Expert Meeting on “Developing visions for a LowCarbon Society through sustainable development”
Tokyo, 14-16 June 2005

Emissions Scenarios: SRES,
post-SRES, MA,
UNEP/GEO, and LCA
Mikiko Kainuma
National Institute for Environmental Studies
http://www-iam.nies.go.jp/aim/
1Scenarios Provide a framework for decision making

which illuminates the impact associatedwith alternative courses of action
 Facilitate the interpretation of possible

future states Include elements that cannot be formallymodeled Aimed at challenging prevailing mind sets
Source: Nakicenovic, 2005

Previous developed and usedscenarios by IPCC
1990 1992

1995

1996

2000 2001 2004

????

TAR

Start writing AR5
Based on ???????

Six IS92 scenarios
Evaluation Scenarios

Four SA90 scenarios

Panel decision
new scenarios

Start writing AR4
Based on SRES
Start reviewing post-SRES
scenarios and updating database

Special ReportEmissions Scenarios (SRES)INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)

Purposes of Emissions
Scenarios Purpose 1: Evaluate the environmental and climaticconsequences of “non-intervention” futures
 Purpose 2: Evaluate the environmental and climaticconsequences of “intervention” futures
 Purpose 3: Examine the feasibility and costs ofmitigating GHGs from different regions and sectors
 Purpose 4: Negotiate possible emissions reductions

for different countries and regions
Source: IPCC, 1995

Purposes of Emissions Scenarios(Together with Climate Projections)Purpose 1“non-intervention”
Purpose 2“intervention”
Purpose 3
feasibility and costs
from different regions
and sectors
Purpose 4"Negotiation"

SA90

IS92

SRES

TAR

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

NoNo

Yes

NoNo

No

Yes (?)

No (?)

No (?)

No (?)

No (?)

Source: Nakicenovic, 2005

Alternative Scenario Formulations
eit v
it tanau
Q

ModelsScenarios

Stories

Qeit vitaluaSource: IPCC SRES, 2000

SRES: Socioeconomic development scenarios
for climate change prediction
A1T
A1B

A1

economyA2

A1FI

globalism

regionalism

B2

B1
environment
Population
Economic growthTechnology

Agriculture(land use)
EnergyDriving Forces

7Source: IPCC SRESGlobal Population Projections
World Population (SRES, n=40) (pre SRES, n=62)
20
pre SRES range

pre SRES

10
SRESbillion

15

50
1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

Source: Nakicenovic et al., 2006Global Population Projections
World Population (post SRES, n=168) (pre SRES, n=62)
20
pre SRES range

501940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

pre SRES

10
post SRESbillion

152100Source: Nakicenovic et al., 2006

Global Population Projections
World Population (post SRES, non intervention, n=64)
20
pre SRES range
post SRES, non intervention range
Median501940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

pre SRES

10
post SRES

billion152100Source: Nakicenovic et al., 2006

Gross World ProductRange Across Emissions Scenarios
World GDP (SRES, n=40) (pre SRES, n=151)
800
pre SRES range
700500400300
SRES200

pre SRES

trillion 1990$

600

100019401960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

Source: Nakicenovic et al., 2006

Gross World ProductRange Across Emissions Scenarios
World GDP (post SRES, n=194) (pre SRES, n=151)
800
pre SRES range
700

500

400

200
10001940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

pre SRES

300
post SRES

trillion 1990$

600

2100

Source: Nakicenovic et al., 2006

Gross World ProductRange Across Emissions Scenarios
World GDP (pre SRES, non intervention, n=113)
800
700

pre SRES range
post SRES range

400
300
200
10001940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

post SRES non intervention500pre SRES non intervention

trillion 1990$600

2100

Source: Nakicenovic et al., 2006

Carbon Emissions
Range Across Emissions Scenarios
World CO2 emissions (pre SRES, non intervention, n=199)
80
70
60

40
pre SRES non intervention

Gt C

50

30
20
100
1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

Source: Nakicenovic et al., 2006

Carbon Emissions
TAR Intervention Scenarios
World CO2 emissions (tar, intervention, n=80) (SRES, n=40)80
SRES range
7060

Gt C

50

40
30
20100
1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

Source: Nakicenovic et al., 2006

Difficulty of CO2 reduction depends ondevelopment path for future world
A1B

CO2 emission (GtC)

AIFI
4030
201002000

2050

40Baseline
3020750 10650
5500450
2100
2000

1002000

2050

403020Baseline

2050

650 10550
450 02100
2000

B1A24030
20

A1T

4030
Baseline
20750 1055002100
2000

Baseline

2050

650
550
4502100

B2403020Baseline

10Baseline

2050

550
450
2100

02000

2050

650
550
4502100
16A1FI and A2 require much larger reduction than A1T and B1

Major findings of Post-SRES• Different development paths require different
technology/ policy measures and show different costs ofmitigation to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations• A portfolio of measures required for timely development,adoption and diffusion of mitigation options; Policy
integration across an array of technologies, sectors andregions is the key to successful climate policies• However, associated socio-economic and institutionalchanges are required to realize the potential for the above
stabilization in practice17

