Long-Term Scenarios: Perspectives,
Experience, and Activities
Leon Clarke
RITE International Symposium
The frontiers of scenarios for climate change research andassessment
Wednesday, February 09, 2011

Motivation: Work on the IPCC’s 5thAssessment Report (AR5) is beginning. Whatscenario information will be available forAR5?
I will focus on international policy scenariosand scenarios of technology deployment.

International Climate Policy and LongTerm Scenarios

For many years, most stabilization scenarios
assumed an idealized international policy
environment.

The EMF 22 Study represents the state-of-theart in coordinated “2nd-best” international
policy scenarios.
The study was coordinated by the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) at
Stanford University and completed in 2009.
Ten modeling teams participated in the international scenario
component of the study:
ETSAP-TIAM (Canada)
FUND (E.U.)
GTEM (Australia)
IMAGE (E.U.)

MERGE (U.S.)
MESSAGE (E.U.)
MiniCAM (U.S.)
POLES (E.U.)

SGM (U.S.)
WITCH (E.U.)

The EMF 22 International Scenarios exploredten possible international approaches tomitigation.

• The ten scenarios are combinations of– Three concentration goals based on Kyoto gases• (1) 450 CO2-e, (2) 550 CO2-e, and (3) 650 CO2-e– Two means of achieving concentration goals• (1) not-to-exceed between this century and (2)overshoot through 2100

– Two international policy regimes• (1) Full participation immediately and (2) delayedparticipation by non-Annex 1 regions and Russia

Full Participation: All Countries Begin
Reductions Immediately

Group 1: Annex 1(minus Russia)
Group 2: BRICS(Brazil, Russia, India,
China)

Group 3: Remaining
Countries

2012

2030

2050

2070

Delayed Participation: Regions Enter the
Global Coalition over TimeGroup 1: Annex 1(minus Russia)
Group 2: BRICS(Brazil, Russia, India,
China)

Group 3: Remaining
Countries

2012

2030

2050

2070

The delayed participation case explores the potential impacts of a one single
possibility for delay in non-Annex I participation – it does not represent any realpolicy proposal. Mechanisms such as offsets may lead to policy structures thatlie between the two cases explored in this study.

The Ten EMF 22 International Scenarios
650 CO2-e

Model
1 ETSAP-TIAM
2 FUND
3 GTEM
45

IMAGE
IMAGE-BC
MERGE Optimistic
MERGE Pessimistic

6 MESSAGE
7

MiniCAM Base
MiniCAM LoTech

8 POLES
9 SGM
10 WITCH

550 CO2-e

Full

Delay

Full

Not-to-Not-to-Not-toExceedExceedExceed450 CO2-e
Delay

Not-ToOvershootExceed

Full

Delay

Not-toOvershoot

+
1
2+
3+
4+
5+
6+
+
+
+
+
+
+
XX
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
XX
XX
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
XX
+ No overshoots++ were+ explored for +
XX
+
+
+
+
+
XX
the
650
CO2-e
target
+
+
+
+
+
XX
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

Exceed

7+
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX

+

XX
XX
XX
XX

Not-ToOvershoot

+8
+
+
XX
+
XX
XX

+
+
+

XX
XX
XX

Exceed

XX
9
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX

Overshoot

+
10
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX

+

XX
XX
XX
XX

Participation has an important influenceon the ability to meet long-term goals.
650 CO2-e

Model
1 ETSAP-TIAM
2 FUND
3 GTEM
4
5
6
7

IMAGE
IMAGE-BC
MERGE Optimistic
MERGE Pessimistic
MESSAGEMESSAGE - NOBECSMiniCAM Base
MiniCAM LoTech

8 POLES
9 SGM
10 WITCH

Full
Not-to-Delay
Not-to-ExceedExceed

+
+
+
+
-N/A+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+
-N/A+
+
+
-N/A+
+
+
+
+

