• Keine Ergebnisse gefunden

• Insights from the IPCC Synthesis (SR1.5)

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Aktie "• Insights from the IPCC Synthesis (SR1.5)"

Copied!
34
0
0

Wird geladen.... (Jetzt Volltext ansehen)

Volltext

(1)

Integrated Assessment Modelling and Scenarios (including the new NGFS scenarios)

OeNB Summer School 2020 – Webinar

The economics of climate change (for central bank economists) 24 August, 2020

Keywan Riahi

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Technische Universität Graz

University of Amsterdam

(2)

Outline

• Integrated Assessment Models & Related Scenarios

• Insights from the IPCC Synthesis (SR1.5)

• NGFS Pathways

(3)

2

(4)

Remaining carbon budget assessment

(5)

Remaining carbon budget assessment

(6)

Remaining carbon budget assessment

(7)

The remaining carbon budget is very tight

• 580 GtCO2 left (50% chance of 1.5°C) 420 GtCO2 left (66% chance of 1.5°C)

+- 250 GtCO2 depends on what is done on non-CO2 +- 400 GtCO2 geophysical uncertainty

• Currently, 42 +- 3 GtCO2/yr annually

• 200 GtCO2 budget differences are about 5 year of current emissions and imply roughly a 10 year

variation in the mid-century timing of reaching net zero CO2 emissions.

Joeri Rogelj - CLA Chapter 2 – IPCC SR1.5

(8)

1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

GHG emissions (GtCO2e)

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

2°C

Staying below 2˚C requires a deep and rapid transformation

early peak

rapid decarbonisation electrification, efficiency(!) zero-C power sector

negative emissions in some scenarios

net zero GHG emissions ~ 2070

Source: CD-LINKS, McCollum et al, 2018

NDCs

country pledges since Paris Agreement

(9)

1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

GHG emissions (GtCO2e)

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

2°C 1.5°C

1.5˚C requires further acceleration and an even deeper transformation

Earlier and more negative emissions compared to 2°C

Net zero GHG emissions

~ 2050

Source: CD-LINKS, McCollum et al, 2018

NDCs

country pledges since Paris Agreement

(10)

NDC 2.0 °C 1.5 °C 0

20 40 60

GHG Emissions [GtCO2e]

The Emissions GAP by 2050

2015 emissions

41 GtCO

2

e

51 GtCO

2

e

Source: CD-LINKS, McCollum et al, 2018

(11)

Process-based Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs)

Temperature, RF

Exogenous Assumptions

Population Labor Productivity

Technology Policy

Livestock Crops & Forests Electric & Refining Primary Energy Supply

Economic Activity Commodity Prices Prices, Taxes, e.g. CO2

Outputs of IAMs

Resources

CO2, GHGs, aerosols, OGs

External Data Economy

Energy

Agriculture

& Land Use

Water

Climate Atmosphere

Oceans

Carbon Cycle The Model

Highly non-linear, strategic models designed to consider global climate forcing and climate impacts at decadal time scales and regional disaggregation ranging from dozens to hundreds

Source: Jae Edmonds

(12)

Process-based Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs)

Temperature, RF

Exogenous Assumptions

Population Labor Productivity

Technology Policy

Livestock Crops & Forests Electric & Refining Primary Energy Supply

Economic Activity Commodity Prices Prices, Taxes, e.g. CO2

Outputs of IAMs

Resources

CO2, GHGs, aerosols, OGs

External Data Economy

Energy

Agriculture

& Land Use

Water

Climate Atmosphere

Oceans

Carbon Cycle The Model

Highly non-linear, strategic models designed to consider global climate forcing and climate impacts at decadal time scales and regional disaggregation ranging from dozens to hundreds

Source: Jae Edmonds

 IAMs are used to test the response of the system to different policies or other system constraints.

 Scenarios by IAMs are thus no predictions of what will happen. They rather provide answers to “what if” questions.

 Typical question: What needs to be done in order to achieve a climate goal and how much does it cost?

 Process-based IAMs are different from the aggregate macroeconomic “cost- benefit IAMs” that assess the social cost of carbon (DICE, PAGE, FUND, etc…)

(13)

There are only a hand full of institutions around the world that maintain fully integrated

capabilities

Model Home Institution

Asia Integrated ModelAIM

National Institutes for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba Japan

Global Change Assessment ModelGCAM

Joint Global Change Research Institute, PNNL, College Park, MD

Integrated Global System ModelIGSM

Joint Program, MIT, Cambridge, MA

IMAGE

The Integrated Model to Assess the Global Environment

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bildhoven, The

Netherlands

MESSAGE

Model for Energy Supply Strategy Alternatives and their General Environmental Impact

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis; Laxenburg, Austria

REMIND

Regionalized Model of Investments and Technological Development

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research; Potsdam, Germany

These models are very different from the aggregate “cost-benefit IAMs” that are used for assessing the social cost of carbon (DICE, PAGE, FUND, etc…)

Source: Jae Edmonds

(14)

“Shared socioeconomic pathways”

(SSPs) allows the community to

systematically explore uncertainties

Shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) explore two dimensions:

challenges to mitigation and challenges to adaptation with 5 reference—i.e. no- climate policy—scenarios.

