TISS-DSF EMISSIONSMODELTejal KanitkarTata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai

Presentation at the Conference on ‘Global Carbon Budgets and Equity in Climate Change, TISS, 28-29 June 2010

PRODUCT OF A TATA INSTITUTE OFSOCIAL SCIENCES (TISS) – DELHISOCIAL SCIENCES (TISS) DELHISCIENCE FORUM (DSF) COLLABORATION

AUTHORS:

TEJAL KANITKAR, T. JAYARAMAN, MARIO D'SOUZA, MUKUL SANWAN, MARIO D SOUZA, MUKUL SANWAN, PRABIR PURKAYASTHA, RAJBANSTALWAR AND D. RAGHUNANDAN

FRAMEWORK FOR THE MODEL

Nature imposes a global carbon budgetMitigation efforts must begin with recognition of physical constraints on emissions

The atmosphere is to be regarded as a global commonsco o s

Validates equity as the basic rule for the partitioning of global carbon budget

Dual Character of CO2 emissions Both ‘pollution’ and ‘necessity’

RULE I - EQUITY BASED RULES FORPARTITIONING REMAINING CARBON SPACE

Countries cut ``consumption emissions'' if pcurrent share > fair share of carbon space. Countries are allowed ``development'' emissions if current share < fair share of carbon space. Reduction in emissions even for those developing countries that can reach fair share at end of time countries that can reach fair share at end of time period

Objective – Minimize (negative) deviation from fair share

HISTORICAL RESPONSIBILITY

Current Total Stock of Carbon in the Atmosphere p(from base year to 2009) Total contribution of each country/region to t h i t katmospheric stock

Possible base yearPossible base year1850 – Start of emissions (post industrial revolution)1970 – CO2 emissions monitoring recognized by 1972 in the UN Stockholm conference on the Human Environment

HISTORICAL EMISSIONS

Of the total non-LUCF emissions:68% emitted after 1970

*Non‐ LUCF Only Fair Share

1850 Basis 1970 Basis 2009 Population Basis

USA 28.8% 24.4% 4.6%

EU 26.1% 19.9% 7.2%

Other Annex‐I 18.9% 21.5% 6.9%

India 2.6% 3.3% 17.4%

China 10 0% 13 5% 19 6%China 10.0% 13.5% 19.6%

Brazil 0.9% 1.1% 2.8%

Other Emerging Economies 8.5% 11.0% 12.2%

Rest of the World 4.2% 5.4% 29.3%

SHIFT OF BASE YEAR

Over-occupation not a result of early p yindustrialisation

Improvement in efficiency not equal to emissions reductions. Independent efforts required by Annex-IAnnex I

Loss of ground for China and ‘Other Emerging Economies’ (but close to fair share attained nonetheless)

RULE II – FIXING THE GLOBAL CARBONBUDGET

Dependent on degree of riskp g2ºC over pre-industrial levels generally acceptedRange of probabilities for given carbon budget

Between 2000 and 20501000 GtCO2 P b bilit b t 10% d 1000 GtCO2 Probability between 10% and 42% of exceeding a 2 deg C rise1440 GtCO2 Probability between 29% and 0 G CO o a y e wee 9% a 70% of exceeding a 2 deg C rise(Meinshausen et al.)

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO BUDGETS –REPRESENTATIVE TRAJECTORIES

Global Emissions

10

12

6

8

ssio

ns (G

tC)

4

6

Ann

ual E

mi

0

2

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

2040

2041

2042

2043

2044

2045

2046

2047

2048

2049

2050

Global Budget of 1000 GtCO2 between 2000 and 2050Global Budget of 1440 GtCO2 between 2000 and 2050

RULE III – PER CAPITA ANNUAL FLOWS

Countries with per capita emissions above specified thresholds must do more

Objective – Minimize (negative) deviation from specified threshold of per capita from specified threshold of per capita emissions

Rule I, Rule II, Rule III – weighted 10:10:3(More weight to violating equity in stock and the global

carbon budget)ca bo budget)

EMISSIONS AND GROWTH RATES

Current Emissions (2009)( )Non-LUCF (Land Use Change and Forestry) + LUCF

C t R t f G th f E i iCurrent Rate of Growth of EmissionsAverage rate of growth of total emissions (LUCF + non-LUCF) for the last 5 years

PopulationConstant Population 2009Moving Population Projections from the UN WPP Moving Population Projections from the UN WPP till 2050

THE EMISSIONS MODEL

Dynamically implement rules I-III as “soft y y pconstraints”

For each milestone year maximum rate of reduction and maximum rate of growth specified in common for all countriesin common for all countries

16 Region GAMS based non-linear model produces region/country wise carbon allocations based on Rules I, II and III

ALLOCATION OF FUTURE EMISSIONS –FOCUS ON PHYSICAL CARBON SPACE

Dynamical MethodyContinuous re-allocation of the physical carbon spaceDetermined by a small set of parametersP t th t b li d ll t ll Parameters that can be applied equally to all countriesMore suitable where there is coordinated action by all countries

