Ongoing work (IMAGE 2.2) onstabilisation scenarios.
Detlef van Vuuren

NIES - Tsukuba - January, 22 2004

RIVM: National Institute for Public
Health and the Environment
The Netherlands
MNV international 1

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Outline of presentation
1. Multi-gas stabilisation scenarios EMF-21 (stabilisation at 4.5 W/m2)
 Other stabilisation targets

2. Issues in stabilisation scenarios Overshoot scenarios Implementation of scenarios --> Differentationof commitments
 Stabilisation scenarios and non-Kyoto-gas/non-GHG impacts

MNV international 2

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Global GDP Reduction
From Baseline in 2050(%)

Stabilisation in TAR
baseline

4.5%
4.0%

A1
A1T
A2
B1
B2
A1F

3.5%
3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0%
450

550

650

750

Stabilization Level (ppm CO2)

MNV international 3

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Multigas stabilisation
 But how to define multi-gas stabilisation scenarios (inorder to improve comparison) Stabilisation of radiative forcing?
 Stabilisation of temperature?

Activities

Uncertainties:

Emissions

Decarbonisation:
TechnologyPolicies

MNV international 4

Concentrations/ForcingBiosphere

Temperature

Climate Sensitivity
Delays

Impacts

Local temp.
increase
Adaptation

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

EMF-21: Analysis of MGstabilisation
Question: How do scenarios that aim to stabilise
radiative forcing using a multi-gas approachcompare to CO2-only cases.
 Two cases, both aiming for 4.5 W/m2 in 2150
 Multigas (Kyoto-gasses)
 CO2-only: Using the same profile as for Multigas

MNV international 5

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Structure of IMAGE 2.2
Population

World Economy(Phoenix)(WorldScan)

Change in GDP, population & others(i.e. scenario assumptions)

Terrestrial
Vegetation

AgriculturalEconomy

Land CoverLand UseEmissions

Feedbacks

Energy demand& supply (TIMER)
Energy & industry
emissions

Emissions & land-use changes

Terrestrial
C cycleOceanic
C CycleAtmosphericchemistry

Concentration changes

ClimateGeographical Pattern Scaling Set of integrated andlinked, system dynamic
type of simulation models
 17 world regions (socioeconomic systems)
 0.5 x 0.5 degree(environment/land use) 10 energy carriers
 detailed description of nonCO2 sources (e.g. CH4 : 10agr. sources)

Climatic changes

Impacts

Naturalsystems

AgriculturalImpacts

MNV international 6Landdegradation

Sea levelrise

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Emissions and sources in IMAGE 2.2
EMISSIONS
 CO2
 Methane Nitrous oxide Cl/F/Br gases
 CO NOx
 SO2
 VOC
 (BC/OC)MNV international 7SOURCES Energy consumption & production(10 fuel types)
 Industrial processes
 Waste Animal husbandry (5 types of livestock) Agriculture (8 crop types)
 Land use / soils (19 land cover types)
 Natural sources

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Methodology
 Baseline: Common POLES IMAGE (CPI) (~ B2/A1b)
 Mitigation: Emission profiles for GHG-conc. stabilisation
Until 2012: Kyoto + Bush Plan
Full emission trading (no transaction costs)
 Competition among different gasses on the basis of 100 year GWP; MAC-based approach
IMAGE/TIMER model CO2:
 Non-CO2:
EMF & GECS MACs
 Sinks:
IMAGE MACs
MNV international 8

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Results: Contribution of different gassesBaseline

4.5 W/m2 stabilisation

CO2CO2CH4MNV international 9N2O

CH4N2O

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Results: Contribution of different gasses
Multi-gas25

CO2-only

25

Baseline

Baseline

2020

1515

1010

CO2-energy
sinks
f-gas
n2och44.5W/m2

4.5W/m2
550
1970

CO2CH4
N2O
F-gas
Total

2000

2030

2060

2020
Multi CO2-only
4%
10%
25%
1%6%0%
44%0%
8%
12%

2090

01970

2050
Multi CO2-only
36%
47%
39%
15%
24%0%
57%
0%
37%
38%

MNV international 102000

2030

2100
Multi CO2-only
64%
78%
45%
19%
24%
0%
65%
0%
59%
61%

20602090

 Contribution of non-CO2
gasses in this approachlarge early on (due to lowcosts), but small by 2100
(due to exhaustion ofreduction options

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Carbon taxes required to meet thescenarios (1/2)
Tax (1995$/tCeq)

1000
800
600

650
650-CO2

400
200
0
1970

1995 2020

2045

2070

2095

 CO2-only scenario much more expensive than multigas
alternative.