Different populations

Different economic development

Different technologies

Different institutions

Each is a possible pathway to explore implications of long-term climate goals (eg, limiting

temperature or GHG concentrations) Sustainability Fossil-fueled

Development Regional Rivalry

Inequality Middle

of the Road

(15)

6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000

SSP1 SSP2 SSP3 SSP4 SSP5

Population

Global Driver Assumptions

Lutz & KC, 2014 Jiang & O’Neill Urbanization

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

GDP per capits ($/cap -PPP) SSP5

SSP3 SSP2 SSP4 SSP1

OECD, PIK, IIASA GDP per capita

(16)

Reference SSP (IAM) Scenarios

(no climate policy beyond those in place today)

• Six IA modeling teams

• Five SSPs

• One representative Marker Scenario for each SSP

• For each SSP there are multiple IAM runs

depicting uncertainty ranges

(17)

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

EJ

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Other renewables Nuclear Gas Oil Coal Biomass

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

EJ

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Other renewables Nuclear Gas Oil Coal Biomass

SSP1(Sustainability) SSP4

(Inequality)

Other renewables Nuclear

Gas Oil Coal Biomass

Other renewables Nuclear

Gas Oil Coal Biomass

Transition away from coal/oil Low demand

High share of poor with low emissions Low/intermediate demand

Technology available to the “elite”

IMAGE GCAM

Energy – SSP Reference Cases

Two marker scenarios where mitigation is relatively easy

(18)

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

EJ

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Other renewables Nuclear Gas Oil Coal Biomass

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

EJ

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Other renewables Nuclear Gas Oil Coal Biomass

SSP3(Regional rivalry)

Other renewables Nuclear

Gas Oil Coal Biomass

SSP5(Fossil-fueled development)

Other renewables Nuclear

Gas Oil Coal Biomass

REMIND-MAGPIE AIM

Coal-intensive development Very high demand

Fossil-intensive High poverty

Slow technological change Strong fragmentation

Energy – SSP Reference Cases

Two marker scenarios where mitigation is relatively difficult

(19)

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

EJ

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Other renewables Nuclear Gas Oil Coal Biomass

SSP2(Middle of the road)

Other renewables Nuclear

Gas Oil Coal Biomass

Balanced Technology Intermediate demand MESSAGE-GLOBIOM

Energy – SSP Reference Cases

A central marker scenario with intermediate mitigation challenge

(20)

1850 1900 1950 2000

2050

2100

EJ

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Other renewables Nuclear Gas Oil Coal Biomass

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

EJ

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Other renewables Nuclear Gas Oil Coal

Biomass SSP1

(Sustainability)

SSP4(Inequality)

Other renewables Nuclear

Gas Oil Coal Biomass

Other renewables Nuclear

Gas Oil Coal Biomass

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

EJ

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Other renewables Nuclear Gas Oil Coal Biomass

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

EJ

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Other renewables Nuclear Gas Oil Coal Biomass

SSP3(Regional rivalry)

Other renewables Nuclear

Gas Oil Coal Biomass

SSP5(Fossil-fueled growth)

Other renewables Nuclear

Gas Oil Coal Biomass

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

EJ

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Other renewables Nuclear Gas Oil Coal Biomass

SSP2(Middle of the road)

Other renewables Nuclear

Gas Oil Coal Biomass

Energy – SSP Reference Cases

(21)

8.5

6.0 4.5 2.6

World CO 2 Emissions

(SSP Reference scenarios and RCPs)

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

SSP1 SSP2SSP3

SSP4 SSP5

RCPs

CO2 (MtCO2)

IAM range

SSP marker

Fossil fuels and Industry

(22)

SSP/RCP combinations based on reference IAM scenarios

Forcinglevel (W/m2 )

8.5

6.0 4.5

2.6

SSP1 SSP4 SSP2

Shared Socio-economic Pathways

SSP3 SSP5

6.4 - 7.2 W/m2 >8 W/m2 5 – 5.8 W/m2 5.5 – 6.2 W/m2

Climate Policy Scenarios

6.8 - 8 W/m2

Increasing challenges to mitigation

(23)

