The Emissions Gap Report · The Emissions Gap Report Cancun, 2 December 2010 Are the Copenhagen...

The Emissions Gap Report

Cancun, 2 December 2010

Are the Copenhagen Accord

pledges sufficient to limit global

warming to 2C or 1.5C?

www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgapreport

Overview of side event

First hour - Overview of the technical analysis

Second hour - Policy implications

Joseph Alcamo UNEP Overview

Joeri Rogelj ETH Zurich Chapter 2 (emissions pathways)

Chris Taylor Grantham Institute Chapter 3 (pledges)

Michel den Elzen PBL Chapter 4 (the gap)

Bill Hare PIK Chapter 5 (temperature)

Suzana Kahn Ribeiro Federal University of Rio de Janeiro

Artur Runge Metzger European Commission

Leon Charles AOSIS

Adrian Fernandez INE-Semarnat

+ Q&A

+ Q&A







Overview

3

The Copenhagen Accord

A goal Staying below an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (1.50 C)

A means to get there Country pledges to control emissions (pegged to 2020)

Is there a gap between What we are aiming for Where we are heading ?

Copenhagen December, 2009

Photo: http://gogreenindia.co.in/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/official-white-house-photo-at-cop15-copenhagen-usa-india-

brazil-south-africa-china.jpg

4

The Emissions GapPreliminary Assessment

UNEP with ECF and National Institute of Ecology

33 scientists, 25 institutions, 15 countries

Range of estimates majority of results (median with 20th to 80th

percentile) robust results



5

1. What are we aiming for? Findings from Chapter 2

1. Meeting a temperature target

depends largely on

cumulative emissions

2. Different pathways correspond

to same cumulative emissions

6

1 Specifically, this shows the 20-80th percentile range of the integrated assessment model pathways that have a likely (>66%) chance of limiting

temperature increase to 2C by 2100

Source: Adapted from The Emissions Gap report, UNEP, 2010

Range of emissions pathways

consistent with a likely chance of

limiting warming to 2 degrees1

Median estimate of 44 GtCO2e in 2020


Global emissions, GtCO2e

Annual emissions today

of ~48 GtCO2e

7

1 Specifically, this shows the 20-80th percentile range of the integrated assessment model pathways that have a likely (>66%) chance of limiting

average near surface temperature increase to 2C by 2100


Green line shows the range of emission

pathways consistent with a likely

chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees1


UN

EP

thanks J

oeri

Rogelj

(ET

HZ

) and th

e E

uro

pean C

limate

Foundatio

n fo

r gra

phic

s

Annual emissions today

of ~48 GtCO2e


Peak before 2020

Rapid reductions afterwards (~3 %/year)

8

1 This is the median estimate of the 11 studies assessed, estimates range from 54-60 GtCO2e (20th to 80th percentile)



UN

EP

thanks J

oeri

Rogelj

(ET

HZ

) and th

e E

uro

pean C

limate

Foundatio

n fo

r gra

phic

s

Median estimate of 44 GtCO2e

Green line shows the range of emission

pathways consistent with a likely

chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees

39-44


9

Under business-as-usual projections, emissions could reach 56 GtCO2e

1

1 This is the median estimate of the 11 studies assessed, estimates range from 54-60 GtCO2e (20th to 80th percentile)


2. Where are we heading? Findings from Chapter 3


UN

EP

thanks J

oeri

Rogelj

(ET

HZ

) and th

e E

uro

pean C

limate

Foundatio

n fo

r gra

phic

s


10

1 This is the median estimate of modelling groups, estimates range from 52-57 GtCO2e (20th to 80th percentile)

2 This relates to rules surrounding the use of surplus emission units (particularly those carried over from this commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol) and LULUCF

accountingSource: Adapted from The Emissions Gap report, UNEP, 2010

53 GtCO2e in the least ambitious pledge case1

Unconditional pledges

Lenient rules2



UN

EP

thanks J

oeri

Rogelj

(ET

HZ

) and th

e E

uro

pean C

limate

Foundatio

n fo

r gra

phic

s


11



49 GtCO2e in the most ambitious pledge case1

Conditional pledges

Strict rules



UN

EP

thanks J

oeri

Rogelj

(ET

HZ

) and th

e E

uro

pean C

limate

Foundatio

n fo

r gra

phic

s


12Source: Adapted from The Emissions Gap report, UNEP, 2010

7 GtCO2e reduction possible as a result of the pledges



UN

EP

thanks J

oeri

Rogelj

(ET

HZ

) and th

e E

uro

pean C

limate

Foundatio

n fo

r gra

phic

s

56

49





UN

EP

thanks J

oeri

Rogelj

(ET

HZ

) and th

e E

uro

pean C

limate

Foundatio

n fo

r gra

phic

s

56

49

44To stay within two degree limit





UN

EP

thanks J

oeri

Rogelj

(ET

HZ

) and th

e E

uro

pean C

limate

Foundatio

n fo

r gra

phic

s

56

49


Almost 60% of the way to closing the gap




Global emissions, GtCO2e56

49


Almost 60% of the way to closing the gap

5 GtCO2e remaining gap

16


2 This relates to rules surrounding the use of surplus emission units (particularly those carried over from this commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol) and LULUCF

