Implications of the Paris Agreement
for near term action
with a view to the long term ambition
Elmar Kriegler
ALPS International Symposium, Tokyo, 10 February 2016

The AMPERE, LIMITS, CD-LINKS, and MILES project have received funding from the European Union
under FP7, Horizon 2020, and EuropeAid

PIK: Mission•

PIK addresses crucial scientific questions in the fields of global change, climate
impact and sustainable development.

•Researchers from the natural and social sciences work together to generateinterdisciplinary insights and to provide society with sound information fordecision making.

•The main methodologies are systems and scenarios analysis, modelling, computer
simulation, and data integration.

Photo H. Bach

Michelson Building2Research Structures
Research Domain 1:

Earth System Analysis

Research Domain 2:

Climate Impacts and Vulnerabilities

Research Domain 3:

Sustainable Solutions

Research Domain 4:

Transdisciplinary Concepts and Methods

3

IPCC AR5 findings on the implications of mitigation action until
2030 for limiting warming to 2oC(Cost effective scenarios reaching 430-530 ppm CO2e)

Adapted from Figure SPM.54Working Group III contribution to theIPCC Fifth Assessment Report

IPCC AR5 findings on the implications of mitigation action until
2030 for limiting warming to 2oC
reaching
430-530 ppm CO2e)
IPCC WG3(ScenariosAR5, Section
4.1:

INDCs



Adapted from Figure SPM.5
5

Working Group III contribution to theIPCC Fifth Assessment Report“Estimated global GHG emissions levels in 2020
based on the Cancún Pledges are not consistent
with cost‐effective long‐term mitigation
trajectories that are at least as likely as not tolimit temperature change to 2oC relative topre‐industrial levels …, but they do not preclude
the option to meet that goal (high confidence).
…
The Cancún Pledges are broadly consistent withcost‐effective scenarios that are likely to keep
temperature change below 3oC relative topreindustrial levels.”Moderate mitigation until 2030 increases the difficulty andnarrows the options for limiting warming to 2°C.
(Scenarios reaching 430-530 ppm CO2e)

IPCC WG3 AR5, Section 4.1:
INDCs




Adapted from Figure SPM.5
6

Working Group III contribution to theIPCC Fifth Assessment Report“Delaying mitigation efforts
beyond those in place today
through 2030 is estimated tosubstantially increase thedifficulty of the transition to
low longer‐term emissions
levels and narrow the rangeof options consistent withmaintaining temperaturechange below 2°C relative topre‐industrial levels (highconfidence).”Moderate mitigation until 2030 increases the difficulty andnarrows the options for limiting warming to 2°C.
IPCC WG3 AR5, Section 4.1:
“Scenarios with annual GHG
emissions above 55 GtCO2eq
in 2030 are characterized bysubstantially higher rates ofemissions reductions from2030 to 2050 …; much more
rapid scale‐up of low‐carbon
energy over this period …; alarger reliance on CDR
technologies in the long term…; and higher transitional
and long term economicimpacts.”
Adapted from Figure SPM.5
7

Working Group III contribution to theIPCC Fifth Assessment Report(Scenarios reaching 430-530 ppm CO2e)Post‐Paris process requires
connecting global & national analysis
Increased collaboration between
national & global energy-economy
and IA modelling teams desirable

MILES project consortium

CD‐Links project
www.cd‐links.org

Kriegler: Building a bridge to staying below 2oC

IDDRI - Thomas Spencer

Key message: Paris Agreement needs to include strengthening
mechanisms to build bridge from INDCs to staying below 2°C
Greenhouse gas emissions• INDCs are significant deviation fromcurrent trends and policies

80 GtCO2eq/yr• But not sufficient to stay below 2oC goal
60

INDC−extended
Bridge• Mechanisms for rapid strengthening cansend signal of commitment to long term
goal to investors.

INDC−2C

Immediate−2C• Early restructuring of investments canshave additional 5 GtCO2eq off
trajectory in 2030 and reduce the risk ofdisruptive, rapid, costly change2020• Regular ratcheting up of NDCs foreseenin the Paris Agreement needs to beexploited fully.

40

202000

2010

2030

2040

2050

Source: REMIND model calculations, EDGAR (JRC/PBL, historical emissions),
PBL INDC Tool calculations (www.pbl.nl/indc INDC range and best estimate,vertical black line and circle) and IPCC AR5 scenario database

Source MILES project report (Spencer, Pierfederici et al., IDDRI, PIK):
ww.iddri.org/Publications/Beyond-the-numbers-Understanding-the-transformation-induced-by-INDCs

Increase in GHG emissions reduction rate
Annual rate of change in GHG emissions-1%



0%-1%

-2%-3%

‐4.4%

‐1.1%

‐3.3%

-4%
-5%
-6%
-7%
-8%
2015
2030

2030
2050

INDC−2oC

2015
2030

2030
2050

Bridge−2oC

2015
2030

2030
2050

Immediate−2oC

The colored bars denote the scenarios of this study, while the boxplots show results from theFullTech‐450‐OPT (right) and FullTech‐450‐HST (left) scenarios of the AMPERE study, respectively.
The boxes denote the interquartile range, while the whiskers show the full range. Two outliers in theAMPERE study (scenarios with >800EJ potential for biomass) are represented by dots.
Source: REMIND model analysis, and IPCC AR5 scenario database

Source:Figure 44 of MILES report

Kriegler: Building a bridge to staying below 2oC
10Investors will respond to Paris Agreement (only) if
commitment to long term goal is credibleLow-carbon (renewables, nuclear, fossils with CCS)

Average annual investment

Investment into
low‐carbon power
generation capacity
increases under INDCs,
but not enough.

1 500 billion $US

1 250

1 000+865+639+395750

500+365

250+475+1582012Source: Figure 49 of MILES report

02020-30 2030-50o
INDC−2Kriegler: Building a bridge to staying below
2oC C

2020-30 2030-50

2020-30 2030-50

Bridge−2oC

Immediate−2oC

Horizontal lines in the background mark the respective 2012 historic value (IEA 2014b)
11
Source: REMIND model analysis and IEA

Increasing low‐carbon electricity deployment
Low-emissions electricity share at the global level
100%
90%
80%

+33%

70%
60%

+42%

+47%

50%
40%

2012

30%
20%
10%
0%

2030

2050

INDC−2oC

2030

2050

Bridge−2oC

2030

2050

Immediate−2oCThe boxplots represent the results from the FullTech‐450‐OPT (right) and FullTech‐450‐HST (left) scenariosof the AMPERE study, respectively and the horizontal line in the background marks the 2012 historic value(IEA 2014). Source: REMIND model analysis, IEA, and IPCC AR5 scenario database

Kriegler: Building a bridge to staying below 2oC

Source:Figure 45 of MILES reportSome low‐carbon technologies are in particular needfor stronger incentives than provided by INDCs
Gas-CCS

Biomass-CCS

Solar

Primary Energy in 2030 (EJ/yr)

10.0127.51085.0
542.5

2012

00.0
INDC Bridge Immed.

0INDC Bridge Immed.

INDC Bridge Immed.

Kriegler: Building a bridge to staying below 2oC
13Insufficient coal phase‐out under INDCs

Primary Energy in 2030 (EJ/yr)

Coal
withoutCCS
CCS
Coal|w/o Coal is primary fossil fuel to be
reduced in cost‐effective 2oCscenario (by >50% in 2030)

150

 INDCs are not sufficient to initiate
strong reduction in coal use

100 Bridge scenario cuts total coal use
and coal use in power sector bymore than 25%.

50 Reduces premature retirement ofPower sector, share runningcoal plants by one third
post-2030
Other

Power sector, share prematurelyretired post-2030

0INDC Bridge Immed.

Source: REMIND model results

Kriegler: Building a bridge to staying below 2oC
14

Fossil fuel power investments not sufficiently reduced
under INDCs, stronger disincentives needed
Fossils without CCS

Investment into fossil fuelpower capacity without CCS

150 billion $US‐6Average annual investment

125201275‐69‐44100‐89‐7050‐46250Source: Figure 49 of MILES report

2020-302030-50

INDC−2oC
Kriegler: Building a bridge to staying below 2oC

2020-30 2030-50

Bridge−2oC

2020-30

2030-50

Immediate−2oC

Horizontal lines in the background mark the respective 2012 historic value (IEA 2014b)
15
Source: REMIND model analysis and IEA

Policies for the bridge to 2oC
 Policies to incentivize low‐carbon energy and disincentivize fossil
fuel use (e.g. carbon pricing) are complementary. The 2oC
transition needs both types of policies.
 Disincentives for unabated fossil fuel use (e.g. carbon pricing) are
underrepresented in current policy plans.
 Rapid strengthening of such disincentives is needed to avoid
further carbon lock‐in and would send a strong signal to investors
 Explicit commitments to specific policy instruments (e.g.
nationally determined carbon pricing) could play an instrumentalrole in ratcheting up INDCs.
Kriegler: Building a bridge to staying below 2oC

Co‐benefits of INDCs: Improved Air Quality
Results based on MILES country studies and LIMITS study

Kriegler: Building a bridge to staying below 2oC

Source: IIASA, MILES project October 201517Co‐benefits of INDCs: Energy Security
Results based on MILES
country studies andEMF27, AMPERE, LIMITS

Kriegler: Building a bridge to staying below 2oC

Source: IIASA, MILES project October 201518

Key messages: Co‐benefits are significant
 INDCs can lead to significant co‐benefits to climate mitigation,in terms of reductions in energy dependency and local airpollution.
 Such co‐benefits can be a significant opportunity to develop ambitious national climate policies, embed them in a broader sustainable development
framework, and feed them into an international process of iteratively
strengthening INDCs.
Kriegler: Building a bridge to staying below 2oC

Assessing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)- connected to climate change mitigation Sustainableresource
useInstitutions

Infrastructure
Hermann Lotze-Campen

17 Sep 201520

Need for scenarios to integrate knowledge
Areas of research that require attention include:• Closing the loop between climate change, climate change
impacts and adaptation, and mitigation• Understanding climate policies in the context of a broader
set of sustainable development objectives, including co‐benefits and trade‐offs for a range of societal objectives.
• Bridging global and regional scales (downscaling / upscaling)
and time scales (short vs. long‐term)Scenarios as mapping tools
Mercator World Map, 1569

Scenarios provide maps ofplausible futures.
When they are used to inform
decisions, they provide maps ofthe „solution space“.
Decision makers can use them tonavigate through this space.

 Scenario developers are cartographers of the future“Maps may be imperfect and in strong need of improvement, but will be useful
as long as navigation is served better with than without them.” (AMPERE Synthesis Report)

Elmar Kriegler: Use of IAMs for policy analysis

SSP Narratives link to SD agenda
Narratives play keyrole to•link global andregional scenarios•integrate hard toquantify societal
dimensions (e.g.
inequality,governance,humandevelopment)

Elmar Kriegler: SSP Update, January 2016

O’Neill, Kriegler et al., 2016

SSPs (Assumptions)GDP

Technology,Demand, Lifestyles, Productivity

EnergyDellink, Crespo,
Leimbach et al.

Narratives

Land-usePOPO’Neill et al

KC & Lutz

GHG Emissions

Urbanization
Jiang & O’Neill
Slide courtesy of Keywan Riahi

Aerosol/Pollutant
Emissions

AIM/CGE, GCAM, IMAGE, MESSAGE-GLOBIOM, REMIND-MAGPIE, WITCH-GLOBIOM

IAM Models

SSP Socio‐economic Drivers
Dellink et al., 2016
0.6

Jiang and O’Neill, 2016

GINI

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

KC and Lutz, 2016

Gridded population projections now available for SSPs (NCAR)Work on spatial downscalingof GDP projections, inequality, governance indicators
Elmar Kriegler: SSP Update, January 2016

SSP IAM Scenarios• Succeed SRES scenarios• Basis for new climate change projectionsin scenarioMIP /CMIP6
SSP reference scenarios w/o climate policy (Marker & Uncertainty bands)

Preliminary results subject to change.
Do not use, quote, or cite.
Riahi et al. (2016)

Special Issue
Global Environmental Change
Riahi and van Vuuren (eds.) (to be published 1st half of 2016)

••
•
•
•
•
•

Overview: Riahi et al. (submitted)
Narratives: O’Neill et al (online first)
Population: KC & Lutz (accepted)
GDP: (1) Dellink et al, (2) Crespo, (3) Leimbach et al (online first)
Urbanization: Jiang & O’Neill (online first)
5 SSP marker papers (submitted)
Crosscut papers (submitted):• Energy (Bauer et al)• Land‐use (Popp et al)• Air Pollution/Aerosols (Rao et al)Thank you

Kriegler: Building a bridge to staying below 2oC28