Issues after Post-SRES• Greater need for the linkage of emission and impact
analysis– Appropriate criteria of stabilization targets (ex. GHGconcentration, radiative forcing, temperature change, rateof temperature change, sea level rise, rate of sea level rise)– Timing of mitigation (early vs. late)• Uncertainty in future technological advances (risks ofmitigation in later stage)• Specific mitigation implementation strategies forachieving targets of 550 ppmv, 450 ppmv, etc.
18

Recent Stabilization Scenarios• Global level studies– e.g. MA, UNEP/GEO, EMF21, IEA/Energy to 2050,• Country level studies– Each country focusing on its own mitigation targets andways to achieve them

• Sector focused analysis– e.g. OECD/Environmentally Sustainable Transport19

Framework of MA(Millennium ecosystem assessment)
Human Well-being & PovertyReduction• Health and Disease• Environmental Security• Cultural Security• Economic Security• Equity• Demographic Change• Economic Change• Social and Political Change• Technological change• Lifestyle and Behavioral
changeofct espa onsIm sp
reEcosystems &their Services

Primary Drivers• Supporting (Biodiversity andecosystem processes)• Provisioning (Food, water,fiber,fuel, other biological products)• Enriching (Cultural, aesthetic)Life on earth= Strategies and Interventions

Proximate Drivers• Climate Change• Changes in Land Use &Land Cover• Technology adaptation
and use• Nutrient Release• Species Introductions• Harvest

20

Frame of MA Scenarios
Technogarden
Focus:
Environmental
technology

Institutions

Globally Connected
GlobalOrchestration
Focus:
Social policy

Proactive Approach to environmental management Reactive
Adapting Mosaic
Focus:
Active learning

Order from Strength
Focus:
Self interest

Regional Focus

21

2000

2100

Global Orchestration (GO)-In general, the order of stress is OS > AM >GO > TG
Withdrawal: driven by socio-economicfactors
Water resource: driven by climate factors
General trend of stress index change canbe explained by demand side.
-Middle East and North Africa
High drought risk ← water demand
increase derived from population
increase and economic development.
Mitigated in TG ← high efficiency ofwater use.
-East Europe
High draught risk inGO ←high rateincrease of industrial water withdrawal
which cannot be compensated with thewater use efficiency improvement.

Order from Strength (OS)TechnoGarden(TG)1 5 10～
Water Stress Index0 20 40 60 80 100(%)(ratio between total withdrawaland renewable water resource)

22

Adaptive Mosaic (AM)The Background of UNEP/GEO•The UNEP GEO project was initiated in response to•Environmental reporting requirements of Agenda 21•UNEP governing council decision of May 1995
•The coordinated global network of collaborating centers (CCs) isat the core of the GEO process•Reports are produced using regional and participatory approach

UNEP/GEO4 Meeting 2005

Key Questions and Elements
The Outlook•The extent and direction of opportunities (actions) would
determine different out looks for the future.
•GEO 4 will explore possible futures•Markets first, Policy first, Security first, Sustainability
first•Regional differentiation and regional and global implications
to be explored•Implications of decisions made today

UNEP/GEO4 Meeting 2005

Proposed Plan for the Outlook
Component of GEO-4
Proposed Purpose and Key Questions•Where does each scenario stand in relation to specific goals?
•What are intermediate and long-term implications of current(and already taken) actions?
•What are the contrasting ‘costs’ (in a broad sense) for
achieving particular sustainability goals under the scenarios?
•How, and how well, can different actors/regions respond to afuture shock/disturbance/new insight/concern under thedifferent scenarios?

UNEP/GEO4 Meeting 2005

Asia Pacific Integrated Modeling Team
Some GEO 3 Outlook Results
300%
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%

MF
PO
SC
SUMF
PO
SC
SU

MF
PO
SC
SU

MF
PO
SC
SUMF
PO
SC
SU

0%

South Asia

South
East Asia

East Asia

Central Asia

ANZ and South
Pacific-50%-100%

Afghanistan
BhutanIran
Nepal
Sri Lanka
Cambodia
Lao
MyanmarSingapore
Vietnam
Korea,DemKorea,Rep
TaiwanKyrgyz Republic
Turkmenistan
Australia
FijiNauru
Papua New Guinea
Tonga
Samoa

MF: market first, PO: policy first, SC: security first, SU: sustainability first

Change in energy-related SO2 emissions by 2032 relative to 2002 (%)

Focus on regional environmental changes

Bangladesh
India
Maldives
Pakistan
BruneiIndonesia
Malaysia
Philippines
ThailandChinaJapan
Mongolia
Kazakhstan
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
New Zealand
Kiribati
Palau
French Polynesia
VanuatuSolomon Islands

Asia Pacific Integrated Modeling Team
Example: Access to safe water/sanitation by AIM/Water Request for Storyline
 Millennium Development Goals 7, Target 10: Halve by 2015 theproportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking waterand basic sanitation►►► Timing of MDG achievement►►► Quality of safe water/sanitation technologies or investment cost

 Quantification
 Consistency check between access to safe water/sanitation bytechnology, investment costs and MDG achievement
 Potential mortality of diarrhea

Focus on Short-term (2015) and Medium-term (2050)

Asia Pacific Integrated Modeling Team
Access to safe water in 2015 and 2050
100
Access to safe water (%)

8060
40202000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability2000Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability

0

2015

Australia
and New
ZealandCentralAsia

North West South Asia South East
Pacific andAsia
East Asia

80
60
40
200
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability
2000
Markets
PolicySecurity
Sustainability

Access to safe water (%)

100

South
Pacific

2050

Australia
and New
ZealandCentralAsia

North West South Asia South EastPacific andAsia
East Asia

SouthPacific 2015

 PF scenario in every sub-region except South Pacific achieves MDG due to fully investment cost andSuF scenario achieves MDG in some sub-regions.
 MF only achieves MDG in Northwest Pacific and East Asia and SeF scenario fail to achieve MDG.
Austria and New Zealand already have 100% access to safe water.

 2050In Northwest Pacific and East Asia, four scenario almost achieve 100% access to safe water basedon rapid economic growth In other sub-regions, growth of access to safe water coverage stagnates because of rapid population
growth, investment cost limitation and rise of investment cost for household connection

Millennium Development Goal (MDG), Goal 7, Target 10: Halve by 2015 theproportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic
sanitation

How much speed of technologicalchange should be required to achieve
Low Carbon Society?
- Comparison of scenarios CO2 emission disaggregation by Kaya identity

CO2 = (CO2/E) x (E/GDP) x GDP
E : Primary energy use, E/GDP: Energy intensity
CO2/E : Carbon intensity
29

Rates of change of aggregated energy intensity and carbon intensity
50%
cduFrance(1960–2000)

Japan(1960–2000)

c
du

n

retio%
ren%

tio

70c
dutio
n–180%

UKre(1960–2000)

cdutioEnergy intensity (%/y)

re60

0n

Germany–2(1990–2000)

90%
rec
du
tio
n–3–3–2–1

Carbon intensity (%/y)

0

Dotted isoquantlines show theestimated CO2
reduction over
50years assuming
annual GDP growthrate of 1% for eachcountry; It must be
noted that reductionlevels shown hereare not the same as
those reported byeach country’s
scenarios because
they assume
different GDP
growth rate 30

Source: kawase et al., 2006

Rates of change of aggregated energy intensity and carbon intensity
50%
cduFrance(1960–2000)

Japan(1960–2000)

cdun

retio

%

Change incarbon
intensitywith CCS

ren%

tio

70

c
dutio
n

–1
80%

UKre(1960–2000)

c
dutio

Energy intensity (%/y)

re60

0n

Germany–2(1990–2000)

90%
recdution–3–3Change incarbon intensity
excludingcarbon captureand storage(CCS)–2–1

Carbon intensity (%/y)

0

Dotted isoquantlines show theestimated CO2
reduction over50yrs assuming
annual GDP growthrate of 1% for eachcountry; It must be
noted that reductionlevels shown here
are not the same as
those reported byeach country’s
scenarios because
they assume
different GDP
growth rate 31

Source: kawase et al., 2006

Summary• To achieve ambitious target of a 50-90% CO2
emission reduction, the pace of aggregated energy
intensity improvement and carbon intensity decrease
must be 2-3 times greater than the 40-year historicalchange, while the change rates should be maintainedfor 50 years.
• We need ‘trend-braking’ intervention. What andHow?
• Scenarios can help to foresee the future world andprovide lessons from the future.
32

Thank you foryour attention!
33

Carbon Emissions
SRES Range of Scenarios
World CO2 emissions (SRES, n=40) (is92, n=6)80
IS92 range
70
60

Gt C

5040
30
20
100
1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

Source: Nakicenovic et al., 2006

Simulation Results(Potential crop productivity)
040

OECD-9Wheat [%]-62010-12-15
2000

2050Year

102050Y e ar2000

2100

Maize [%]

42200008060402100

2000

L-America

Maize-4-6-8-1002050
Year2100-22002050
YearFSU
Maize [%]

100

8-30-50120
OECD

Wheat-20-4002000

2100

6L-America-1030
Wheat [%]

Wheat [%]

-3

Maize [%]

0FSU2050
Year

2100

2000

2050
Year

2100-Generally, the degree of potential productivity change coincides with the speed of temperature
increase; FW > EO > LL >TG. Potential productivity will increase in high-latitude regions, anddecrease in low-latitude regions. In mid-latitude regions, effect of climate change depends on thevariety of crops.
-FSU: productivities of wheat and maize increase very rapidly by global warming under any scenarios.
-Latin America: As global warming progresses, the potential productivity will decrease.
-OECD: the potential productivity of wheat will decrease, while that of maize will increase because of35
global warming. Generally, the most suitable temperature for maize growth is higher than that forwheat growth.