550 CO2-e
Full

Delay
Not-To-Not-toOvershoot

+
+
+
+
-N/A+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

Exceed

+
+
+
+
-N/A+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

450 CO2-e

Overshoot++++Exceed++XX+

Not-toOvershoot

+
+
+
XX
+

Exceed+Overshoot+Exceed

XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX

XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX

+
+

XX
XX
XX

XX
XX
XX
XX

XX
XX
XX
XX

6

8

2

2

0

-N/A-

XX

XX

12

Delay
Not-To-

XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX

-N/A-

+
+
-N/A+
+
+
+
+

Full

+

XX
-N/A-

XX
XX
XX

XX
XX

+
+
+
+

+

+

U.S. Emissions Reductions: 2020
Change in CO2 Emissions Relative to 2000

60%

650 CO2-e

550 CO2-e

450 CO2-e

587 CO2-e peak40%

530 CO2-e peakETSAP-TIAM
FUND
2000
502 CO2-e peakGTEM
Emissions
IMAGE
Levels523 CO2-e peakIMAGE-BECS

20%
0%

MERGE Optimistic-20%

20 Percent
MESSAGE Reduction
Relative to
MESSAGE-NOBECS
2000
MiniCAM - Base
MERGE Pessimistic

-40%
-60%

MiniCAM - Lo Tech
POLES

-80%
-100%

SGM
WITCH

Full

Delay

Full

Full

Delay Delay

Full

Full

Delay Delay

2000 Emissions

N.T.E. N.T.E.

O.S.

N.T.E.

O.S. N.T.E.

O.S.

N.T.E

O.S.

Zero Emissions

N.T.E.

.

Scenarios that could not
be modeled undercriteria of study.

U.S. Emissions Reductions: 2050
Change in CO2 Emissions Relative to 2000

40%

650 CO2-e

550 CO2-e

450 CO2-e

20%
ETSAP-TIAM
FUND

0%

GTEM
IMAGE

-20%

50 Percent
MERGE
Optimistic
Reduction
MERGE Pessimistic
Below 2000
IMAGE-BECS-40%

MESSAGE-60%

MESSAGE-NOBECSMiniCAM - Base

-80%

POLES

-100%
-120%

80 Percent
Reduction
Below to2000

MiniCAM - Lo Tech
SGM
WITCH

Full

Delay

Full

Full

Delay Delay

Full

Full

Delay Delay

2000 Emissions

N.T.E. N.T.E.

O.S.

N.T.E.

O.S. N.T.E.

O.S.

N.T.E

O.S.

Zero Emissions

N.T.E.

.

Scenarios that could not
be modeled undercriteria of study.

The Cost of Delay: China

Percentage Increase in Discounted Cost, 2010 - 2100

140%

Percentage increase in Discounted
Cost, 2010 - 2100
650 CO2-e

550 CO2-e

450 CO2-e120%
ETSAP-TIAM
100%

FUND
GTEM

80%

IMAGE
60%

MERGE Optimistic
MERGE Pessimistic

40%

MESSAGE
20%
MiniCAM - Base
0%

SGM
WITCH

-20%
-40%

N.T.E.

O.S.

N.T.E.

O.S.

Note: Costs are not included for ETSAP-TIAM not-to-exceed 650 ppmv CO2-e [1087%], ETSAP-TIAM overshoot 550 ppmv CO2e [-793%], ETSAP-TIAM not-to-exceed [-636%], MESSAGE not-to-exceed 650 ppmv CO2-e [558%], MESSAGE overshoot 550
ppmv CO2-e [256%]. Large relative costs in these models for the less aggressive climate-action cases are due in part to the small
magnitude of the costs in general for these climate-action cases.
Note: Cost metrics vary across models, and may include consumption losses, GDP losses, or total policy cost (area under the
MAC curve).

What international policy scenarios will beavailable for the IPCC’s 5th Assessment
Report?
The theme of 2nd-best international policies has been, or is being,
carried forward in a number of studies. Examples include
EMF 22 (EMF)
The RoSE Project (PIK)
EMF 24 (EMF)
RECIPE (PIK)

We will have an excellent set of these scenarios to draw on at thetime of AR5.
Key Areas of Development
Better representation of regional circumstances that influence ability andapproach to mitigation or related policies.

