Asia

Exercise

Modeling

The Role of Asia in Mitigating Climate Change: Results from the

Asia Modeling Exercise

Kate Calvin, Leon Clarke, Volker Krey, Geoff Blanford, Jiang Kejun, Mikiko Kainuma, Elmar Kriegler, Gunnar Luderer, P.R.

Shukla

International Energy Workshop 2012

Cape Town, South Africa

June 21, 2012

PNWD-SA-9886

Asia

Exercise

ModelingGoals of AME

Objective: to better articulate the role of Asia in addressing climate change.

Goal: To bring together global modelers that commonly participate in efforts to explore international policy architectures with regional modelers and experts with Asia-specific knowledge, understanding, data, and analysis.

Method: A coordinated modeling exercise that attempts to link these communities to provide more effective modeling and analysis of Asia within a global context.

Asia

Exercise

ModelingParticipants

26 Participating Models Australia (GTEM) Canada (TIAM-World) China (China MARKAL, IAMC, IPAC, PECE), EU (GEM-E3, IMAGE, MESSAGE, POLES-IPTS, REMIND,

TIMES-VTT, WITCH) India (GCAM-IIM) Japan (AIM-CGE, AIM-Enduse, DNE21+, GRAPE, MARIA-

23) Korea (KEI-Linkages) Nepal (Nepal MARKAL) United States (EPPA, GCAM, iPETS, MERGE, Phoenix)

Asia

Exercise

ModelingThe Models

Models differ with respect to: Regional scope (Global, China only, Nepal Only) Time horizon (through 2100, through 2050) Degree of foresight (myopic, intertemporally optimizing) Underlying structure (market-equilibrium, cost minimization) Sectoral coverage (Energy only, Energy & Agriculture/Land-Use,

Full Economy) Emissions included (CO2 only, Kyoto gases only, all species)

Climate representation (No representation, GHG concentrations only, all radiative forcing agents)

Asia

Exercise

Modeling

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

2005

$/tC

O2

Exercise Design

Six Core Scenarios: Baseline

3 CO2 price paths

These scenarios were used to link between the global

and regional models.

Asia

Exercise

ModelingExercise Design

Six Core Scenarios: Baseline

3 CO2 price paths

2 Stabilization paths (global models only)

550 CO2-e stabilization (total forcing)

450 CO2-e overshoot (total forcing)

For models without all forcing agents, we provided exogenous paths that they could use.

Asia

Exercise

ModelingExercise Design

Six Core Scenarios: Baseline

3 CO2 price paths

2 Stabilization paths (global models only)

All policies are first-best (immediate accession, economy-wide CO2 prices/constraints)

No harmonized variables in the core scenarios

Asia

Exercise

ModelingVariation in AME Baselines

Median and Range Across Models in 2100

Asia

Exercise

ModelingExercise Design

We created several subgroups, which allowed us to explore different aspects of the scenarios more in depth.

Subgroup topics: Base Year Data

Baseline Scenarios

Urban/Rural development

Technology and Technical Change

Global and Regional Mitigation Efforts

National Policies and Measures

Low Carbon Societies

Asia

Exercise

ModelingExercise Design

We created several subgroups, which allowed us to explore different aspects of the scenarios more in depth.

Subgroup topics: Base Year Data

Baseline Scenarios

Urban/Rural development

Technology and Technical Change

Global and Regional Mitigation Efforts

National Policies and Measures

Low Carbon Societies

RESULTS

Asia

Exercise

ModelingBase Year Data

Deviation from UN 2010 Deviation from WB

Asia

Exercise

ModelingBase Year Data

Asia

Exercise

ModelingBase Year Data

Deviation from UN 2010 Deviation from WB

Asia

Exercise

ModelingBase Year Data

Deviation from IEA Deviation from CDIAC

Asia

Exercise

ModelingBase Year Data

Key findings: There are some good reasons why base year data

differs across models. Examples include: Differences in region definition Differences in data sources Differences in modeled base year Differences in calibration method

While differences in base year data do affect future growth projections, differences in assumed growth rates have a much larger impact on the future.

