the challenge of stabilisation stern review, chapter 8

The challenge of stabilisation

Stern Review, Chapter 8

Content

What is stabilisation? Why stabilise? Optimal stabilisation level Stabilising CO2 concentrations Stabilising non- CO2 concentrations Pathways to stabilisation Analysing stabilisation strategies The challenge of stabilisation

What is stabilisation (of GHG concentration)?

„Stabilisation requires that annual emissions be brought down to a level that balances the earth‘s natural capacity to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.“

Why stabilise?

Relation between greenhouse gases and global temperature: The warming effect of GHGs rises logarithmically with their concentration in the atmosphere

Global mean temperature will continue to rise unless the stock of GHGs is stabilised

Optimal stabilisation level

Probability of an ultimate global mean temperature rise above 3°C450 ppm CO2e: 5- 20%550 ppm CO2e: 30- 70%650 ppm CO2e: 60- 95%

Optimal stabilisation level

A stabilisation level between 450 ppm CO2e and 550 ppm CO2e seems optimal

Stabilisation below 450 ppm CO2e would require extensive and rapid emission cuts which incur high costs

Stabilisation above 550 ppm CO2e would imply substantial climatic risks

Content

What is stabilisation? Why stabilise? Optimal stabilisation level Stabilising CO2 concentrations Stabilising non- CO2 concentrations Pathways to stabilisation Analysing stabilisation staregies The challenge of stabilisation

Stabilising CO2 concentrations

CO2 concentration has risen by about 1/3 since pre- industrial times (from 280ppm to 380ppm)

Account for 70% of the global warming effect Earth‘s soils, vegetation and oceans have

absorbed around 60% of the CO2 emissions from the past two centuries, leaving 800 GtCO2 (of 2000 GtCO2 emitted) in the atmosphere


Feedbacks between the climate and the carbon cycle

Natural carbon absorption will weaken as the world warms

More emissions have to be reduced as previously thought

Stabilising non- CO2 concentration

Account for around 30% of the total warming effect

Make up ¼ of the total emissions in terms of their global warming potential (GWP)

GWP provides a way to compare the greenhouse gases

GWP of CO2 is 1

Stabilising non- CO2 concentration

Many non- CO2 gases have a higher GWP

and a longer lifetime than CO2, therefore

abating their emissions is very important in the long run!

Content


Pathways to stabilisation

Pathways to stabilisation

The rate of emission cuts requiered to meet a stabilisation goal depends on the timing and height of the peak.

If emissions peak at 48 GtCO2e rather than at 52 GtCO2e in 2020, the rate of cuts is reduced from 2,5% per year to 1,5% per year

A high peak in 2020 rather than in 2030 can reduce the rate of emission cuts from 4,0% per year to 2,5% per year

Because of the weakening of natural carbon absorption late abatement might incur higher emission reduction rates

Delaying abatement escalate the risk of getting locked into long-lived high carbon technologies

Stabilisation at 550 ppm

For a peak in 2015 annual reduction needs to be around 1%

Such an early peak looks quite difficult For a delay of 15 years the reduction rate

will be between 2,5%/yr and 4%/yr

Stabilisation at 450 ppmwithout overshooting

Overshooting: The peak reaches a level above the target level. Overshooting implies risks like more rapid increase in global temperature and therefore an acceleration of feedback processes.

To stabilise at 450 ppm (about 20 ppm above today‘s level) emissions have to peak in 2010 and have to fall then by 7% per year

This means in 2050 annual emissions have to be 50% below the current level

Stabilisation at 450 ppmwithout overshooting

A 10 year delay wouldn‘t even allow a stabilisation at 450 ppm

Stabilisation at 450 ppm is very costly and seems unrealistic (countries like China aren‘t willing to reduce their emissions)

Stabilisation at 450 ppmwith overshooting

If the stock peaks at 500 ppm before stabilising at 450 ppm the required annual reduction rate will decrease from 7% to 3% (if emissions peak in 2010)

Overshooting might be the only way to reach 450 ppm- although it contains a large number of unknowns in the climate system (threshold points, irreversible changes)