Representation not only of heterogeneous commitments, but also
heterogeneous policy instruments, particularly in the near-term.

Real-world policies may be real-complicatedAn illustrative multi-track regime: Targets + Policy Commitments
Electricity
Australia/New Zealand,
Canada, Europe, Former
Soviet Union, Japan, UnitedStatesAfricaPower Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)

China

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

India

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Korea

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Latin America

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)

Middle East

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Southeast Asia

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Africa, China, India, Korea,
Latin America, Middle
East, Southeast Asia

Transportation
Economy-Wide Carbon Constraint
CO2 emissions relative to 2005
(80%, 50%, 20%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(NA, NA, 10%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, NA, 40%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)

Industry

Buildings

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, NA, 65%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, NA, 80%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(30%, 50%, 90%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(20%, 40%, 100%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)

Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Crediting% of emissions reductions sold to developed world(50%, 25%, 0%)Technology and Scenarios

There is a robust set of scenarios to draw on tounderstand technology deployment and stabilization.

2030

2050

0

100

200

300

400

N=164

Renewable Primary Energy Supply [EJ/yr]

400
300
200
100
0

Renewable Primary Energy Supply [EJ/yr]

N=161
Category I (<400 ppm)
Category II (400-440 ppm)
Category III (440-485 ppm)
Category IV (485-600 ppm)
Baselines

0

20

40

60

80

Fossil and Industrial CO2 Emissions [GtCO2/yr]

0

20

40

60

80

Fossil and Industrial CO2 Emissions [GtCO2/yr]

From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011: The Role of Renewable
Energy and Climate Mitigation: A Synthesis of Lessons for
Recent Scenarios. Climate Policy, forthcoming.

There is a robust set of scenarios to draw on tounderstand technology deployment and stabilization.

2030

2050

0

100

200

300

400

N=164

Renewable Primary Energy Supply [EJ/yr]

400
300
200
100
0

Renewable Primary Energy Supply [EJ/yr]

N=161
Category I (<400 ppm)
Category II (400-440 ppm)
Category III (440-485 ppm)
Category IV (485-600 ppm)
Baselines

0

20

40

60

80

Fossil and Industrial CO2 Emissions [GtCO2/yr]

0

20

40

60

80

Fossil and Industrial CO2 Emissions [GtCO2/yr]

From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011: The Role of Renewable
Energy and Climate Mitigation: A Synthesis of Lessons for
Recent Scenarios. Climate Policy, forthcoming.

ADAM and RECIPE: Effect of technology constraints on
mitigation costs
ADAM – 400 ppmv CO -eq
RECIPE – 450 ppm CO only

0.5

REMIND

MERGE - ETL

ADAM – 550 ppmv CO2-eq

Mitigation Cost (% GDP)The economic costs ofconstraining renewables
are on par with thosefrom constraining
nuclear nad CCS

POLESConsumption Loss (%)

1.0

XXX Baseline Renewables (All)

1.5

XXX No CCS

2.0

XXX Baseline Renewables (All)

2.5

XXX No CCS

3.0
XXX Baseline Renewables (All)

3.0

0.0

Costs are higher
without a fulltechnology portfolio

2

3.5

XXX No CCS

Some goals are notpossible without a fulltechnology portfolio

Mitigation Cost (% GDP)

2

3.5

2.5
2.0

1.5
1.0
0.5

0.0
IMACLIMREMIND

3.5

No Technology Constraints

3.0

No CCS

2.5

3.0 Nuclear
Baseline
2.5

2.0

1.5 Phaseout
Nuclear
1.0

WITCH

3.5

2.0
0.5

0.0 - Baseline Nuclear
No CCS

1.5

IMACLIM REMIND WITCH

Baseline Renewable (All)

1.0

Baseline Renewable (Non-Bioenergy)

0.5Baseline Renewable (Bioenergy)

0.0
POLES

REMIND

MERGE - ETL

1 N. Bauer, E. Decian, M. Leimbach, O. Sassi, and M.
Luderer, G., V. Bosetti, J. Steckel, H. Waisman,
Tavoni, 2009: The Economics of Decarbonization - Results from the RECIPE model intercomparison.,
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam.

