1 / 42

Niklas Höhne n.hoehne@ecofys.de ECOFYS, Köln, Germany

Niklas Höhne n.hoehne@ecofys.de ECOFYS, Köln, Germany. Evolution of commitments under the UNFCCC: Involving newly industrialized economies and developing countries UNFCCC side event 4 June 2003. ECOFYS Energy and Environment. European research and consulting company In total 200 employees

noam
Download Presentation

Niklas Höhne n.hoehne@ecofys.de ECOFYS, Köln, Germany

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Niklas Höhne n.hoehne@ecofys.de ECOFYS, Köln, Germany Evolution of commitmentsunder the UNFCCC:Involving newlyindustrialized economiesand developing countriesUNFCCC side event4 June 2003

  2. ECOFYS Energy and Environment • European research and consulting company • In total 200 employees • Offices in the Netherlands, Germany, UK, Spain, Poland, Belgium • Example projects: • “Sectoral objectives”: Sharing the EU Kyoto targets between different sectors for the European Commission • Development of the emission monitoring guidelines for the EU emission trading system (with FIELD, KPMG and TÜV) • Study on future international climate commitments for the German EPA

  3. Evolution of commitments under the UNFCCC: Involving newly industrialized economies and developing countries By ECOFYS: Dipl. Phys. Niklas Höhne Dr. Jochen Harnisch Dr. Dian Phylipsen Prof. Dr. Kornelis Blok Mw. Carolina Galleguillos On behalf of the German Federal Environmental Agency Research Report 201 41 255 Climate Change 01/03 http://www.umweltbundesamt.org/fpdf-l/2246.pdf

  4. Outline of the report • Introduction • The need for the evolution of commitments • Specific difficulties • Equity considerations • Current approaches • Elaboration and assessment of existing approaches • New approaches • Comparison of approaches • Some current views • Recommendations

  5. Outline of the report • Introduction • The need for the evolution of commitments • Specific difficulties • Equity considerations • Current approaches • Elaboration and assessment of existing approaches • New approaches • Comparison of approaches • Some current views • Recommendations

  6. Stabilization Source: IPCC Synthesis Report, 2001

  7. Historic emissions Annex I Non-Annex I Source: Marland et al. / Houghton et al. / EDGAR 3.2, gases added using IPCC 1995 GWPs

  8. Future emissions Annex I 7 Annex I x 10 3 N2O 2.5 CH4 Forestry CO2 2 Fossil CO2 1.5 Emissions in Tg CO2eq. 1 0.5 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year 7 Non-Annex I Non-Annex I x 10 3 N2O 2.5 CH4 Forestry CO2 2 Fossil CO2 1.5 Emissions in Tg CO2eq. 1 0.5 0 2010 2020 2030 2040 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year IPCC SRES A1B scenario

  9. The need for evolution of commitments Stabilization: • For any stabilization, global emissions need to peak and decrease steadily thereafter • The sooner the peak the lower the stabilization level UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol • Ultimate objective: stabilization of GHG concentrations • “Common but differentiated responsibilities” • Annex I countries reduce emissions by about 5% in 2008-2012 relative to 1990 • USA rejects the Kyoto Protocol Further commitments are necessary so that: • Developed countries reduce emissions substantially • Developing countries’ emissions do not grow as much as expected

  10. Outline of the report • Introduction • The need for the evolution of commitments • Specific difficulties • Equity considerations • Current approaches • Elaboration and assessment of existing approaches • New approaches • Comparison of approaches • Some current views • Recommendations

  11. Specific difficulties • Rules of the negotiation process • History of the negotiations • Time scales and inertia of the climate system • National circumstances and resulting positions by countries and groups

  12. Country groups Annex I Liechtenstein Monaco OECD Annex II Economies in transition (EITs) Australia Canada Iceland Japan New Zealand Norway Switzerland United States of America Belarus Croatia Kazakhstan* Russian Federation Ukraine European Union Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland EU Applicants Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom Bulgaria Estonia Latvia Lithuania Romania Slovenia *: Added to Annex I only for the purpose of the Kyoto Protocol at COP7 Czech Republic Hungary Poland Slovakia Turkey Cyprus Malta Korea Mexico

  13. Outline of the report • Introduction • The need for the evolution of commitments • Specific difficulties • Equity considerations • Current approaches • Elaboration and assessment of existing approaches • New approaches • Comparison of approaches • Some current views • Recommendations

  14. Current approaches Issues to be addressed National emissions targets (absolute or intensity targets) Or Non-quantified target (P&Ms)? What is the type of the commitment? How ? What if the commitment is not met? What is the stringency of individual commitment? How much? Who participates and when? Who?