Historical reductions in national emissions It‘s difficult to cut emissions faster than about 1%

per year France: switching to nuclear power- based

energy- 0,6% energy-related emission reduction per year between 1977 and 2003

Brazil: enforcing biofuel from 1% in 1975 to 25% in 2002- slow its road transport emissions (rose by 2,8% per year with biofuels and would have risen at around 3,6% per year without biofuels)

Historical reductions in national emissions The UK: reduced ist emission on an

average of 1% per year between 1990 and 2000 because of an increase in coal price

Acoording to this data a emission reduction rate of 7% per year (which would be needed for stabilising at 450 ppm) seems very unrealistic

Difficulties in sustaining a rapid rate of emission cuts The capital stock lasts a number of years

locking the economy into a particular emission pathway

Developing new lower emission technology is a slow process

It takes time to change habits, preferences and institutional structures in favour of low- carbon alternatives

Content



To stabilise at 550 ppm emissions have to peak in the next 10 to 20 years and have to decline at a substantial level

Global emissions are rapidly rising and under business as usual (BAU) the emissions will rise even more

The difference between these pathways is called the mitigation gap


Stabilising the stock of greenhouse gases in the range of 450 to 550 ppm CO2e requires urgent and substantial action- from developed and developing countries, because even if emissions from developed regions could be reduced to zero in 2050, the rest of the world would still need to cut emissions by 40%.

Identifying the costs of mitigation

Stern Review, Chapter 9

Content

Calculating the costs of cutting GHG emissions Abatement opportunities

Cutting no-fossil-fuel related emissions Reducing demand for carbon-intensive goods and

services Improving energy efficiency Low carbon technologies

Fossil fuel emissions Conclusion

Calculating the costs of cutting GHG emissions Any costs of cutting GHG emissions will

ultimately be borne by the household Basic concept: Compare benefits to the

costs of cutting emissions Benefits: Savings (for instance from less

fossil fuel consumption) and feedbacks (like better air quality)

Calculating the costs of cutting GHG emissions Costs: more ressources will be needed to

change today's capital stock Measuring the costs: for ressources traded

at a perfect market- market prices

inefficient marekts- shadow prices (subtract the additional rent from the market price)

Calculating the costs of cutting GHG emissions Measuring the efficient level of GHG

emissions: Marginal damage and marginal abatement cost analysis. The intersection of the two curves exhibit the efficient level.

Problem: MAC can only be used for a small change in emission reductions. In our case huge emission cuts are required. MAC could be misleading

Calculating the costs of cutting GHG emissions

Calculating the costs of cutting GHG emissions Policy-makers don‘t know the cheapest way to

achieve emission reduction They can encourage housholds and firms to find

those ways Possible tools:

Emission taxes Tradable carbon quotas

Task for policy-makers is to supply a frame and to „persuade“ the consumers to reduce their spending on emission-intensive products

Content





The range of abatement opportunities All abatement opportunities can be ranked

among their cost per unit of greenhouse gas reduction

Some of them can be very cheap or even save money

Others might be rather expensive today but are expected to get cheaper throughout time

The range of abatement opportunities

Content





Non-fossil-fuel relatedemissions

“Two fifths of global emissions are from non-fossil fuel sources; there are opportunities here for low-cost emissions reductions, particularly in avoiding deforestation.”

Non-fossil-fuel relatedemissions 40% of today‘s GHG-emissions Sources:

Agriculture, ex.: life stockWaste, ex.: landfill sites, wastewater

treatmentWastage in the production of fossil fuels Industrial processesDeforestation (20% = 8 Gt Co2/year)


Example Deforesation: 3 types of costs (curbing deforestation):

Opportunity costsAdministration costsCosts of managing transition

Comparison with 4th IPCC report


Stern review

8 countries (70% of land use emissions)

Stop deforestation US$ 1-2/tCO2

Plant new forests US$ 5-15/tCO2

4th IPCC report

Forestry mitigation Up to US$

100/GtCO2eq 1.3-4.2 GtCO2eq/yr 50% at a cost under

20/GtCO2eq Differences between

regions

Sector BAU emissionsin 2050(GtCO2e)

Savingsin 2050(GtCO2e)

Abatement scenarioemissions in 2050(GtCO2e)

Deforestation (CO2)

5.0

3.5 -0.5

Afforestation & reforestation (CO2) 1.0

Land-management practices (CO2) 1.0

Agriculture (non-CO2)

