IMAGE RCP2.6 Tokyo, September 2009 Detlef van Vuuren, Tom Kram The - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
image rcp2 6
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

IMAGE RCP2.6 Tokyo, September 2009 Detlef van Vuuren, Tom Kram The - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jan 30, 2023 330 likes •512 views

IMAGE RCP2.6 Tokyo, September 2009 Detlef van Vuuren, Tom Kram The probability to reach the 2C target (Hare & Meinshausen, 2004) What would be needed to reach this target? Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) RCP 2.6

slide-1
SLIDE 1

IMAGE RCP2.6

Tokyo, September 2009 Detlef van Vuuren, Tom Kram

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

The probability to reach the 2°C target

(Hare & Meinshausen, 2004)

  • What would be needed to

reach this target?

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

RCP 2.6

Peak in 2020/2025 40-50% reduction in 2050 Net negative for CO2 in 2100

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

IMAGE 2.4 www.mnp.nl/image

IMAGE modelling framework

0.5° grid 0.5° grid (Magicc) global regional

Baseline (BL) mitigation

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

RCP 2.6

Nuclear Renewables Biofuels + CCS Natural gas+CCS Oil+CCS Coal+CCS Biofuels Natural gas Oil Coal

  • Major changes in the global energy system

BioEnergy + CCS (BECS Default

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

IMAGE 2.6

  • Published in Climatic Change (2007), Energy

(2007)

  • Further review by IAMC
  • Implemented in energy system model / physical

world oriented IAM by cost-optimisation over time reducing abatement costs (all gases, land use)

  • Most important measures include energy efficiency,

CCS, bio-energy + CCS… non-CO2 , nuclear, renewables

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

Most information now available at 0.5x0.5 degree

Forests Desert Agriculture Ice Tundra

  • Ext. grassland

Grass Bio-energy C-plantation

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

IMAGE 2.6 “inspired” lot of followers…

Table: Description of scenario literature on medium to low mitigation scenarios Peaking year 2050

  • No. of

scenarios Cumuative emission 2000-2050 Cumulative emissions 2000-2100 I <2020 (<2015)

  • 85 to -40

(-50) 27 (6) 220-370 220-415 II <2020

  • 55 to -25

(-60 to -30) 25 (18) 280-430 385-485 III <2040 (<2030)

  • 30 to 25

79 (21) 355-460 550-655 Note: Table account for the studies included in AR4, EMF-22, the ADAM project and the Rao et al. (2008) study.

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Radiative Forcing (W/m2)

MiniCAM 4.5 IMAGE 2.6 AIM 6.0 MES-A2R 8.5 IMAGE 2.9

  • 20

20 40 60 80 100 120 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Emissions (GtCO2)

MiniCAM 4.5 IMAGE 2.6 AIM 6.0 MES-A2R 8.5 IMAGE 2.9

Range of Scenarios published so-far

Questions based on being the lowest

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

Research question based on RCP2.6 (1/7)

  • How many

technologies can you loose?

  • Amount of CCS

feasible??

1980 2010 2040 2070 2100 3 6 9 12 Storage (GtC/yr)

Bio-energy Natural gas Oil Coal

1980 2010 2040 2070 2100 3 6 9 12 Storage (GtC/yr) 1980 2010 2040 2070 2100 3 6 9 12

2.9 W/m

2

2.6 W/m

2

Storage (GtC/yr)

2.9 W/m

2 no BECS

No No No No Yes Yes Yes Eff. constraint No sinks No Bio- CCS No CCS Nuclear constraint Biomass constraint Default No No No No Yes Yes Yes Eff. constraint No sinks No Bio- CCS No CCS Nuclear constraint Biomass constraint Default 3 3.2 3.5 2.9 Yes A2 land use Eff. constraint No-CCS No Bio- CCS Default 3 3.2 3.5 2.9 Yes A2 land use Eff. constraint No-CCS No Bio- CCS Default

MESSAGE IMAGE

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

What can be achieved by non- CO2 /forests/biofuels

  • Lot of uncertainty for forestry – and little

integrated assessment

  • For non-CO2 emissions reduction

potential still limited to around 50%.

