO)

– Multi-stage (RIVM)*

– Contraction & Convergence (Global Commons Institute)*

– Global Compromise (Benito Müller)*

– Multi-Sector Convergence (ECN/Cicero)

– (global) Triptych approach (UU)*

– South-North proposal

– (Convergence in) Emission-Intensities (targets)*

– Growth cap index (Ellerman, M IT)

– Jacoby rule (ability to pay) (MIT)*

– Soft landing (IEPE)

– Sectoral commitments / sectoral CDM

– SD-PAMs (University of Cape Town)

* Green = included in FAIR 2.0


• Strategy: different models for different target groups• General Public: web model version:

aims: orientation on the issue / education / capacity building conditions: for free; no commercial use; no technical support; no

publications without consent RIVM

– Policy Advisors: full model version (no access to code)aim: support other Parties in policy analysisconditions: on a case by case basis; licence agreement; limited

support; no commercial use; no publication without consent RIVM

– Research institutes: full model (access to code)aim: co-development of the model; scientific analysis / publicationsconditions: selected network partner; collaboration agreement;

contribution to development of model; no commercial use

FAIR model versions


Part 1: FAIR 2.0 model


Global emission profile

Regional emissions targets

Regional GHG emissions after trade

Climate assessmentmodel

Per capita Convergence

Multi-stageapproach

emission intensity system

CLIMATE MODEL


Abatement costs & permit price

DATASETS

EMISSIONS ALLOCATION MODEL

Mitigation costs & Emissions trade

EMISSION TRADE & COST MODEL

Historicalemissions

BrazilianProposal

Triptych approach

Baselinescenario

Emissionsprofile

MACs

FAIR 2.0 model

Global emission reduction objective


Datasets FAIR 2.0- internet version

• Historical emissions (1765-1995):– CDIAC (only CO2)

– EDGAR/HYDE (all non-CO2 GHGs)

• Baseline scenario– IMAGE 2.2 IPCC SRES scenarios

– IMAGE-POLES scenario

• Emission profiles– two global GHG emission profiles (550 CO2-eq and 650 CO2-eq.)

• Marginal Abatement Costs (MAC) curves– MACs CO2: energy model (TIMER 1.0 - IMAGE)

– MACs non-CO2: GECS (European Commission)







Multi-stageapproach


CLIMATE MODEL



DATASETS




Historicalemissions

BrazilianProposal

Triptych approach

Baselinescenario

Emissionsprofile

MACs

FAIR 2.0 model



Multi-Stage approachMulti-stage Approach (RIVM):

a gradual increase in the number of Parties involved and their level of commitment according to participation and differentiation rules Berk and den Elzen (2001), Climate Policy

Four stages (for non-Annex I):

Stage 1. No constraint

Stage 2. Intensity targets (threshold 1)

Stage 3. Stabilisation emissions (threshold 2)

Stage 4. Emission reduction targets (Annex I)

Policy choices: Threshold options: per capita income, per capita emissions Stabilisation period Burden-sharing options: income, emissions, per capita

emissions/income, etc.


Multi-Stage approach

Gradual participation and different type of commitments

• Example for S550e:– threshold 1: 20% ’90 Annex I per capita income

– threshold 2: 50% ‘90 Annex I per capita income

– 5-year stabilisation emissions

– contribution to reductions using burden-sharing key p.c. emissions







Multi-stageapproach


CLIMATE MODEL



DATASETS




Historicalemissions

BrazilianProposal

Triptych approach

Baselinescenario

Emissionsprofile

MACs

FAIR 2.0 model



Abatement costs model

• Function:1.To calculate abatement costs (multi-gas)2.To calculate the buyers and sellers on the international permit

market3.To distribute the global emission reduction objective over the

different regions, gases and sectors following a least-cost approach, making use of the flexible Kyoto mechanisms.


• on the basis of Marginal Abatement Cost curves (MAC): 6 GHGs, 11 sectors and 17 world regions;

• MAC curves only represent direct costs, there is no direct link to GDP losses

• Assumption is made of international emission trading: full trading in case regions participate; limited trading for non-participants (CDM)

Methodology


Costs as % of GDP 550 CO2-eq vs. 650 CO2-eq.