Edenhofer, O., B. Knopf, T. Barker, L. Baumstark, E. Bellevrat, B. Chateau, P. Criqui, M. Isaac, A.
Kitous, S. Kypreos, M. Leimbach, K. Lessmann, B. Magne, Å. Scrieciu, H. Turton, and D.P. Van Vuuren,
2010: The economics of low stabilization: Model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Energy
Journal, 31(SPECIAL ISSUE), pp. 11-48.

One way folks are exploring different
pathways is through scenarios oftechnology variation.

Legend:No BioCCS

650 CO2-e

Model
1 ETSAP-TIAM
2 FUND
3 GTEM
4
5
6
7

IMAGE
IMAGE-BC
MERGE Optimistic
MERGE Pessimistic
MESSAGEMESSAGE - NOBECSMiniCAM Base
MiniCAM LoTech

8 POLES
9 SGM
10 WITCH

Full
Not-to-Delay
Not-to-ExceedExceed

+
+
+
+
-N/A+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+
-N/A+
+
+
-N/A+
+
+
+
+

BioCCS is not the only
reason that models could
or could not produce
particular scenarios

550 CO2-e
Full

Delay
Not-To-Not-toOvershoot

+
+
+
+
-N/A+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

Exceed

+
+
+
+
-N/A+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

450 CO2-e

Overshoot++++Exceed++XX+

Not-toOvershoot

+
+
+
XX
+

Exceed+Overshoot+Exceed

XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX

XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX

+
+

XX
XX
XX

XX
XX
XX
XX

XX
XX
XX
XX

6

8

2

2

0

-N/A-

XX

XX

12

Delay
Not-To-

XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX

-N/A-

+
+
-N/A+
+
+
+
+

Full

+

XX
-N/A-

XX
XX
XX

XX
XX

+
+
+
+

+

+

With CCS

Without
CCS

Where bioenergy will be used in the long-term depends
on the technologies available, particularly CCS

21

What technology stories will be available
from scenarios for the IPCC’s 5thAssessment Report?
There is a very rich set of scenarios with technology variations
available for AR5.
Examples include EMF 24, RoSE, ADAM, RECIPE, GEA, and probably more.
A number of studies are producing scenarios that combine technology
variations with 2nd-best international policies.

Combined policy and technology
scenarios are being produced.

EMF 24 International Scenarios Design – 2nd RoundWhat technology stories will be available
from scenarios for the IPCC’s 5thAssessment Report?
There is a very rich set of scenarios with technology variations available
for AR5.
New examples include EMF 22, EMF 24, RoSE, ADAM, RECIPE, GEA, andprobably more.
A number of studies are producing scenarios that combine technology variations
with 2nd-best international policies.

Improved IAMC data collection facilities will help us to mine theinformation from all of these scenarios.
But there is still a lot more to do on technology.
We still need better representations of technology in models (e.g., representationsof intermittent renewables, of renewable supplies, etc.).
We need more research on what sorts of technology assumptions make sense –what is the supply of technology.
We need a better way to compare assumptions across models – but this is very,
very hard.
It would be good if scenarios of technology variation are not just about removing
technologies or constraining to baseline.

A brief digression about a “Mosaic World”
of policy approaches.

Objective: visualize and assess
illustrative “multi-track” architectures
integrating different types of mitigationcommitments

Economy-wide targets
Policy-based commitments
National-level sectoral
targets/standards
Sectoral agreements
Sector-specific policies applied
across regions
Funds for adaptation andtechnology

Fossil and Industrial CO2 Emissions (GtC/yr)

Exploring “multi-track” pathways to longterm goals.
25
Reference
Cost-Minimizing 550

20

Cost-Minimizing 450

15

10

5
450 ppmv CO2 Overshoot
0
1990

2005

2020

2035

Can these sorts of non-idealized policy
approaches be applied in a mannerconsistent with long-term climate goals?