  • Biofuels : Estimates from 0-400 EJ/yr in

sustainable way

Research question based on RCP2.6 (2/7)

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 50 100 150 200

Grey area HadSCCC1 (range+average) Red lines: MAGICC-6 (range+ average)

PAGE PAGE (10-90th) IMAGE MAGICC-4 Feedback (ppm CO2)

C4MIP range+average

1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 50 100 150 200

Feedback (ppm CO2)

IMAGE at the low end of climate-carbon cycle feedback

Is the experiment reproducible under different climate cycle assumptions (3/7)

All kinds of feedbacks related to tundra, ecosystem response, artic etc.

  • Most low stabilisation runs only done by

small climate models (PNAS paper)

  • IAMs currently advise overshoot (den

Elzen, 2007)… but how reversible the carbon cycle?

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

When do countries need to reduce emissions (4/7)

  • 80%
  • 60%
  • 40%
  • 20%

0% 20% 40%

  • 30%
  • 25%
  • 20%
  • 15%
  • 10%
  • 5%

0% reduction from baseline in non-Annex I in 2020 reduction below 1990 levels in Annex I 2.6 Wm2 2.9 Wm2

  • EMF-22: 2.6 W/m2 not feasible with strong delay in

participation of developing countries (China/India/Brazil/Russia 2030-2050; Rest > 2050)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

The maximum speed of reduction

  • 12
  • 8
  • 4

4 8 12 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

Azar 350-BEC S Azar 350-CCS Azar 350 NoCap IMAGE2.6 IMAGE2.9 MES-B2-3 MES-B1-2.8

Research question based on RCP2.6 (5/7)

Rate of reduction in 10y periods in scenario literature (% of 2000 emissions) <500 ppm

  • Ca. 550 ppm
  • 5.0%
  • 3.8%
  • 2.6%
  • 1.4%
  • 0.2%

1.0% 2.2%

Occurance

  • 5.0%
  • 3.8%
  • 2.6%
  • 1.4%
  • 0.2%

1.0% 2.2%

  • Ca. 650 ppm
  • 5.0%
  • 3.8%
  • 2.6%
  • 1.4%
  • 0.2%

1.0% 2.2% Decrease Increase Decrease Increase Decrease Increase

Rate of reduction in 10y periods in scenario literature (% of 2000 emissions) <500 ppm

  • Ca. 550 ppm
  • 5.0%
  • 3.8%
  • 2.6%
  • 1.4%
  • 0.2%

1.0% 2.2%

Occurance

  • 5.0%
  • 3.8%
  • 2.6%
  • 1.4%
  • 0.2%

1.0% 2.2%

  • Ca. 650 ppm
  • 5.0%
  • 3.8%
  • 2.6%
  • 1.4%
  • 0.2%

1.0% 2.2% Decrease Increase Decrease Increase Decrease Increase

  • Avg. Max rate:
  • 2.8%
  • 2.5%
  • 2%
  • Avg. Rate:
  • 1.1%
  • 0.6%
  • 0.2%
  • How to achieve this?
  • What is the maximum speed of

reduction (socially / politically)?

  • Building global coalitions?
  • What experience do we have from

earlier situations (CFCs, WTO, putting the man on the moon…)

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

Is the IMAGE 2.6 too high or too low (costs and benefits) (6/7)?

Bill Nordhaus (2007) The optimal policy reduces the global temperature rise relative to 1900 to 2.8 °C in 2100 and to 3.4 °C in 2200.

Jim Hansen (2007): Based on climate model studies and the history of the Earth, the Hansen and Sato conclude that additional global warming of about 1ºC

  • r more, above global

temperature in 2000, is likely to be dangerous.

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

Research question based on RCP2.6 (7/7) Bringing impacts, adaptation and mitigation together

Agriculture SLR 4oC 2oC 4oC 2oC

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% Reference Adaptation Mitigation Adaptation and Mitigation discounted GDP loss residual damages adaptation costs mitigation costs

More transparent, flexible connection with CBA (keep risk approach / monetary approach connected) Make adaptation explicit 4oC 2oC

  • Aiming to integrate impact/adaptation

research better into the mainstream assessment

  • Organise these communities
  • Couple it better to IA