MNV international 11

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Carbon taxes required to meet thescenarios (2/2)
CO2-abatement curve 2100

Emission reduction (%)

10078%
64%
multigas8060402000200

400

600

800

1000

Carbon tax level Impact of non-CO2 gasses on permit price can be relatively
large - in particular for small reductions (and thus hardly useof CO2 measures) and very large reductions

MNV international 12

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Results: Reductions of CH4 emissions
Baseline

Multi-gas

Land use-related sources

Land use-related sources

landfills
sewagericelandfills
sewagerice

animals

landfills
sewagewetland riceanimals (incl. Waste)
Coal prod
Oil prodGas prod
Otheranimals

CPI650ReductionContribution
2050 2100 2050 2100 2050 2100
2050
7573
17078% 100%
32%424542450%0%0%33282413 28% 54%
5%
144 169
133 144 8% 15%6%4836
13373% 92%
19%816125% 0%1%9668
30
22 69% 68%
36%
25
18
22
16 13% 11%2%

MNV international 13

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Results: Reductions of N2O emissions
Baseline

Multi-gas

Land use-related sources

Land use-related sources

Fertiliser
Animal waste
Indirect fertiliser
Indirect animal waste

fertilizer
animals
energy consumption
OtherFertiliser
Animal waste
Indirect fertiliser
Indirect animal waste

CPI650
Reduction
Contribution
2050 2100 2050 2100 2050 2100
2050
3.6
4.1
2.9
3.4 18% 18%
38%
2.0
1.9
1.3
1.3 35% 35%
40%
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2 50% 58%
13%
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.4 11%8%10%

MNV international 14

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Forcing: total

765

Equivalent emissions

4Temperature

325
20
15

2

3,5

1

3

0

2,51970710501970

2000

Baseline

2030

2060

CO2-only

2000

2030

2060

2090

Forcing: Kyoto-gasses

2
1,56

1

50,5402090

3Multigas21970

2000

2030

2060

10
1970

2000

2030

2060

2090

Why lower temperature •Faster response non-CO2 gasses•Sulphur is reduced more in CO2 casemulti-gas case:•Use of GWPs
MNV international 15

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

2090

Annual temperature change
0.35

CO2 only

0.30

Baseline

0.25
0.20
0.15

multigas

0.10
0.05
0.00
2000

2020

2040

Baseline

CO2-only case

MNV international 16

2060

2080

2100

Multigas case

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Other stabilisation levels‘750-CO2eq’‘650-CO2eq’‘550-CO2eq’~650 ppmv CO2~550 ppmv CO2~470 ppmv CO2~stab. 5.3 W/m2
(2000: +3.6)

2100: 4.5 W/m2
(2000: +2.8)~stab. 3.7 W/m2
(2000: +2.0)

Temperature (pre-industrial)

25

Emissions (GtC-eq)

20
BL

15

5.3 W/m2
4.5 W/m2
3.7 W/m2

1056505.3 W/m2

550
3.7 W/m2

2090

2070

2050

20
30

20
1019901970

0MNV international 17

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

EU TargetLarge differences in reduction efforts:

60

Anthropogenic GHGemissiongapfor S550e
3.7 W/m260

compared to baselinecompared to 1990

40

compared to baselinecompared to 1990

4020% change

20% change

Anthropogenic GHGemissiongapfor 4.5S650eW/m2

0-20

0-20-40-40-60-60-80-80

2025

2050

2100

2025

2050

2100

IMAGE 2.2

3.7 W/m2: in 2025 emissions can increase to 20% above
1990 levels (-30% compared to baseline). In 2050 20%
reduction compared to 1990 levels.
 4.5 W/m2: less stringent, but still a 35% reduction below
baseline in 2050.
MNV international 18

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Abatements costs
200

Carbonprice(Euro/tCO2e)

3.7 W/m2

200

160

160

120

120

80

80

40

40

4.5 W/m202000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

Costs
per unitof GDP(%)

1.2 1,2

1.2

0.9 0,90.9

0.6 0,60.6

0.3 0,30.3

00
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

MNV international 19

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Contribution in mitigation
4.5 W/m2

GtCO2-equivalent

3.7 W/m2
80
70

80

Baseline

70

60

60

50

50

40

40

30

30

20
1001970

Stabilisation
scenario
2000

2030

Baseline

Stabilisation
scenario

20

CO2-energy
Sinks
f-gas
N2OCH4102060

2090

01970

2000

2030

2060

2090 In short terms, large contributions from sinks and non-CO2 GHGs
(upto 80%) due to low costs
 Longer term, contribution of different options more according to theirshare in emissions
 Contribution from sinks uncertain: here 0.35 GtCO2 but estimatesvary between 0.2-2 GtC depending on land availability - but also
implementation barriers
MNV international 20

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Contribution in mitigation
1200

1200

900

EJ

EJ

3.7 W/m2

Baseline

600

600

300

300

01970

20102050

 GHG stabilisationlevel strongly affects
energy demand.

