Issues Related to Mitigation in the Long-Term Context
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
3 Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context Coordinating Lead Authors: Brian Fisher (Australia), Nebojsa Nakicenovic (Austria/Montenegro) Lead Authors: Knut Alfsen (Norway), Jan Corfee Morlot (France/USA), Francisco de la Chesnaye (USA), Jean-Charles Hourcade (France), Kejun Jiang (China), Mikiko Kainuma (Japan), Emilio La Rovere (Brazil), Anna Matysek (Australia), Ashish Rana (India), Keywan Riahi (Austria), Richard Richels (USA), Steven Rose (USA), Detlef Van Vuuren (The Netherlands), Rachel Warren (UK) Contributing Authors: Phillipe Ambrosi (France), Fatih Birol (Turkey), Daniel Bouille (Argentina), Christa Clapp (USA), Bas Eickhout (The Netherlands), Tatsuya Hanaoka (Japan), Michael D. Mastrandrea (USA), Yuzuru Matsuoko (Japan), Brian O’Neill (USA), Hugh Pitcher (USA), Shilpa Rao (India), Ferenc Toth (Hungary) Review Editors: John Weyant (USA), Mustafa Babiker (Kuwait) This chapter should be cited as: Fisher, B.S., N. Nakicenovic, K. Alfsen, J. Corfee Morlot, F. de la Chesnaye, J.-Ch. Hourcade, K. Jiang, M. Kainuma, E. La Rovere, A. Matysek, A. Rana, K. Riahi, R. Richels, S. Rose, D. van Vuuren, R. Warren, 2007: Issues related to mitigation in the long term context, In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context Chapter 3 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................... 171 3.5 Interaction between mitigation and adaptation, in the light of climate change 3.1 Emissions scenarios ....................................... 174 impacts and decision-making under long- 3.1.1 The definition and purpose of scenarios ........... 174 term uncertainty .............................................. 225 3.1.2 Introduction to mitigation and stabilization 3.5.1 The interaction between mitigation and adaptation, scenarios ........................................................ 175 an iterative climate policy process ................... 225 3.1.3 Development trends and the lock-in effect of 3.5.2 Linking emission scenarios to changes in infrastructure choices ...................................... 176 global mean temperature, impacts and key vulnerabilities .................................................. 227 3.1.4 Economic growth and convergence ................. 176 3.5.3 Information for integrated assessment of 3.1.5 Development pathways and GHG emissions .... 177 response strategies ......................................... 229 3.1.6 Institutional frameworks................................... 178 3.6 Links between short-term emissions 3.2 Baseline scenarios ........................................... 178 trends, envisaged policies and long-term 3.2.1 Drivers of emissions ........................................ 178 climate policy targets ...................................... 233 3.2.2 Emissions ....................................................... 186 3.6.1 Insights into the choice of a short-term hedging strategy in the context of long-term 3.3 Mitigation scenarios ......................................... 194 uncertainty ...................................................... 234 3.3.1 Introduction..................................................... 194 3.6.2 Evaluation of short-term mitigation opportunities in long-term stabilization scenarios .................. 235 3.3.2 Definition of a stabilization target ..................... 194 3.3.3 How to define substitution among gases ......... 195 References ..................................................................... 240 3.3.4 Emission pathways.......................................... 196 3.3.5 Long-term stabilization scenarios .................... 197 3.3.6 Characteristics of regional and national mitigation scenarios ........................................................ 214 3.4 The role of technologies in long-term mitigation and stabilization: research, development, deployment, diffusion and transfer .............................................................. 218 3.4.1 Carbon-free energy and decarbonization ......... 219 3.4.2 RD&D and investment patterns ........................ 222 3.4.3 Dynamics and drivers of technological change, barriers (timing of technology deployment, learning) .......................................................... 222 170 Chapter 3 Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context EXECUTIVE SUMMARY biomass scenarios. However, the explicit modelling of land-use in long-term global scenarios is still relatively immature, with significant opportunities for improvement. This chapter documents baseline and stabilization scenarios in the literature since the publication of the IPCC Special In the debate on the use of exchange rates, market exchange Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (Nakicenovic et al., rates (MER) or purchasing power parities (PPP), evidence from 2000) and Third Assessment Report (TAR, Morita et al., 2001). the limited number of new PPP-based studies indicates that the It reviews the use of the SRES reference and TAR stabilization choice of metric for gross domestic product (GDP), MER or scenarios and compares them with new scenarios that have PPP, does not appreciably affect the projected emissions, when been developed during the past five years. Of special relevance metrics are used consistently. The differences, if any, are small is how ranges published for driving forces and emissions in the compared to the uncertainties caused by assumptions on other newer literature compare with those used in the TAR, SRES parameters, e.g. technological change (high agreement, much and pre-SRES scenarios. This chapter focuses particularly evidence). on the scenarios that stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The multi-gas stabilization scenarios The numerical expression of GDP clearly depends on represent a significant change in the new literature compared conversion measures; thus GDP expressed in PPP will deviate to the TAR, which focused mostly on carbon dioxide (CO2) from GDP expressed in MER, more so for developing countries. emissions. They also explore lower levels and a wider range of The choice of conversion factor (MER or PPP) depends on the stabilization than in the TAR. type of analysis or comparison being undertaken. However, when it comes to calculating emissions (or other physical The foremost finding from the comparison of the SRES measures, such as energy), the choice between MER-based and new scenarios in the literature is that the ranges of main or PPP-based representations of GDP should not matter, since driving forces and emissions have not changed very much (high emission intensities will change (in a compensating manner) agreement, much evidence). Overall, the emission ranges from when the GDP numbers change. Thus, if a consistent set of scenarios without climate policy reported before and after the metrics is employed, the choice of MER or PPP should not SRES have not changed appreciably. Some changes are noted appreciably affect the final emission levels (high agreement, for population and economic growth assumptions. Population medium evidence). This supports the SRES in the sense that scenarios from major demographic institutions are lower than the use of MER or PPP does not, in itself, lead to significantly they were at the time of the SRES, but so far they have not been different emission projections outside the range of the literature fully implemented in the emissions scenarios in the literature. All (high agreement, much evidence). In the case of the SRES, the other factors being equal, lower population projections are likely emissions trajectories were the same whether economic activities to result in lower emissions. However, in the scenarios that used in the four scenario families were measured in MER or PPP. lower projections, changes in other drivers of emissions have offset their impact. Regional medium-term (2030) economic Some studies find differences in emission levels between projections for some developing country regions are currently using PPP-based and MER-based estimates. These results lower than the highest scenarios used in the SRES. Otherwise, critically depend on, among other things, convergence economic growth perspectives have not changed much, even assumptions (high agreement, medium evidence). In some of though they are among the most intensely debated aspects of the short-term scenarios (with a horizon to 2030) a ‘bottom- the SRES scenarios. In terms of emissions, the most noticeable up’ approach is taken, where assumptions about productivity changes occurred for projections of SOx and NOx emissions. As growth and investment and saving decisions are the main short-term trends have moved down, the range of projections drivers of growth in the models. In long-term scenario models, for both is currently lower than the range published before the a ‘top-down’ approach is more commonly used, where the SRES. A small number of new scenarios have begun to explore actual growth rates are more directly prescribed based on emission pathways for black and organic carbon. convergence or other assumptions about long-term growth potentials. Different results can also be due to inconsistencies Baseline land-related CO2 and non-CO2 GHG emissions in adjusting the metrics of energy efficiency improvement when remain significant, with continued but slowing