Static MethodShare of each country is determined a prioriShare of each country is determined a prioriRequires several parameters to be individually adjustedM it bl h th i il t l iti ti More suitable where there is unilateral mitigation action

DYNAMICAL MODEL – KEY INPUTPARAMETERS

Maximum Rate of ReductionE.g. Of 1990 levels, 48% by 2020, 97% by 2050 (slightly higher than IPCC AR4 high end cuts)Of 1990 levels 63% by 2020 99% by 2050Of 1990 levels, 63% by 2020, 99% by 2050(inspired by GDR but not identical)

Maximum growth rate allowed – specified as a g pmultiple of current growth rate

Option-A Option-B i i2020 1.8 times 1.8 times

2030 1.5 times 2 times2050 0.5 times 3 times2100 -6 -6

FOUR BASIC SCENARIOS

Scenarios Description

Scenario –I (A,B) Only Rule I – Equity in Stock

Scenario-II (A,B) Rule I and III – Equity in Stockwith penalties on per capita

emissions above specified thresholds

Scenario-III (A,B) Rule I and II – Equity in Stock ithi l b l b b d twithin a global carbon budget

Scenario-IV (A,B) Rule I, II and III – Equity in Stock and penalties on high per capita and penalties on high per capita emissions within a global carbon

budget

BUDGETS BETWEEN 2010 AND 2050 (1850-BASIS)GtC Option-A Option-B

Scenario -I 1702 1848

Scenario -II 1688 1828

Scenario -III 1444 1444

Scenario -IV 1434 1434

Comparisons of Scenarios III & IV and prone to error for small budgets (3%)

SCENARIO IB - 2050Fair Share and Allocation from Scenario‐IB ‐ 2050

30%

35%

15%

20%

25%

5%

10%

0%

2050 Actual Share 2050 Fair Share

SCENARIO-IB - 2100Fair Share and Allocation from Scenario-IB

25%

30%

35%

15%

20%

25%

5%

10%

0%

2100 Actual Share Fair Share

EQUITY NOT A RUNAWAY SCENARIO (BUT NOTACCEPTABLE)

18.000

20.000Comparison of global annual CO2 emissions between RCPs and

TISS-DSF (Base year as 1850)

12 000

14.000

16.000

ns (

GtC

)

8.000

10.000

12.000

O2

emis

sion

4.000

6.000

Ann

ual C

O

-2.000

0.000

2.000A

2000 2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

YearsRCP 3.0 RCP 4.5 RCP 6.0 Scenario-IV-A Scenario-I-B Scenario-I-A

CONCENTRATION AND TEMPERATURE

CO2 Temperature Probability (IllustraConcentrationin 2100 (ppm)

rise in 2100 relative to 1765

for exceeding 2 deg.C(Range)

tive)

(Range)RCP 3.0 403.2 1.65RCP 4.5 524.6 2.37RCP RCP 6.0 673.4 2.98Scenario-IA 468.6 2.06 44% - 83% 67%Scenario-IB 570.2 2.59 57% - 91% 79%Scenario-IVA 406.2 1.66 30% - 71% 52%

Equity not a runaway scenario

Thank you

Tejal KanitkarCenter for Science Technology and SocietyTata Institute of Social Science, Mumbaitejal.kanitkar@gmail.com

GENERATION OF ACTUAL EMISSIONTRAJECTORIES

2010 to 2100 divided into 4 time periodsp2009 to 20202020 to 20302030 t 20502030 to 20502050 to 2100

For each milestone year maximum rate of For each milestone year maximum rate of reduction and maximum rate of growth specifiedOptimiser picks a value between the limits based

i on constraints

THE MODEL – CONSTRAINEDOPTIMISATION

Global BudgetA pre-decided carbon budget to restrict temperature increaseA = Global Budget – Σ(Cumulative emissions of each

t d i ) country and region) Contribution to Stock

Difference between fair share of total atmospheric stock and actual contributionand actual contributionB = (Fair Share of Total Stock – Actual Share of Total Stock)for each country

Per Capita EmissionsPer Capita EmissionsDifference between an acceptable threshold for per capita emissions and actual per capita emissionsC = (Acceptable per capita emissions – Actual per capita ( p p p p pemissions)for each country

OBJECTIVE FUNCTION

MinimizeNegative deviations from global budget, Negative deviations from fair share of stock Negative deviations from acceptable level of per capita Negative deviations from acceptable level of per capita emissionsObjective Function = Minimize (Negative A + Negative B + Negative C)g )

Within the constraints of a global carbon budgetCountries above fair share have to reduce emissionsCountries above fair share have to reduce emissionsCountries below fair share are allowed to increase emissionDegree of reduction or increase depends on how far

t i f f i h f t k d it countries are from fair share of stock and per capita emissions thresholds

16 REGIONS16 REGIONS

Annex-I Non-Annex-IUSA ChinaUSA ChinaEU IndiaRussian Federation Brazil

S AfJapan South AfricaAustralia IndonesiaCanada South KoreaOther Annex-I Mexico

Other Emerging EconomiesRest of the World

OTHER EMERGING ECONOMIES

Argentina, Chile, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Malaysia, Saudi g gyp yArabia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Uzbekistan and Venezuela.