Example:• S550e leads to much higher abatement costs than the S650e

(equivalent to 0.4% versus 0.05% of world GDP in 2025)• Costs are subject to considerable uncertainty (only baseline)


Regional costs under C&C 2050 (S550e)

• Buyers and sellers on the market– India, Africa and China sellers; Rest buyers

• Large differences costs• Low-income non-Annex I regions gains for most regimes (up to 2%)


FAIR website: www.rivm.nl/fair


Part 3: FAIR 2.1 country model


Methodology: the FAIR 2.1 country modelBase year data (1990-2000):• Emissions: CAIT database• All Kyoto gases, excluding land use change and forestry,

including international transport

New: Future baseline scenarios for countries (population, GDP and emissions)

• IMAGE IPCC SRES scenarios at 17 regions• Using an improved downscaling method• Tries to deal with the limits of present down-scaling methods

Kyoto• USA implements its national target of 18% improvement in

emissions/GDP until 2012• Other Annex I countries follow Kyoto target


+35%+40%

+20%

+30%

- 5%

+10%

-45%

-25%

Multi-gas emission pathways meeting 2oC


Parameters of “South-North dialogue” proposal Region Configuration 400 ppm 450 ppm 500 ppm 550 ppm YearAnnex II EU-15: reduce below 1990 level 40% 35% 30% 25% in 2020

Others: reduce below 1990 level 33% 24% 15% 10% in 2020

Reduction after 2020 35% 31% 27% 24% per decadeAnnex I but not Annex II

Reduce below 1990 level 28% 24% 20% 20% in 2020

Reduction after 2020 38% 32% 24% 21% per decadeNewly industrialised countries (NIC)

Increase above 2000 level 30% 30% 30% 20% in 2020

Reduction after 2020 35% 28% 21% 17% per decadeReduce threshold NIC-RIDC 20% 20% 20% 10% per decade after

2020Rapidly industrialising countries RIDC)

Reduce below reference 16% 13% 10% 10% in 2020

Reduction below reference 40% 36% 20% 14% after 2020Reduce threshold RIDC-ODC 20% 20% 20% 10% per decade after

2020Other developing countries (ODC)

Follow reference

Least developed countries(LDCs)

Follow reference

Reduction requirements for meeting the different concentration levels

500ppm CO2-eq. is Political Willingness Scenario


Groups of regions change in time: 2020 .


Groups of regions change in time: 2030 – 550ppm





Gradual change towards NICs and RIDCs


Change compared to 1990 level in 2020

%-change compared to 1990-level in 2020

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

Annex II Annex I -no An I

USA EU-25 Global

400 ppm450 ppm500 ppm550 ppmBaseline


-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

NICs RIDCs OtherDCs

LDCs Global

• In 2020, Annex I emissions need to be reduced ~30-35% below 1990 levels for 400-450ppm• For meeting the 400/450 ppm NICs and RIDCs have to participate in the reductions between 2015 and 2025


Change compared to 1990 level in 2050

%-change compared 1990-level in 2050

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

Annex II Annex I -no An I

USA EU-25 Global


-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

NICs RIDCs OtherDCs

LDCs Global


Reductions compared to baseline 2020 – 550ppm







Differentiated results between the Annex I and non-Annex I



High reductions for the Annex I and RIDCs and NICs, moderate reductions OCDs and LDCs



Differentiated results between the Annex I and non-Annex I


Per capita emissions under 400 and 550 ppm CO2-equivalent scenario

CO2-eq. emissions per capita

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050time (years)

tCO2/cap.yr

Annex IIAnnex I -no An INICsRIDCsOther DCsLDCsUSAEU-25Global

400CO2-eq. emissions per capita

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050time (years)

tCO2/cap.yr

Annex IIAnnex I -no An INICsRIDCsOther DCsLDCsUSAEU-25Global

550

Documents

FAIR 2.1 Tool for analyzing mitigation commitments and costs of countries/regions for different post- 2012 regimes Michel den Elzen, the Netherlands Environmental