9002090

01970

2010

2050

2090

 Stabilisation level
strongly affects
energy mix: strong
reduction in coal;

4.5 W/m2
EJ

1200

Hydropower
Nuclear/solar/wind
Traditional fuels
Modern biomass
Natural gas
OilCoal

900
600
30001970

2010

2050

2090

MNV international 21

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Contribution of Energy system CO2
emission reductions
Emissions (Gt CO2 )3.7 W/m2

4.5 W/m2
60

60
50

Baseline

Baseline

50

40

40

30

30

20
10100
1970

Mitigation
scenario

20

Mitigation
scenario

Sinks
Carbon capture
Fuel switch
Solar, wind, nuclear
BiofuelsEfficienc improv.

0
2010

2050

2090

1970

2010

2050

2090

 major contribution from energy efficiency improvement – in particularfrom DCs
 In the longer run changes in energy production become moreimportant Carbon capture and storage option could make an important
contribution
MNV international 22

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Issues for further analysis
 Overshoot profiles / hedging
 Dealing with uncertainties
 Climate sensitivity
 Technology development

 Implementation
 Differentiation of future commitments

 Stabilisation scenarios and non-Kyoto gasses / non-GHG
impacts (land use)

MNV international 23

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Proposals for differentiation
 Brazilian Proposal (Brazil / RIVM)
 Multi-stage (RIVM)
 Contraction & Convergence (Global CommonsInstitute) Global Compromise (Benito Müller) Jacoby rule (MIT) Multi-criteria convergence (CICERO) Emission intensity targets approach Global Triptych approach (University of Utrecht)

MNV international 24

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Proposals for differentiation
2025

2,02,01,01,00,00,0-1,0-1,0-2,0-2,0Can. EU+& USACIS

Aus/ JapanNZ

Latin Africa ME& South SE &America
Turkey Asia E Asia

5,05,03,03,02050 1,01,0-1,0-1,0-3,0-3,0Can. EU+& USACIS

Aus/ JapanNZMS2Latin Africa ME& South SE &America
Turkey Asia E Asia

PCC2050

PCC2100

Van Vuuren et al. (2003). Den Elzen et al. (2003).
MNV international 25‘Four Largegroups’differences
regardingcosts
betweenlevels:different
proposals
 Highemissions/highespeciallyfor nonincome:averageAnnex(mostI countries.
costsOECD regions).
In particular Middle
East / FSU might
 Highexperience highemissions/medium
costs Relatively
income:costs (CIS,ME, highNon-Annex
I : CC50,Lat.
America?)
Brazilian
Proposal,Global Compromise Medium emission/lowAnnex I : CC2100,
medium income:Average to low costs(SE& E Asia)
 Low emissions/low
income: low costs or
net gains (Africa,South Asia)

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Stabilisation scenarios and non-GHG impacts
Abandoned agricultural land

 Analysis land use / energy
system: IMAGE 2.2
 Climate: the coupledatmosphere/ocean model
ECBilt-CLIO (‘small scaleGCM’)

2100

WORK in PROGRESS!

BiofuelsSinks

2100

2100

Biofuels offset mainly oil

Carbon plantations are harvested
every 25 years. Harvested C is stored forever.

M. Schaeffer, B. Eickhout, M. Hoogwijk, R. Leemans,T. Opsteegh, D. van Vuuren (2004)
MNV international 26

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Stabilisation scenarios and non-GHG impacts
800
pCO2 (ppmv)

700
600

70 ppmv reductions
No plantations(natural vegetation
NH springregrowth)

WORK IN PROGRESS!

Biomass plantations

500

Carbon plantations

4000 .0 510Response to albedo change:
Carbon- minus Biomassplantation scenario

500-0 .0 5-5-0 .1

Estimated response to pCO2 pathway ofplantation scenarios w.r.t. no-plantations
1970

1990

20102030

2050

2070-1 0% of 2071-2100

odifference ( C)

air temperature

Global mean surface-0 .1

baseline GHG response300
1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090
Year2090

Year
MNV international 27

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb

Conclusions
 Thanks to EMF-21 a large group of models is able to perform
multigas studies.
 EMF-21 analysis on 4.5 W/m2 stabilisation shows: Using GWPs: a considerable share of early abatements is inmethane/ N2O. Later most abatement needs to come from CO2.
 Still, very clear difference in carbon value CO2-only vs. multigas

 Further analysis could focus on: Role of uncertainties (e.g. technology progress, climate sensitivity)
 Short / long-term targets
 Other stabilisation targets: how does that change results Implementation
 Land-use / non-Kyoto gasses…

MNV international 28

http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb