Overview of EMF 22International Scenarios
Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Overview• The goal of EMF 22 is to put together, in a timely
manner, a high-quality, coordinated set of transition
policy scenarios using high-quality modeling to informongoing and upcoming climate policy discussions.
••Moving from idealized scenarios to more realistic scenarios that don’t satisfy perfectwhere, when, and what flexibility.
Three focus areas:– International transition scenarios: Delayed participation and long-term concentration
goals.
– U.S. transition scenarios: Three cumulative emissions goals through 2050 in the U.S.
– E.U. transition scenarios: Unpacking the E.U. 2020 goal.

•Modelers required to construct a common set of scenarios, but they also include
their own scenarios that inform particular facets of the issues being explored.

This was a fast-track project, but it still hastaken some time.
••

A range of meetings dating back several years, including Tsukuba, December, 2006
Design Meeting: Dublin, February 21-22, 2008
– Working meeting to identify key issues and discuss study design– Finalize study design soon after•Preliminary Results Meeting: IIASA, September 25-26, 2008
– Present preliminary results and obtain feedback– Make data and presentations available to modelers after meeting••

Final Data Due, February 2009
Final Modelers Meeting: March, 4-5, 2009
– Present final results and obtain feedback– Discuss key themes– Make data and presentations available to modelers immediately after meeting••Draft Papers: April, 2009
Communication– Meeting in DC: June 4, 2009
– E.U. Rollout Activities: In Planning•

Special Issue: All papers completed and posted on Science Direct; completingoverview papers

The EMF 22 International Scenarios explore ten
possible international approaches to mitigation.

• 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 this century and (2) overshootthrough 2100

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

Who Participated in the EMF 22ScenariosModels

International

U.S.

E.U.

Scenarios

Scenarios

Scenarios

1 ADAGEX

2 EPPAX

3 IGEMX

4 MRN-NEEM

X

5 MERGEX

X

6 MiniCAM

X

X

7 ETSAP-TIAM

X

8 FUNDX

9 GTEMX

10 IMAGE

X

11 MESSAGE

X

12 POLESX

13 SGM

X

14 WITCH

X

15 DARTX

16 GEMINI-E3

X

17 PACEX

Sample Results: Allowance Prices in the
U.S. Study“50% Reduction” by 2050

“80% Reduction” by 2050

500$/tCO2 (2005 U.S. $)

400
350
300

450

MRN-NEEMEPPA
IGEM
MERGE (opt)$/tCO2 (2005 U.S. $)

450

500
ADAGE

MiniCAM (base)250200150EPPA

350

MERGE (opt)

300

150

50002035

2040

2045

2050

MiniCAM (base)

200

50

2030

IGEM

250

1002025

MRN-NEEM

400100

2020

ADAGE

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Sample Result: Scenarios From theInternational Study
650 CO2-e

Model
1 ETSAP-TIAM
2 FUND
3 GTEM
456
7

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

8 POLES
9 SGM
10 WITCH

550 CO2-e

Full

Delay

Not-to-Not-to-Not-toExceedExceedExceed++++-N/A+++++++++++++-N/A+++-N/A+++++Full++++-N/A+++++++++450 CO2-e
Delay

Full

Not-ToOvershoot++++-N/A+++++++++Exceed++XX+

Not-toOvershoot++++-N/A--N/A-

XX

XX+XX
-N/A-

XX
XX
XX++Delay++-N/A+++++

Exceed+XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX+XX
XX
XX
XX

Not-ToOvershoot+++XX+XX
XX++++XXXX
XX

ExceedXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XX
XXXX
XX

Some models were unable to achieve particularclimate action cases under the specs of the study.

Overshoot+XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX+XXXXXXXX

Sample Results: The Challenges of 450 CO2-e(From the MiniCAM Paper: Calvin et al.)

Immediate Accession

Not-to-ExceedOvershoot1) Includes immediate participation by all regions
2) Includes 70% dramatic emissions reductions by 2020
3) Includes substantial transformation of the energy
system by 2020, including the construction of 500 new
nuclear reactors, and the capture of 20 billion tons ofCO2
4) Includes a carbon price of $100/tCO2 globally in2020
5) Includes a tax on land-use emissions beginning in 2020
6) Includes advanced technologies

1) Includes immediate participation by all regions
2) Includes the construction of 126 new nuclear reactors andthe capture of nearly a billion tons of CO2 in 2020
3) Includes negative global emissions by the end of thecentury, and thus requires broad deployment of bioCCS
technologies
4) Carbon prices escalate to $775/tCO2 in 2095
5) Possible without a tax on land-use emissions, but would
result in a tripling of carbon taxes and a substantial increase in
the cost of meeting the target.

Delayed Accession

X1) Includes dramatic emissions reductions for Groups 2 and 3
at the time of their accession,2) Includes negative emissions in Group 1 by 2050 and
negative global emissions by the end of the century, and thus
requires broad deployment of bioCCS technologies
3) Carbon prices begin at $50/tCO2, and rise to $2000/tCO2
4) Results in significant land-use leakage, where crop
production is outsourced to non-participating regions
resulting in a substantial increase in land-use change emissions
in these regions

Sample Results: The Challenges of 450 CO2-e(From the MiniCAM Paper: Calvin et al.)Not-to-Exceed
Immediate Accession

Overshoot2) Includes the construction of 126

2)1)Includesemissions
Includes immediate70%
participationby all regions
1) Includes immediate participation by all regions
newnuclear reactors and the capture of2) Includes 70%bydramatic
emissions reductions by 2020
2) Includes the construction of 126 new nuclear reactors andreductions
2020
captureof nearlytons
a billionoftonsof CO2inin 20202020
nearlya billion
CO23)3)Includes
Includes substantialsubstantial
transformation of transformation
the energy3) theIncludes
negative
globalemissions
2020, including
the constructionof 500new3) Includes negative global emissions by the end of theofsystem
the byenergy
systemby 2020,includingby
the endofrequires
the century,and ofthus
nuclear reactors, and the capture of 20 billion tons ofcentury,and thus
broad deployment
bioCCS
theconstruction of 500 new nuclear requires
broad deployment of bioCCS
CO2technologies
reactors,
ofglobally
20 billion
technologies
4) Includes aandcarbonthe
pricecaptureof $100/tCO2in4) Carbon prices escalate to $775/tCO2 in 2095
tonsof CO2 a tax on land-use
5)2020Includes5) Possible without a tax on land-use emissions, but would
5)
Includesataxonland-useemissions
beginningin2020
result in a tripling of carbon taxes and a substantial increase inemissions beginning in 2020
6) Includes advanced technologies

Delayed AccessionXthe cost of meeting the target.

1) Includes dramatic emissions reductions for Groups 2 and 3
at the time of their accession,2) Includes negative emissions in Group 1 by 2050 and
negative global emissions by the end of the century, and thusrequires broad deployment of bioCCS technologies
3) Carbon prices begin at $50/tCO2, and rise to $2000/tCO24) Results in significant land-use leakage, where crop
production is outsourced to non-participating regions
resulting in a substantial increase in land-use change emissions
in these regions

Sample Results: Costs of Delay to China

Sample Results: Regional Reductions in2050 across Scenarios
Not-to-Exceed Scenarios

Overshoot Scenarios
350%

350%
650 Delay NTE

550 Delay NTE

450 Full NTE

250%

550 Full NTE
300%Group 2 and 3 Emissions Relative to 2000

Group 2 and 3 Emissions Relative to 2000

300%

650 Full NTE+100% Global

200%+50% Global
150%
100%
50%0%

Global at 2000
-50% Global-50%

550 Full OS

550 Delay OS

250%

450 Delay OS+100% Global

200%+50% Global
150%
100%
50%0%

Global at 2000
-50% Global-50%-100%-100%-100% Global-100% Global
-150%

-150%
-120%

450 Full OS-100%-80%-60%-40%-20%

Group 1 Emissions Relative to 2000

0%

20%

-120%

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

Group 1 Emissions Relative to 2000

0%20%

Natural Extensions?
• More nuanced and “realistic” policy structures, particularly inthe near-term.
– More “Realistic” Relative Burdens– More “Realistic” Mechanisms for Mitigation (e.g., command andcontrol policies)– Across Both: Consideration of Local Circumstances• More exploration of technology development and deployment
pathways.
• More explicit consideration of physical systems– For example, temperature based goals– Feedbacks, for example, land use and energy demand– The impacts of overshoots