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

IMAGE RCP2.6 Tokyo, September 2009 Detlef van Vuuren, Tom Kram

The probability to reach the 2°C target (Hare & Meinshausen, 2004)  What would be needed to reach this target? Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

RCP 2.6 Peak in 2020/2025 40-50% reduction in 2050 Net negative for CO 2 in 2100 Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

IMAGE modelling regional framework mitigation Baseline (BL) 0.5 ° grid (Magicc) 0.5 ° grid global IMAGE 2.4 www.mnp.nl/image Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

RCP 2.6 Nuclear Biofuels + CCS Oil+CCS Biofuels Oil Renewables Natural gas+CCS Coal+CCS Natural gas Coal  Major changes in the global energy system Default BioEnergy + CCS (BECS 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-CO 2 , nuclear, renewables Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

Most information now available at 0.5x0.5 degree Agriculture Bio-energy Ice Forests C-plantation Ext. grassland Tundra Grass Desert 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 Cumuative Cumulative scenarios emission emissions 2000-2050 2000-2100 I <2020 -85 to -40 27 (6) 220-370 220-415 (<2015) (-50) II <2020 - 55 to -25 25 (18) 280-430 385-485 (-60 to -30) III <2040 -30 to 25 79 (21) 355-460 550-655 (<2030) Note: Table account for the studies included in AR4, EMF-22, the ADAM project and the Rao et al. (2008) study. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

Questions based on being the lowest Range of Scenarios published so-far 10 120 9 MES-A2R 8.5 MES-A2R 8.5 100 8 80 Radiative Forcing (W/m2) 7 Emissions (GtCO2) AIM 6.0 6 60 AIM 6.0 5 40 MiniCAM 4.5 4 20 MiniCAM 4.5 IMAGE 2.9 3 IMAGE 2.6 IMAGE 2.9 0 2 IMAGE 2.6 1 -20 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

Research question based on RCP2.6 (1/7) MESSAGE  How many Default Default Biomass Biomass Nuclear Nuclear No CCS No CCS No Bio- No Bio- No sinks No sinks Eff. Eff. constraint constraint constraint constraint CCS CCS constraint constraint technologies can Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No you loose?  Amount of CCS IMAGE feasible?? Default Default No Bio- No Bio- No-CCS No-CCS Eff. Eff. A2 land A2 land CCS CCS constraint constraint use use Yes Yes 2.9 2.9 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.2 3 3 2 2 no BECS 2 2.6 W/m 2.9 W/m 2.9 W/m 12 12 12 Bio-energy Natural gas Oil 9 9 9 Coal Storage (GtC/yr) Storage (GtC/yr) Storage (GtC/yr) 6 6 6 3 3 3 0 0 0 Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) 1980 2010 2040 2070 2100 1980 2010 2040 2070 2100 1980 2010 2040 2070 2100

Research question based on RCP2.6 (2/7) What can be achieved by non- CO 2 /forests/biofuels  Lot of uncertainty for forestry – and little integrated assessment  For non-CO 2 emissions reduction potential still limited to around 50%.  Biofuels : Estimates from 0-400 EJ/yr in sustainable way Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

Is the experiment reproducible under different climate cycle assumptions (3/7) PAGE Grey area PAGE (10-90th) HadSCCC1 (range+average) 200 200 IMAGE Red lines: Feedback (ppm CO 2 ) Feedback (ppm CO 2 ) MAGICC-4  Most low stabilisation runs only done by MAGICC-6 (range+ average) 150 150 small climate models (PNAS paper)  IAMs currently advise overshoot (den 100 100 Elzen, 2007)… but how reversible the C4MIP range+average carbon cycle? 50 50 0 0 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 IMAGE at the low end of climate-carbon cycle feedback All kinds of feedbacks related to tundra, ecosystem response, artic etc. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

When do countries need to reduce emissions (4/7)  EMF-22: 2.6 W/m 2 not feasible with strong delay in participation of developing countries (China/India/Brazil/Russia 2030-2050; Rest > 2050) 40% reduction below 1990 levels in Annex I 2.6 Wm2 20% 2.9 Wm2 0% 0% -5% -10% -15% -20% -25% -30% -20% -40% -60% -80% reduction from baseline in non-Annex I in 2020 Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

Research question based on RCP2.6 (5/7) The maximum speed of reduction  How to achieve this?  What is the maximum speed of reduction (socially / politically)?  Building global coalitions?  What experience do we have from Rate of reduction in 10y periods in scenario literature Rate of reduction in 10y periods in scenario literature 12 (% of 2000 emissions) (% of 2000 emissions) earlier situations (CFCs, WTO, putting <500 ppm <500 ppm Ca. 550 ppm Ca. 550 ppm Ca. 650 ppm Ca. 650 ppm 8 the man on the moon…) Decrease Decrease Increase Increase Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Increase Increase Increase Increase Occurance Occurance 4 0 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Azar 350-BEC S -5.0% -5.0% -3.8% -3.8% -2.6% -2.6% -1.4% -1.4% -0.2% -0.2% -4 1.0% 1.0% 2.2% 2.2% -5.0% -5.0% -3.8% -3.8% -2.6% -2.6% -1.4% -1.4% -0.2% -0.2% -5.0% -5.0% -3.8% -3.8% -2.6% -2.6% -1.4% -1.4% -0.2% -0.2% 1.0% 1.0% 2.2% 2.2% 1.0% 1.0% 2.2% 2.2% Azar 350-CCS Azar 350 NoCap IMAGE2.6 Avg. Max rate: -2.8% -2.5% -2% -8 IMAGE2.9 Avg. Rate: -1.1% -0.6% -0.2% MES-B2-3 MES-B1-2.8 -12 Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

Is the IMAGE 2.6 too high or too low (costs and benefits) (6/7)? Jim Hansen (2007): Based on climate model Bill Nordhaus (2007) studies and the history of the The optimal policy Earth, the Hansen and Sato reduces the global conclude that additional temperature rise global warming of about 1ºC relative to 1900 to 2.8 or more, above global ° C in 2100 and to 3.4 temperature in 2000, is likely to be dangerous. ° C in 2200. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

Research question based on RCP2.6 (7/7) Bringing impacts, adaptation and mitigation together 2 o C SLR Agriculture 4 o C  Aiming to integrate impact/adaptation 4 o C 2 o C research better into the mainstream assessment  Organise these communities  Couple it better to IA 5% More transparent, flexible 4 o C 2 o C connection with CBA 4% discounted GDP loss (keep risk approach / 3% residual damages monetary approach adaptation costs connected) mitigation costs 2% Make adaptation explicit 1% 0% Reference Adaptation Mitigation Adaptation and Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) Mitigation