Riahi et al., Glob Env Change 42: 153-168, 2017

Socio-economic assumptions impact carbon prices as much as climate targets

Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs)

Below 2°C 1.5°C

(24)

Systems transitions

• Limiting warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far- reaching changes on an unprecedented scale:

Deep emissions cuts in all sectors A range of technologies

Behavioural changes Increase investment in low carbon options

Peter Essick / Aurora Photos

Joeri Rogelj - CLA Chapter 2 – IPCC SR1.5

(25)

Systems transitions - general trends

I. Improve energy efficiency

Limiting final energy demand in 2050 to +20 to -10% rel. to 2010 levels

II. Decarbonize the power sector

(carbon-intensity of electricity about 0 or negative in 2050)

III. Electrify energy end use

(mobility, buildings, industry)

IV. Replace residual fossil fuels with low-carbon options

(e.g. gas for heating, petrol for driving with bio-based fuels)

• Different roles for different type of fuels

Peter Essick / Aurora Photos

Joeri Rogelj - CLA Chapter 2 – IPCC SR1.5

(26)

Energy system transitions – 1.5C Global primary energy

SR1.5 Chap. 2 Fig. 2.15

• Rapid reductions of fossil fuels: coal the most, gas the least

• Limited amount of fossil CCS (predominantly gas)

• Solar, wind, bionenergy with CCS gain the most

(27)

Electricity system transitions 1.5C Full decarbonisation by mid-century

SR1.5 Chap. 2 Fig. 2.16

• Gas supplies 3-11% of electricity (depend. CCS)

• Coal is phased out as source for electricity (0-2%)

• Renewables supply 70-85% of electricity

(28)

Demand-side innovation &

decarbonization

CO2 emissions from industry in 2050:

• 75-90% reduced from 2010 levels

Share of low-emission final energy in transport:

• 35-65% in 2050

Gerhard Zwerger-Schoner / Aurora Photos

Compared to 50-80% for 2°C

Compared to 25-45% for 2°C

Keywan Riahi – LA, Chapter 5 – IPCC SR1.5

(29)

Keywan Riahi - LA Chapter 5 – IPCC SR1.5

Globale Investments

Average Annual Energy Investments 2016 bis 2050

Efficiency Renewables T&D, Storage Nuclear & CCS

Fossiler Exraction Fossil Power

1.5°C in comparison to Baseline

investmentdisinvestment

~820 billion US$

(0.8% of GDP)

Source: Chapter 2,4 and 5

(30)

Low-Carbon Investment

Shares

1.5C zero-carbon / renewables share ~80%

(31)

1.5C and 2C imply zero investment into

coal-based electricity globally (except some small CCS investments)

McCollum et al, 2018, Nature Energy

(32)

Regional Investments (1.5 vs 2C)

2015-2050, compared to baseline

Most of the investments in Asia due to growth & decarbonization

OECD second, focus on capacity replacement

McCollum et al, 2018, Nature Energy

(33)

1.5°C Scenario Explorer

The underlying data is available on-line and hosted by IIASA

Visit the Scenario Explorer at https://data.ene.iiasa.ac.at/iamc-1.5c-explorer

Huppmann, Kriegler, Krey, Riahi, Rogelj, Rose, Weyant et al, 2018

(34)

Thank you!

[email protected]

Referenzen

ÄHNLICHE DOKUMENTE

tered positive GDP growth until the second quarter of 2008. However, the problems in the U.S. real estate sector brought about marked disruptions in the financial industry.

This framework classified in five levels ranging from level 1 (the most basic) to level 5 (the more developed), and they are described by the manifestation of certain behaviors

Daher wurde im folgenden Beitrag mittels einer Fragebogenerhebung in Lehrveranstaltungen von 43 Dozentinnen und Dozenten sowie ihren 696 Studierenden untersucht, welche Aussagekraft

The way to employ TC in real-time rendering was introduced with real-time reverse reprojection, a screen-space approach that allows to cache and reuse shading results from

We decompose the change in surplus resulting from increased competition into a strategic effect, due to more aggressive bidding, and a statistical effect, resulting from the

3 National climate mitigation with a direct price effect: carbon taxation To reduce emissions from sectors not covered by emissions trading such as trans- port (excluding

Batten, Sowerbutts and Tanaka (2020) “Climate change: Macroeconomic impact and implications for monetary policy”, in Ecological, Societal, and Technological Risks and the

of the over 65-year-old Norwegians are still integrated in the labor market, whereas it is just 3.0% in Denmark. Assuming that in Austria the participation rates of the