Proposed Plan for the Outlook
Component of GEO-4
Starting point•The GEO-3 scenarios will act as the first draft scenarios for
GEO-4.
•The focus of the work will be on the global and regional
levels with some differentiation, as appropriate, on a subregional level.
Temporal Specification•Time horizon for narratives and quantification will be 2050
•Reporting of indicators in 2015 (short-term)•Certain environmental indicators to 2100 (long-term)
UNEP/GEO4 Meeting 2005

Proposed Plan for the Outlook
Component of GEO-4
Content Elements•Specific priority, cross-cutting, and emerging issues•Trends in key drivers, e.g. population, consumption,
production, and technology•Trends in key environmental indicators, e.g. pollutant levels,
land cover, and biodiversity•Progress toward specific goals and targets, e.g. MDGs
•Global story with regional elements, separate regional stories
for each of the scenarios, (sub-)regions free to elaborate on
issues that are important to them

UNEP/GEO4 Meeting 2005

MiniCAM A1FI 450

EJ
2500EJASF A2 550

Stabilization Case
A!M A1FI 550

EJ

20001800

3000 EJ
1500
14002500 3500 EJ
1200

3000
2000
1000 2000
1000
2500

4000
3000

0000000000020
120220320
420
520620720820
91000

1990 2000201 20909 01
0 0
202 2
1910 09 0 0 0 20
220 022001 203
0 0
19 00
90 202 2230 020010 020 40
0 2200 024003 205
20 20
0 0
10 202 2250 020030 040 60
2 2200 026005 207
0 0
20 40
30 202 2270 020050 060 80
4 2200 028007 209
0 0
20 60
50 202 2
90 1220070 2 080 00
6 1200 20009
20 80
070 2
2120090 00
8
21 0
20 00
90
2100

90

20
02000

1998001500
500 1500 2000
600
1500
4001000
1000
01000
200500 500
0500
00EJ

0160019

Other Renewables
Biomass
Other Renweables
Nuclear
MARIA A1B 550
Gas Biomass
Other Renweables
Oil Nuclear
Biomass
MESSAGEGas
A1C450
CoalNuclear
Oil reduction
DemandCoalGas Other Renweables
PE with Carbon scrubbing
Oil reduction
Biomass
DemandOther Renweables
Nuclear
CoalCarbon
PE withscrubbing
Biomass
Gas
Demandreduction
NuclearwithOilCarbonscrubbing
BaU EnergyPE
Consumption
Other renewables
Coal Gas
Biomass
Oilreduction
DemandNuclearCoal
PE withCarbon scrubbing
DemandGasreduction
Oil
PE with Carbon scrubbing
Coal
Demand reduction
PE with Carbon scrubbing

LDNE A1G 550

2102000-50000-1000-1000-500-1500-2000-1000-3000

How to achieve-4000 stabilization targets differs among models

38

Framework of MA(Millennium ecosystem assessment)
Human Well-being & PovertyReduction• Health and disease• Environmental Security• Cultural Security• Economic Security• Equity• Demographic Change• Economic Change• Social and Political Change• Technological change• Lifestyle and Behavioral
changeofct espa onsIm sp
reEcosystems &their Services

Primary Drivers• Supporting (Biodiversity andecosystem processes)• Provisioning (Food, water,fiber,fuel, other biological products)• Enriching (Cultural, aesthetic)

Life on earth= Strategies and Interventions

Proximate Drivers• Climate Change• Land Use & Cover Change• Factor inputs• Pollution• Nutrient Release• Species Introductions• Harvest39

Ecosystem Services
Provisioning Services

Regulating Services

Cultural Services

Products obtained from
Ecosystems

Benefits obtained from
regulation of ecosystem
Processes

Nonmaterial benefits
obtained from
Ecosystem•Climate regulation•Disease regulation•Water regulation•Water purification•Pollination•Spiritual religious•Recreation andecotourism•Aesthetic•Inspirational•Educational•Sense of place•Cultural heritage•Food•Fresh water•Fuelwood•Fiber•Biochemicals•Genetic resources

Supporting Services
Services necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services•Soil formation•Nutrient cycling•Primary production

40