  15. Outline of the report • Introduction • The need for the evolution of commitments • Specific difficulties • Equity considerations • Current approaches • Elaboration and assessment of existing approaches • New approaches • Comparison of approaches • Some current views • Recommendations

  16. Approaches 1. Continuing Kyoto 2. Intensity targets 3. Contraction and Convergence 4. Global Triptych approach (extended) 5. Multi-sector convergence approach 6. Multistage approach (FAIR) 7. Equal mitigation cost 8. Coordinated policies and measures 9. Extended Global Triptych approach 10. New multistage approach 11. Performance targets

  17. Assessment criteria Ecological criteria: • Environmental effectiveness: Stabilization can be reached • Encouragement of early action also without commitment Political criteria: • Equity principles: Need, responsibility, capability • Agreement with fundamental positions of major constituencies Economic criteria: • Accounting for structural differences • Minimize adverse economic effects on the committed country Technical criteria: • Compatible with Convention and Protocol • Moderate political and technical requirements for the negotiations: Not too complex, data and methods available

  18. Equity principles Convention Article 3.1: “... common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities ...” Often: Principle Approach e.g. Egalitarian Per capita emission rights Reductions prop. to emissions Polluter pays Here: Approach Principles Contraction and convergence (how, how much and who) Need e.g. Responsibility Capability

  19. Quantification of emissions Quantification: • References emissions (IPCC SRES scenarios) • Emissions of all individual countries under all approaches until 2100, assuming Kyoto (Annex I) and SRES (Non-Annex I) until 2010 Dimensions: • Global emission reduction goal:Global emissions in 2020 +27% above 1990 for CO2, CH4 and N2O. Consistent with path that leads to 450 ppmv CO2 concentration • Reference scenario IPCC SRES A2 • Parameters of the approach (see approach)

  20. Approaches 1. Continuing Kyoto 2. Intensity targets 3. Contraction and Convergence 4. Global Triptych approach (extended) 5. Multi-sector convergence approach 6. Multistage approach (FAIR) 7. Equal mitigation cost 8. Coordinated policies and measures 9. Extended Global Triptych approach 10. New multistage approach 11. Performance targets

  21. Continuing Kyoto How ? How much? Who? Chosen parameters • Ad-hoc targets for Annex I: -20% every 10 years as of 2010 • Increasing participation if GDP/cap close to global average • Some countries participate as of 2020 (here Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Persian Golf States, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand) • In 2020 +27% above 1990 • Reaching around 480ppmv CO2 2100

  22. Continuing Kyoto Change in emissions from 1990 to 2020 (CO2, CH4, N2O)

  23. Continuing Kyoto Critical factors: • Participation threshold: If lowered so that e.g. China is participating, –7% reduction of the participating countries over 10 years instead of -20%, is sufficient to reach same goal in 2020 • Reduction of participating states: 10% over 10 years instead of 20% lead to global emissions +36% over 1990 • Reference scenarios: Other IPCC SRES scenarios lead to emissions +2% to +33% over 1990

  24. Continuing Kyoto Ecological criteria: • Environmental effectiveness: ++ • Encouragement of early action - Political criteria: • Equity principles: Need, responsibility, capability + • Agreement with fundamental positions 0 Economic criteria: • Accounting for structural differences / • Minimize adverse economic effects + Technical criteria: • Compatible with Convention and Protocol ++ • Moderate political and technical requirements ++ Assessment

  25. How ? How much? Who? Contraction and Convergence • By the Global Commons Institute • Contraction: Definition of global emission path (450ppmv) • Convergence: Per capita emissions of all countries converge by e.g. 2050

  26. Contraction and Convergence United Arab Emirates 56.4 USA 25.3 Saudi Arabia 18.3 Russian Federation 16.7 Annex I 15.1 EU 10.8 South Korea 10.4 Brazil 7.5 Hungary 6.7 World 6.4 China 4.9 Non-Annex I 4.1 India 2.4 Egypt 2.4 Burundi 0.6 Source: EDGAR / UN / ECOFYS • Per-capita emissions emissions converge until 2050 on level below current Non-Annex I average • Increase in emissions possible for some countries from 2010 to 2020 but lower than reference scenario • Low “tropical hot air”: (10-30% of the demand) e.g. in Philippines tCO2eq./cap in 1995, all sectors incl. forestry, CO2, CH4, N2O

  27. Contraction and Convergence Change in emissions from 1990 to 2020 (CO2, CH4, N2O)

  28. Contraction and convergence Ecological criteria: • Environmental effectiveness: ++ • Encouragement of early action ++ Political criteria: • Equity principles: Need, responsibility, capability + • Agreement with fundamental positions - Economic criteria: • Accounting for structural differences -- • Minimize adverse economic effects + Technical criteria: • Compatible with Convention and Protocol + • Moderate political and technical requirements ++ Assessment