accountingSource: Adapted from The Emissions Gap report, UNEP, 2010


UN

EP

thanks J

oeri

Rogelj

(ET

HZ

) and th

e E

uro

pean C

limate

Foundatio

n fo

r gra

phic

sWhat about 1.5 degrees? Findings from Chapter 2

Consistent with 2.0 degrees

17

1 Specifically, this shows the 20-80th percentile range of the stylized pathways that have a likely (>66%) chance of limiting temperature increase to 1.5C by 2100

2 Specifically, energy and industry CO2 reduction rates of 3-5% per year compared with 2-3% for a likely chance of 2 degreesSource: Adapted from The Emissions Gap report, UNEP, 2010

What about 1.5 degrees? Findings from Chapter 2


UN

EP

thanks J

oeri

Rogelj

(ET

HZ

) and th

e E

uro

pean C

limate

Foundatio

n fo

r gra

phic

s

PRELIMINARY RESULTS FEW STUDIES AVAILABLE



18

1 Specifically, this shows the 20-80th percentile range of the stylized pathways that have a likely (>66%) chance of limiting temperature increase to 1.5C by 2100

2 Specifically, energy and industry CO2 reduction rates of 3-5% per year compared with 2-3% for a likely chance of 2 degreesSource: Adapted from The Emissions Gap report, UNEP, 2010

Similar 2020 emission levels1

What about 1.5 degrees? Findings from Chapter 2U

NE

P th

anks J

oeri

Rogelj

(ET

HZ

) and th

e E

uro

pean C

limate

Foundatio

n fo

r gra

phic

s

PRELIMINARY RESULTS FEW STUDIES AVAILABLE

...but steeper emission reduction rates after 20202

...and greater reliance on negative emissions in second half of the century


19

- 2 to -3 GtCO2e

Move from business-as-usual to unconditional pledges (lower ambition)

Remaining gap of ~5 GtCORemaining gap of ~5 GtCO22e e

It is feasible to close the gapIt is feasible to close the gap

More ambitious actions More ambitious actions COCO22 & non& non--COCO22

Climate financeClimate finance

- 1 to -2 Gt CO2e

3. How to reduce the gap? (To 2 degree target)

- 3 Gt CO2e

Total reduction approx. -7 Gt CO2e

Moving from unconditional (lower ambition) pledges to conditional (higher ambition) Ambitious action from other countries Provision of climate finance Passing of domestic legislation

Ensuring strict rules surrounding: Land use/forest accounting Surplus emissions units

Gap without action (business-as-usual) 12 Gt CO2e

20

Key Messages

The glass is half empty

Without action a huge gap between temperature targets and expected emissions in 2020

The glass is half full

The negotiations can reduce the gap substantially

Feasible to close the remaining gap with higher ambition









Overview

22

23

What did we do?

IAM multi-gas emission pathways from literature

Kyoto-basket: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Chapter 3 What are the expected global

emissions in 2020?

Lead authors: Niklas Hhne (Ecofys), Chris Taylor (Grantham)

Contributing authors: Claudine Chen (PIK), Rob Dellink (OECD), Michel den Elzen (PBL), Jrgen Fenhann (UNEP Risoe), Claudio

Gesteira (COPPE), Kelly Levin (WRI), Emanuele Massetti (FEEM), Caspar Olausson (Danish Energy Agency), Murray Ward (Global

Climate Change Consultants), Zhao Xiusheng (Tsinghua)

What did we do?

Estimates from:

AVOID Programme

Climate Action Tracker

Climate Interactive

Climate Strategies

FEEM

Grantham Institute

Houser

IIASA (GAINS)

OECD

PBL

Project Catalyst

UNEP Risoe

WRI

Completed datasets for:All countries

All sectors

Disentangled the low-high range of estimates

Consistent assumptions on which

country pledges are conditional / unconditional

Stripped out most important accounting issues

LULUCF accounting (up to 0.8

GtCO2e)

Surplus emission units (up to 2.3

GtCO2e)

Harmonised to consistent historic emission levels (2005 levels)

