OeAD – Scientific and Technological Cooperation: Austria – Ukraine Matthias JONAS

1. Towards Constraining Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Future Systems analytical challenges ahead OeAD – Scientific and Technological Cooperation: Austria – Ukraine Matthias JONAS International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria; jonas@iiasa.ac.at LPNU, Lviv, Ukraine; 22 November 2012

2. The purpose of my talk is to acquaint you with A. the challenge of constraining GHG emissions, notably the challenge of achieving sustainable land use / land-use change, to meet agreed global warming targets in the future. B. emerging scientific challenges of ASA C. an idea of how to increase your educational impact by collaborating internationally (IIASA perspective)

3. 1. Contents 2. Background 3. Motivation 4. The challenge of constraining GHG emissions 5. ASA challenges #1 and #2 4. The challenge of constraining GHG emissions 5. ASA challenge #3 6. Increasing educational impact 7. Conclusions

4. 2. Background International Workshops on Uncertainty in GHG Inventories: 2007 (Laxenburg, AT) 2010 (Lviv, UA) 2004 (Warsaw, PL) SJI / Book (2013 / 14) http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Research/FOR/uncert.html

5. 3. Motivation 1. To bring a global long-term emissions-temperature- uncertainty issue (2ºC-by-2050) to the here and now  to emission targets on the near-term scale  to emission targets on the national scale 2. To put uncertainties that are associated with accounting emissions for compliance purposes into a wider quantitative context

6. 4. The challenge of constraining GHG emissions: ? ere 2050 2100 http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/10/presentation.htm

7. 4. The challenge of constraining GHG emissions: Meinshausen et al. (2009: Fig. 2)

8. 4. The challenge of constraining GHG emissions: 42 25 234 10 Meinshausenet al. (2009: Fig. 3)

9. 4. The challenge of constraining GHG emissions: Probability of exceeding 2 oC: Meinshausen et al. (2009: Tab. 1)

10. 4. The challenge of constraining GHG emissions: Unsharp cum emissions Sharp risk Cum [1990/50]; exceeding 2 oC: 3.0 [2.5 ; 3.5]: 10-43% 3.0 [1.5 ; 5.4]: 26-31% Pop in 2050: 8.8 109 [7.5 – 10.2] (95% CI) Sharp cum emissions Unsharp risk

11. 4. The challenge of constraining GHG emissions: 24.3 24.3 21.2 21.2 1500 Gt CO2-eq; exceeding 2oC: 3.0 [2.5 ; 3.5]: 10-43% 3.0 [1.5 ; 5.4]: 26-31% 18.2 1: 18.2 - 17.5 2: 18.2 - 16.9 3.0 3.0

12. 4. The challenge of constraining GHG emissions: 2400 Gt CO2-eq; exceeding 4oC: 6.4 [5.5 ; 7.4]: 8-36% 6.4 [4.5 ; 9.5]: 17-21% 6.4 3.0 1500 Gt CO2-eq; exceeding 2oC: 3.0 [2.5 ; 3.5]: 10-43% 3.0 [1.5 ; 5.4]: 26-31%

13. 4. The challenge of constraining GHG emissions: 2005 – 2020: Con: 17% Red; Opt: 17% Red Relative to 1990: Em: 3.9% Red; Per-cap: 30.1% Red 22.4 24.3 1: 17.2 – 16.5: -10 – -1 €/cap/yr 2: 17.2 – 16.0: -9 – 10 €/cap/yr 21.2 1: 17.2 – 16.5: 0 – 5 €/cap/yr 2: 17.2 – 16.0: 0 – 18 €/cap/yr 6.4 3.0

14. 4. The challenge of constraining GHG emissions: 1990 – 2020: Con: 20% Red; Opt: 20% Red Relative to 1990: Em: 20.0% Red; Per-cap: 3.3% Red 18.0 9.6 6.4 8.1 3.0

15. 5. ASA challenge #1: Net emissions (even negative)  results in too low a risk! Meinshausen et al. (2009: Fig. 2)

16. 5. ASA challenge #1:

17. 5. ASA challenge #1: Prognostic Diagnostic Additional undershooting Combined 2050 Time

18. 5. ASA challenge #2: 42 25 10 Meinshausenet al. (2009: Fig. 3)

19. 5. ASA challenge #2:

20. 5. ASA challenge #2:

21. 5. ASA challenge #2: Learning from the past:

22. 5. ASA challenge #2: McCarthy (2011) modified

23. 4. The challenge of constraining GHG emissions: 24.3 24.3 21.2 21.2 6.4 6.4 3.0 3.0

24. 4. The challenge of constraining GHG emissions: 18.0 8.1 6.4 3.0

25. 5. ASA challenge #3: The LUC science community cannot provide information on how it wants to address the challenge of sustainable land use / land-use change in meeting emission constraints to prevent a global warming in the future. Two problems stick out: 1. ‘sustainability’ is best understood at both the local and the planetary scale – but less in between; 2. ‘LUC is more than FF’.

26. 5. ASA challenge #3: LU Change LC Change

27. 5. ASA challenge #3: A need exists for a generic type of ASA for the support of the highly detailed, bottom-up driver-policy response models that already exist (and are being increasingly developed) with the focus on LUC from sub-global to global scales. This new type of ASA would have to look into the multitude of constraints, including planetary boundaries, that a warmer world might face in the future, their interdependencies and uncertainties; and it would also have to anticipate thresholds and ‘surprises’, with the latter hidden in the inter-dependencies and the dynamics of these constraints.

28. 6. Increasing educational impact: Two observations: 1. On the whole, East European NMOs to IIASA have faded away. 2. Compared to new emerging economies (BIC), tertiary education in East European countries is 1st class – but these countries do not take advantage to become globally relevant.

29. 6. Increasing educational impact: A solution (IIASA perspective): EE Academies of Sciences (UA, PL, RU, SK, CZ, …) pool (a fraction of their) resources to educate future generations of young scientists / systems analysts in an appropriate scientific setting which allows them to unfold their talents in tackling global change problems … w/o re-inventing the wheel (IIASA’s YSSP, Postdoc Program, …)

30. 6. Conclusions: 1. I don’t see a 2ºC-by-2050 target in reach, at best a 4ºC only. 2. I see a multitude of ASA challenges ahead in meeting sustainability at the planetary scale which require well-trained future generations of systems analysts. 3. I see that IIASA had benefitted considerably from its EE NMOs, notably from their advanced scientific contributions in ASA. 4. I see a need for smaller EE NMOs / countries to pool their resources to carve out their sustainability targets under a future global warming.

31. References: