Unintended Consequences: Policies on Biofuels and Climate Change

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 1

Unintended Consequences:Unintended Consequences:

Policies on Biofuels and Climate ChangePolicies on Biofuels and Climate Change

Matthias JONAS

International Institute for Systems AnalysisLaxenburg, [email protected]

IIASA Energy Day, Warsaw, Poland – 10 June 2008


1. My talk will take you from

• global

• long-term

• anthroposphere vs biosphere

• Poland

• short-term

• policy implications (Kyoto/post-Kyoto)

to


1. In detail

2. Brief historical GHG review

3. Understanding the carbon balance

4. How good do we know the FF emissions?

5. Terrestrial biosphere: some plain insights

6. Signal analysis under the KP

7. Conclusions



Nakicenovic (2007)



Haberl et al. (2008: http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/socec/inhalt/1088.htm)

Humanity‘s draw on terrestrial ecosystems:The human appropriation of net primary production

Global HANPP in 2000: 23.8%LU-induced productivity: 9.6%Biomass harvest: 12.5%Human-induced fires: 1.7%



Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4 and N2O have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice-cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in CO2 concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of CH4 and N2O are primarily due to agriculture.

Today’s atmospheric concentration of CO2 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm).

IPCC WG I (2007: Fig. SPM.1;http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/gr-ar4-wg1.htm, SPM)


Canadell et al. (2007a, b); modified

Atmospheric CO2

Ocean

Land

Fossil Fuel Emissions

Deforestation

7.6

1.5

4.1

2.22.8

CO2 f

lux

(Pg

C y-1

)Si

nkSo

urce

Time (y)

Perturbation of Global Carbon Budget (1850-2006)2000-2006

balance:




Canadell et al. (2007a, b); modified

Tropical Americas: 0.6 Pg C y-1

Tropical Asia: 0.6 Pg C y-1

Tropical Africa: 0.3 Pg C y-1

2000-2006

Anthropogenic Land Use Change:Tropical deforestation

13 Million hectares each year

1.5 Pg C y-1

Bor

neo,

Cou

rtes

y: V

ikto

r B

oehm



The net terrestrial C flux is determined as the remainder of the other fluxes. The same is done with its uncertainty (error propagation).

IPCC WG I (2007: Tab. 7.1)

4%relative

66%relative

Consequence (FF example):

relative uncertainty of FF emissions by 1% relative uncertainty of net terrestrial uptake by 4%

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 10

3. Interim summary

Spatial scale: global

Temporal scale: 2000–2005

Our ignorance of the net terrestrial carbon flux (uptake) is 16 times greater than our ignorance of the emissions from the use of fossil fuels and 4 times more sensitive.

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 11


Canadell et al. ( 2007a, b); modified

Anthropogenic Fossil FuelC Emissions

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010F

oss

il F

uel

Em

issi

on

(G

tC/y

) Emissions

280

300

320

340

360

380

400

1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010

1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010

[2006 Total Anthrop. Emissions: 8.4+1.5 = 9.9 Pg]2006 Fossil Fuel: 8.4 Pg C

1990 - 1999: 1.3% y-1

2000 - 2006: 3.3% y-1

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 12


50-year constant growth rates to 2050:

B1 1.1%,A1B 1.7%A2 1.8% A1FI 2.4%

Canadell et al. ( 2007a, b); Raupach et al., (2007); modified

Recent emissions

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

CO

2 E

mis

sion

s (G

tC y

-1)

5

6

7

8

9

10Actual emissions: CDIACActual emissions: EIA450ppm stabilisation650ppm stabilisationA1FI A1B A1T A2 B1 B2

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

CO

2 E

mis

sion

s (G

tC y

-1)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30Actual emissions: CDIAC450ppm stabilisation650ppm stabilisationA1FI A1B A1T A2 B1 B2

20062005

Trajectory of Global Fossil Fuel Emissions

Observed2000-2006: 3.3%

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 13


IPCC WG III ( 2007: Tab. SPM-5)

Characteristics of post-TAR stabilization scenarios:

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 14


Time

Emissions

Most recent emission estimates

Most recent precision estimates

Initial precision estimates

Initial emission estimates

Accuracy

Hamal ( 2008: Fig. 9); modified

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 15


Hamal ( 2008: Fig. 11); Hamal et al. (2008: pers. comm.); modified

EU-15: "initial - most recent" (absolute; reference: 2004)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

(%)

CDIAC IEA UNFCCC R2 = 0.93451.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5

1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013

(%) UNFCCC:

- 4.2%/yr

EU-15: Total Uncertainty (CO2, w/o LULUCF)

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 16


Hamal et al. (2008: pers. comm.); modified

Global: "initial - most recent" (absolute; reference: 2004)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

(%)

CDIAC

CDIAC w/o: China (main land), USA, Canada, Algeria, United Arab Emirates,Indonesia, India, South Africa, Nigeria, Iran, Kuwait, USSR

CDIAC w/o “emission leaders”

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 17

4. Interim summary

Spatial scale: EU-15–world regions–global

Temporal scale: 1980s–2015

• FF emissions are extremely dynamic (upward).

• We have difficulties to project them even 10 years ahead.

• Global emissions will not peak before 2015.

• We will not be able to keep the warming below 2oC globally.

• We are overconfident about the FF emissions. Globally, their uncertainty is most likely closer to 10% rather than 4%.

• So far, the change in uncertainty can be grasped reasonably well only for the EU-15 MSs.