  29. How ? How much? Who? Global Triptych approach • University of Utrecht (Blok, Phylipsen, Groenenberg) • Was one basis for the EU burden sharing of the Kyoto targets • Originally only energy related CO2 • Mix of convergence and sustainable growth Domestic sectors (Households, services, transport) Converging per-capita emissions Industry (energy intensive) BAU production growth with efficiency improvement Electricity BAU production growth with limit for renewables, CHP, coal and gas National emission target

  30. Extended global Triptych approach Domestic (CO2) Industry (CO2) Electricity (CO2) Waste CH4 and N2O CH4 and N2O Agriculture Forestry Converging per-capita emissions BAU production growth with efficiency improvement BAU production growth with limit on sources Stabilization at 100% Converging per-capita emissions to 0% National emission target

  31. Global Triptych Approach Change in emissions from 1990 to 2020 (CO2, CH4, N2O)

  32. Triptych approach Results: • Significant reductions in Annex I countries, especially EITs (Higher reductions than under convergence) • Significant emission growth in developing countries (for some higher growth than under convergence) • Differences are less significant, if non-CO2 gases and other sectors are included Critical factors • Assumptions of future production growth • Convergence year and level for domestic sectors

  33. Triptych Original Extended Ecological criteria: Energy CO2 all GHG • Environmental effectiveness: ++ ++ • Encouragement of early action 0 0 Political criteria: • Equity principles: Need, responsibility, capability + + • Agreement with fundamental positions + + Economic criteria: • Accounting for structural differences + ++ • Minimize adverse economic effects + + Technical criteria: • Compatible with Convention and Protocol + + • Moderate political and technical requirements - - Assessment

  34. New multistage approach How ? How much? Who? • Four stages: Reduction Moderate reduction below BAU Pledge for sustainable development Nobinding commitments • Threshold for upward movement: emissions per capita • Countries can only move upwards • As of 2010 movement only to stage 3 then to stage 4 • Stage 4: 20% reduction in 10 years • Stage 2 is difficult to quantify (here SRES B1)

  35. New multistage approach • Several countries jump directly to stage 3 and 4 (here Venezuela, South Africa, Persian Gulf States, South Korea and Singapore) • Only a few countries move upwards from 2020 onwards: Once on the sustainable path, emissions per capita do not rise • Critical factors • Thresholds • Definition of “pledge for sustainable development” • Reductions for stage 3/4 • Not critical: the Reference scenario, higher emissions lead to higher stage

  36. New multistage approach Ecological criteria: • Environmental effectiveness ++ • Encouragement of early action + Political criteria: • Equity principles: Need, responsibility, capability ++ • Agreement with fundamental positions + Economic criteria: • Accounting for structural differences + • Minimize adverse economic effects + Technical criteria: • Compatible with Convention and Protocol + • Moderate political and technical requirements + Assessment

  37. Quantitative comparison • Under all approaches • Significant reductions by Annex I countries • Development of emissions of Non-Annex I countries below reference scenario

  38. Qualitative comparison

  39. Conclusions • Substantial reduction in developed countries are necessary in all approaches, for 450 ppm higher reductions than those in the Kyoto Protocol • Early involvement of developing countries is necessary (Need to “get it right the first place”) • Many approaches and variations on future action are available • No single one satisfies all requirements • a good mix may be a compromise

  40. Conclusions II • Work from current flexible structure • Multistage or menu • Several types of targets • Types of targets for DCs that limit emissions but not economic growth (e.g. intensity, standards, SD, P&Ms, performance targets, non-binding) • OR: Contraction and Convergence How ? • Differentiation/allocation of emission targets not solved • Possibly Chair’s proposal (based on e.g. convergence or Triptych) modified by negotiations • Need for comparable, reviewed, public data on all countries How much? • No threshold indicator will suit every country (however recommended: emissions/capita) • Self-identification with incentives to be in a certain group Who?

  41. Recommendations • International, informal dialogue(s) • For scientists and policy makers, on scientific basis and possible approaches • Trust building • Stress the need for substantial reductions in developed countries as prerequisite (national long-term targets?) • Reduce emissions in developed countries • Actively participate in the CDM • Make available the agreed financial resources • Work with the USA to come back on board • Communicate successes • Work towards definition of an interim global target for 2020/2030 • If agreement on 450 or 550 ppm CO2 is not possible • “At which level of global emissions in 2020 do we loose the option of 450 ppm?” • All Parties need to be prepared to evaluate targets • Comparable, reviewed, public data on all countries needed

  42. Evolution of commitments under the UNFCCC: Involving newly industrialized economies and developing countries By ECOFYS: Dipl. Phys. Niklas Höhne (n.hoehne@ecofys.de) Dr. Jochen Harnisch Dr. Dian Phylipsen Prof. Dr. Kornelis Blok Mw. Carolina Galleguillos On behalf of the German Federal Environmental Agency Research Report 201 41 255 Climate Change 01/03 http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/fpdf-l/2246.pdf

More Related