Results from four pledge cases

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

4321BAU1990 2005

56

52

60

45

38


2020 projections


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

4321BAU1990 2005

56

52

60

5351

57

45

38


2020 projections

Unconditional pledgesLenient accounting rules


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

4321BAU1990 2005

56

52

60

5351

57

5250

55

45

38


2020 projections

Unconditional pledgesStrict accounting rules


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

4321BAU1990 2005

56

52

60

5351

57

5250

55

5149

53

45

38


2020 projections

Conditional pledgesLenient accounting rules


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

4321BAU1990 2005

56

52

60

5351

57

5250

55

5149

53

4947

51

45

38


2020 projections

Conditional pledgesStrict accounting rules

Other factors that affect emissions

Double counting of offsets

Partial delivery

Climate finance

Ambitious policy / over delivery

1.3 GtCO2e1.3 GtCO2e

~2 GtCO2e

2.5 GtCO2e

1.5 GtCO2e

Maximum expected impact

Lead authors: Michel den Elzen (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency)Keywan Riahi (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis)

Contributing authors: William Hare (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research), Niklas Hhne (Ecofys), Mikiko Kainuma (National Institute for EnvironmentalStudies), Jiang Kejun (Energy Research Institute), Chris Taylor (GranthamResearch Institute, LSE), Zhao Xiusheng (Tsinghua University)

Chapter 4 What is the emissions gap?

Chapter 4. What is the emissions gap?

There is a potential emissions gap between the expected emissions based on the country pledges and emission levels in 2020 consistent with a 1.5 and 2C limits

The size of the gap depends on the likelihood of a particular temperature limit, and how the pledges are implemented

As a reference point: Emissions for business-as-usual projection: 56 GtCO2e [54-60] Emissions for meeting 2C limit with likely chance: 44 GtCO2e [39-44]=> Global emissions gap: 12 GtCO2e [10-21]


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

4321BAU1990 2005 2C

56

52

60

5351

57

5250

55

5149

53

4947

51

45

38


2020 projections

Comparison with the 2020 emissions consistent with a likely chance of limiting warming to 2C

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

4321BAU1990 2005 2C

56

52

60

5351

57

5250

55

5149

53

4947

51

44

39

4445

38


2020 projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

What is the gap?

4321BAU1990 2005 2C

56

52

60

44

39

44


12

2020 projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

What is the gap?

4321BAU1990 2005 2C

56

52

60

44

39

44


10

2020 projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

What is the gap?

4321BAU1990 2005 2C

56

52

60

44

39

44


21

2020 projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

What is the gap?

4321BAU1990 2005 2C

56

52

60

44

39

44


12 10-21

2020 projections

What is the gap?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

4321BAU1990 2005 2C

5351

57

44

39

4445

38


9 8-18

2020 projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

What is the gap?

4321BAU1990 2005 2C

5250

55

44

39

4445

38


8 6-16

2020 projections

What is the gap?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

4321BAU1990 2005 2C

5149

53

44

39

4445

38


7 5-14

2020 projections

What is the gap?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

4321BAU1990 2005 2C

4947

51

44

39

4445

38


53-12

2020 projections

Pledge case

Business as usual

2020 emissions: 56 [54-60])12 [10-21] 11 [8-18]

Unconditional pledge, Lenient rules

(2020 emissions: 53 [52-57])9 [8-18] 8 [6-15]

Unconditional pledge, Strict rules

(2020 emissions: 52 [50-55])8 [6-16] 7 [4-13]

Conditional pledge, Lenient rules

(2020 emissions: 51 [49-53])7 [5-14] 6 [3-11]

Conditional pledge, Strict rules

(2020 emissions: 49 [47-51])5 [3-12] 4 [1-9]

(2020 emissions: 44 [39-44]) (2020 emissions: 45 [42-46])

"Likely" chance (>66%) to

stay below 2C

"Medium" chance (50 to

66%) to stay below 2C

The global gap between expected emissions in 2020 with emission levels for meeting 2oC

1

2

3

4

Key messages

There is a gap of between 5 and 9 GtCO2e to levels consistent with a likely chance of limit global warming to 2C, depending on how the pledges are implemented

To have a medium rather than a likely chance of staying within the 2C limit, global emissions in 2020 can be about 1 GtCO2e higher and the gap also narrows by about 1 GtCO2e

There are considerable uncertainties around the estimates of thegap. The range around median estimates is not symmetric; the lower bound extends about 1 to 2 GtCO2e below the median, whereas the upper bound rises 7 to 9 GtCO2e above it. Therefore, the gap may turn out to be higher rather than the median.

Reaching 1.5C with a median probability of about 30 per cent leaves a similar emissions gap in 2020 as the one for a likely chance for 2C

54

55

56

57







The Emissions Gap Report · The Emissions Gap Report Cancun, 2 December 2010 Are the Copenhagen...

Documents

Transcript of The Emissions Gap Report · The Emissions Gap Report Cancun, 2 December 2010 Are the Copenhagen...