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 18


Globe or Group of Countries or individual Country

Net Storage in the Atmosphere

FF Industry Kyoto Biosphere Non-KyotoBiosphere

Impacting?

Sphere ofActivityunderthe KP

Jonas and Nilsson (2007: Fig. 4); modified

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 19


Problematic: Partial C or GHG accounting under the KP!

Global carbon budget data between 1959 and 2006 show that the efficiency of natural carbon sinks to remove atmospheric CO2 has declined by about 2.5% per decade. This may look modest but

• it represents a mean net ‘source’ to the atmosphere of 0.13 PgC y-1 during 2000–2006.

Or, in comparison:

• a 5% reduction in the mean global FF emissions during the same time period yields a net ‘sink’ of 0.38 PgC y-1.

Canadell et al. ( 2007a, b); Ciais (2007: pers. comm.); modified

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 20

Atmosphere

t2

const

Time

Fnet

t1

imagine continents



M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 21

5. Interim summary

Spatial scale: multi country–continental–global

Temporal scale: KP / post-KP

• The KP cannot be verified if the terrestrial biosphere is split up into a “Kyoto biosphere” and a “non-Kyoto biosphere”.

• We need to understand the entire system: Emissions, removals and their trends in toto ( FCA, FGA).

• Scientists can be expected to consistently account CO2 Bu/Td at the scale of continents in 10 years from now (FF CO2 most likely sooner than terrestrial CO2) and to disaggregate emission changes on a country scale. Politically driven (mis-) accounting reported Bu annually under (post-) Kyoto can and will be instantaneously corrected.

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 22


Jonas and Nilsson (2009: Tab. 1); modified

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 23


Jonas and Nilsson (2009: Tab. 1); modified

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 24



b)

VT < t2

Emissions

TimeVTt1 t2

TimeVTt1 t2

VT > t2

a)

Biosphere

FF-Sphere

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 25


~ Risk

Undershooting U

CommittedLevel

Base YearLevel

x1

Timet1

Emissions

t2

x2


M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 26

Required Undershooting for 2005: alpha = 0.1

-47,1

41,0

27,9

21,4

20,1

17,0

15,6

8,0

6,6

6,4

3,6

3,4

-1,9

-2,6

-10,4

-6,3

-3,0

-19,8

-27,5

-27,6

-30,0

-39,6

-41,2

-46,0

-52,0

4,0

-80,0 -60,0 -40,0 -20,0 0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0

ES

AT

LU

PT

IT

IE

DK

GR

SI

BE

NL

FR

FI

DE

UK

SE

CZ

PL

SK

HU

RO

BG

EE

LT

LV

EU-15

0 - 5% 5 -10% 10 - 20% 20 - 40% DTI

6. Signal analysisunder the KP

Hamal and Jonas (2008: Fig. 9)

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 27


Bun et al. ( 2008: Fig. 5, 6); modified

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

USA

Annex I must buy

Russia

Ukraine

Annex I can sell

Emissions in Tg CO2-eq (w/o LULUCF)

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

USA

Annex I must buy

Russia

Ukraine

Annex I can sell

= 0.1 Emissions in Tg CO2-eq (w/o LULUCF)

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 28

6. Interim summary

Spatial scale: country

Temporal scale: KP / post-KP

• For most countries the emission changes agreed on under the KP are of the same order of magnitude as the uncertainty that underlies their combined CO2-equivalent emissions estimates.

• Some GHG emissions and removals estimates are more uncertain than others. Options exist to address this issue, and these could be incorporated in the design of future policy regimes. These include the option of not pooling subsystems with different relative uncertainties but treating them individually and differently.

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 29

6. Interim summary—cont’d

• Signal analysis techniques differ; each has its pros and cons. Any such technique, if implemented, could ‘make or break’ compliance, especially in cases where countries claim fulfillment of their reduction commitments.

• Emission changes at the level of countries (and legal entities) can be evaluated against true emission changes and in terms of uncertainty, risk, etc. Scientists will do it!

• Poland would be an extremely credible (low-risk) seller of emission permits. However, a holistic view indicates that an emissions market will face serious (inconceivable?) constraints if uncertainty is taken into account—which would be rational to do.

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 30

7. Conclusions

Science will, most likely, break the neck of the KP which follows a Bu approach and does not consider uncertainty, unless it

• becomes flexible in that it adapts to Td accounting.

• gives up fake accounting of the ‘Kyoto Biosphere’ but treats the terrestrial biosphere (including hot issues such as deforestation, avoided deforestation, bio-energy, etc.) in a holistic context which is appropriate for this natural system.

and

• becomes rigorous on uncertainty.

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 31

References

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 32


0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1980

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1980

World

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

F (emissions)P (population)g = G/Ph = F/G

Fact

or (r

elat

ive to

199

0)

EmissionsPopulationWealth = per capita GDPCarbon intensity of GDP

Drivers of Anthropogenic Emissions

Drivers of anthropogenic emissions

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 33

Anthropogenic C Emissions: Regional Contributions

CumulativeEmissions

[1751-2004]

Fluxin 2004

FluxGrowthin 2004

Populationin 2004

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% D3-Least Developed Countries

India

D2-Developing Countries

ChinaFSU D1-Developed CountriesJapanEU

USA


Anthropogenic C emissions: regional contributions

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 34

IPCC SR ( 2001: Fig. SPM-5)

Inertia and time scales

M. Jonas 10 June 2008 – 35

The Bali Roadmap

UNFCCC( 2007);CANA (2007)

Documents

Unintended Consequences: Policies on Biofuels and Climate Change