2050

2065

2080

2095

Real-world policies may be real-complicatedAn illustrative multi-track regime: Targets + Policy Commitments
Electricity
Australia/New Zealand,
Canada, Europe, Former
Soviet Union, Japan, UnitedStatesAfricaPower Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)

China

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

India

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Korea

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Latin America

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)

Middle East

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Southeast Asia

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Africa, China, India, Korea,
Latin America, Middle
East, Southeast Asia

Transportation
Economy-Wide Carbon Constraint
CO2 emissions relative to 2005
(80%, 50%, 20%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(NA, NA, 10%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, NA, 40%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)

Industry

Buildings

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, NA, 65%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, NA, 80%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(30%, 50%, 90%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(20%, 40%, 100%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)

Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Crediting% of emissions reductions sold to developed world(50%, 25%, 0%)Real-world policies may be real-complicatedAn illustrative multi-track regime: Targets + Policy Commitments
Electricity
Australia/New Zealand,
Canada, Europe, Former
Soviet Union, Japan, UnitedStatesAfricaPower Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)

China

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

India

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Korea

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Latin America

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)

Middle East

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Southeast Asia

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Africa, China, India, Korea,
Latin America, Middle
East, Southeast Asia

Transportation
Economy-Wide Carbon Constraint
CO2 emissions relative to 2005
(80%, 50%, 20%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(NA, NA, 10%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, NA, 40%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)

Industry

Buildings

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, NA, 65%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, NA, 80%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(30%, 50%, 90%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(20%, 40%, 100%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)

Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Crediting% of emissions reductions sold to developed world(50%, 25%, 0%)Real-world policies may be real-complicatedAn example from our work on multi-track regimes
Electricity
Australia/New Zealand,
Canada, Europe, Former
Soviet Union, Japan, UnitedStatesAfricaPower Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)

China

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

India

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Korea

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Latin America

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)

Middle East

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Southeast Asia

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Africa, China, India, Korea,
Latin America, Middle
East, Southeast Asia

Transportation
Economy-Wide Carbon Constraint
CO2 emissions relative to 2005
(80%, 50%, 20%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(NA, NA, 10%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, NA, 40%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)

Industry

Buildings

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, NA, 65%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, NA, 80%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(30%, 50%, 90%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(20%, 40%, 100%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)

Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Crediting% of emissions reductions sold to developed world(50%, 25%, 0%)Real-world policies may be real-complicatedAn example from our work on multi-track regimes
Electricity
Australia/New Zealand,
Canada, Europe, Former
Soviet Union, Japan, UnitedStatesAfricaPower Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)

China

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

India

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Korea

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Latin America

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)

Middle East

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Southeast Asia

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Africa, China, India, Korea,
Latin America, Middle
East, Southeast Asia

Transportation
Economy-Wide Carbon Constraint
CO2 emissions relative to 2005
(80%, 50%, 20%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(NA, NA, 10%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, NA, 40%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)

Industry

Buildings

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, NA, 65%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, NA, 80%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(30%, 50%, 90%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(20%, 40%, 100%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)

Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Crediting% of emissions reductions sold to developed world(50%, 25%, 0%)Real-world policies may be real-complicatedAn example from our work on multi-track regimes
Electricity
Australia/New Zealand,
Canada, Europe, Former
Soviet Union, Japan, UnitedStatesAfricaPower Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)

China

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

India

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Korea

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Latin America

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(NA, 70%, 25%)

Middle East

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Southeast Asia

Power Sector Carbon Intensity
Relative to 2005
(70%, 50%, 18%)