18.8

1.0

Energy-related non-CO2 emissions including

fugitive emissions

2.3 14.3

Waste (non-CO2) 0.7

Industrial processes (non-CO2) 0.4

Industrial processes (CO2) 2.1 0.5 1.6

Fugitive emissions (CO2) 0.4 0.2 0.2

Total 26.3 10.7 15.6

Content


Cutting no-fossil-fuel related emissionsReducing demand for carbon-intensive

goods and services Improving energy efficiency Low carbon technologies


Reducing demand for carbon-intensive goods and services Politic-possibilities

price signalsregulationsprovision of better informationchanging consumer preferences

“win-win”-situations conflicts

Improving energy efficiency

“Improving Energy efficiency and avoiding waste offer opportunities to save both emissions and resources, though there my be obstacles to the adoption of these opportunities.”

Improving energy efficiency Technical potential improved ten-fold or more in

the industrial countries Further gains are possible Market barriers and failures:

the cost of time a lack of information capital constraints misaligned incentives together with behavioral and organizational factors

affecting economic rationality in decision-making.

Content



services Improving energy efficiencyLow carbon technologies


Low Carbon Technologies

“Options for low-emission energy technologies are developing rapidly, though many remain more expensive than conventional technologies.”


Wide range of options: Wind Ocean Solar energy Carbon capture and storage (CCS) Hydrogen Nuclear power Hydroelectric power Bioenergy Decentralized power generation Fuel cells Hybrid- and electric-vehicle technology


Technology costs of tend to fall Range of uncertainty Historical experience development

never stands still Limitations increasing marginal costs

Next 20 years lower costsPeriod of decades breakthroughs


Costs tend to fall over time Learning Economies of scale

great uncertainty.: stage of development availability and price of fossil fuels invention of CCS

Constraints in the longer run increasing marginal costs

Content





Fossil-fuel emissons Ex.: review Denis Anderson

18 GtCO2e/year in 2050 550ppm CO2e in 2050

depends on its assumptions combination of technologies

Fossil-fuel emissons

Anderson review

Average costs of reducing fossil fuel emissions to 18 GtCO2 in 2050

Anderson review



2015 2025 2050

Average cost of abatement, $/tCO2 61 33 22

Emissions Abated GtCO2(relative to emissions BAU)

2,2 10,7 42,6

Total cost of abatement, $ billion per year 134 349 930

Annual total costs of reducing fossil fuel emissions to 18 GtCO2 in 2050

Anderson review

Sensitivity analysis of global costs of cutting fossil fuel emissions to 18 GtCO2 in 2050 (costs expressed as % of world GDP)

Anderson review

Fossil-fuel emissons2015 2025 2050

Conclusion

Reduce GHG emissions to ¾ of current levels by 2050 (550 ppm CO2e)

Costs in 2050 < 1 trillion dollar/year Comparison:

economic output > 100times this amount Different studies

Ex.: IEA: costs of reduction near to zero

Questions

Questions

1. Comment the following statement: Due to the fact that the economies of the industrialised countries (the initiators of the greenhouse problem) don’t grow as fast as they did in former times and that they use better techniques now, stabilisation at 450 ppm CO2e seems realistic.

Questions

2. It’s important to cut emissions to a reach a desirable stabilisation level- history showed that countries like France could cut energy- related emissions by switching to nuclear power. Do you think that this source of energy would provide a solution for the greenhouse problem and lead us to a greener world?

Questions

3. Which strategy would you choose to reach a certain (stable) CO2e concentration

- late emission cuts and therefore rapid reduction or

- early emission cuts and moderate reduction

And why would you choose it?

Questions

4. If we stabilise at a concentration of 650 ppm CO2e emissions could be around 20% above the current level by 2050- wouldn’t that be more cost efficient (because if we needn’t cut back emissions we will save a lot of money)?

Questions

5. Which are the sources of non-fossil fuel emissions?

Questions

6. What can Austria do to reduce the demand of GHG intensive goods and services?

7. Why are efficiency measures often adopted slowly?

Questions

8. Why are further developments in the energy sector essential for the longer future?

the challenge of stabilisation stern review, chapter 8

Documents

stabilisation goal

co2 emissions

high costs stabilisation

atmosphere slide

non co2 gases

stabilised slide

ppm co2e

greenhouse gases gwp