Africa, China, India, Korea,
Latin America, Middle
East, Southeast Asia

Transportation
Economy-Wide Carbon Constraint
CO2 emissions relative to 2005
(80%, 50%, 20%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(NA, NA, 10%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, NA, 40%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(5%, 7.5%, 20%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(20%, 45%, 150%)

Industry

Buildings

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, NA, 65%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, NA, 80%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(30%, 50%, 90%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(20%, 40%, 100%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)

Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)
Industry Carbon
Constraint
Reduction from BAU(NA, 30%, 75%)

Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)
Building Energy
Efficiency Constraint
Increase over 2005
(NA, 20%, 80%)

Biofuels Target: Share of refined liquids(NA, 5%, 15%)
Fuel Economy Standard
Increase in mpg over 2005
(NA, 20%, 90%)
Crediting% of emissions reductions sold to developed world(50%, 25%, 0%)

Multi-track regimes lead to less efficient
allocation of emissions mitigation, acrossregions, sectors, and technologies.
2020

Costs (Fraction of GDP)

0.25%

Targets+ Sectoral Agreements

0.20%

Targets+ Policy Commitments+ Sectoral Agreements

0.15%

450

0.10%
Targets+ Policy Commitments

0.05%

650

550

First-best(fully efficient)

0.00%
0%

5%
10%
15%
20%
Emissions Reduction (Fossil and Industrial CO 2)

Inefficient
policies are….inefficient.
The devil is in
the details of
the policy itself.

Multi-track regimes lead to less efficient
allocation of emissions mitigation, acrossregions, sectors, and technologies.
2020

Costs (Fraction of GDP)

Targets
It becomes increasingly+ Sectoral Agreements
0.20%
challenging
to usethese0.15%
policy+ Targets
structures
PolicyCommitments+ Sectoral Agreements
as mitigation becomes
0.10%
more stringent
Targets+ Policy Commitments

0.05%

650

550

0.00%
0%

0.10%
0.05%
0.00%
0%

0.60%

Costs (Fraction of GDP)

Costs (Fraction of GDP)

0.20%
0.15%

4.00%

450

3.50%

0.50%
0.40%
0.30%

3.00%
2.50% First-best
2.00%

Targets+ Policy Commitments

0.10%

5%
10%
15%
20%
Emissions Reduction (Fossil and Industrial CO 2)

0.00%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Emissions Reduction (Fossil and Industrial CO2)….inefficient.
The devil is in
the details of
the policy itself.

(fully efficient)
Targets+ Policy Commitments+ Sectoral Agreements

0.50%

650

0.20%

0%

Targets+ Sectoral Agreements

1.50% 15%
5%
10%
20%
Emissions
Reduction(FossilandIndustrial
CO)
2
GlobalTarget
2035
1.00%

0.70%

0.25%

2050

Costs (Fraction of GDP)

0.25%

2020

The 450 ppmv overshoot pathway withTargets & Policy Commitments could not
be met without either expanding
coverage of the multi-track policyorInefficienttransitioning to a fully-efficientregimepolicies
are

0.00%
0%

550

450

First-best(fully efficient)

10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Emissions Reduction (Fossil and Industrial CO 2)

There is a lot going on.

Some Highlights of Ongoing Activities
The RCP and Shared Socioeconomic Pathways work to link mitigation,science, and impacts.
Development of regional scenarios through studies like the Asian Modeling
Exercise, the Low Carbon Societies Project, and even EMF 24.
Work on development, demographics, and urbanization, for example, in the
Asian Modeling Exercise.
An enormous amount of work by teams to incorporate land use and agriculture
explicitly in models to better consider impacts/adaptation and mitigation in unified
platforms.
Efforts to try to better bring in uncertainty are getting started.

Standardized data collection methods and the community database.
The emergence of the Integrated Assessment Modeling
Consortium (IAMC) has been enormously valuable to forfacilitating coordination and identifying priorities for the
integrated assessment community.

IAMC

INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT
MODELING CONSORTIUM

Human Earth Systems
Physical Earth Systems

http://www.iamconsortium.org/

Founded 2007

Questions?