Asia

Exercise

ModelingBaseline Scenarios

Asia

Exercise

Modeling

-6%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9%

Ener

gy In

tens

ity

Rate

of C

hang

e

Per Capita Income Growth Rate

Japan 1959-1974

Taiwan 1973-1988

Korea 1977-1992

Malaysia 1979-1994

Model projections

1990 – 2005 dataEIA projection

Baseline Scenarios

PC TPE = 1%

PC TPE = 2%

PC TPE = 3%

PC TPE = 4%

PC TPE = 5%PC TPE = -1%

PC TPE = 0%

PC TPE = -2%

Average Growth Rates in China, 2005 – 2020 with comparison to Asian history

Asia

Exercise

ModelingBaseline Scenarios

Average Growth Rates in China, 2005 – 2020

Asia

Exercise

ModelingBaseline Scenarios

Key findings: Models differ in their projections of economic growth,

energy intensity, and carbon intensity Differences in underlying growth assumptions result in

a factor of 2 difference in Chinese CO2 emissions across models in 2020

Models with similar emissions levels may achieve them in very different ways

The models do not span the full uncertainty range. This is merely the range of modelers’ “best guesses.”

Asia

Exercise

ModelingVariation in AME Policy Case

Median and Range Across Models in 2100

Assumes a carbon price of $30/tCO2 in 2020, rising at 5% p.a.

Asia

Exercise

ModelingGlobal & Regional Mitigation

Global Marginal Abatement Cost Curves, 2005 – 2050

Asia

Exercise

ModelingGlobal & Regional Mitigation

Fossil fuel & industrial CO2 emissions in 2050, relative to baseline

Asia

Exercise

ModelingGlobal & Regional Mitigation

Fossil fuel & industrial CO2 emissions reductions in 2050, relative to world

Asia

Exercise

Modeling

Electricity Generation by model, region, and fuel in 2050 in $30/tCO2 Scenario

Technology

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Chin

aIn

dia

Indo

nesia

Japa

nKo

rea

OEC

D90

Chin

aIn

dia

Indo

nesia

Japa

nKo

rea

OEC

D90

Chin

aIn

dia

Indo

nesia

Japa

nKo

rea

OEC

D90

Chin

aIn

dia

OEC

D90

Chin

aIn

dia

Japa

nKo

rea

OEC

D90

Chin

aIn

dia

Japa

n

Chin

aIn

dia

Japa

nO

ECD9

0

Chin

aIn

dia

Indo

nesia

Japa

nO

ECD9

0

Chin

aIn

dia

Indo

nesia

Japa

nKo

rea

OEC

D90

Chin

aIn

dia

Indo

nesia

Japa

nKo

rea

OEC

D90

AIM-ENDUSEAIM-CGE DNE21+ EPPA GCAM GEM-E3 GTEM IMAGEGRAPE 2005

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Chin

aIn

dia

Japa

nOE

CD90

Chin

aIn

dia

Japa

nOE

CD90

Chin

aIn

dia

OECD

90

Chin

aIn

dia

Indo

nesia

Japa

nKo

rea

OECD

90

Chin

aIn

dia

Japa

nKo

rea

OECD

90

Chin

aIn

dia

Japa

nOE

CD90

Chin

aIn

dia

Indo

nesia

Japa

nKo

rea

OECD

90

Chin

aIn

dia

Japa

nOE

CD90

Chin

aIn

dia

OECD

90

Chin

aIn

dia

Indo

nesia

Japa

nKo

rea

OECD

90

MERGEMARIA-23 MESSAGE PHOENIX POLES-IPTS REMIND TIMES-VTT WITCHTIAM-WORLD 2005

0

20

40

60

AIM

-CG

E

AIM

-End

use

Chin

a-M

ARK

AL

DN

E21

EPPA

GCA

M

GEM

-E3

GRA

PE

GTE

M

IMAG

E

MAR

IA-2

3

MER

GE

MES

SAG

E

Phoe

nix

POLE

S-IP

TS

REM

IND

TIA

M-W

ORL

D

TIM

ES-V

TT

WIT

CH

Oil Total Oil w/o CCS Oil w/ CCS Coal TotalCoal w/o CCS Coal w/ CCS Gas Total Gas w/o CCSGas w/ CCS Biomass Total Biomass w/o CCS Biomass w/ CCSNuclear Non-Bio Renewable Total Hydro WindSolar Geothermal Other

Asia

Exercise

ModelingGlobal & Region Mitigation

Key findings: Models differ significantly in the amount of mitigation

achieved for a particular carbon price Some regions show less mitigation than others,

regardless of the model considered Differences in mitigation are due to a variety of

factors, including: Differences in baseline emissions levels Differences in model flexibility Differences in technology cost and availability

Asia

Exercise

ModelingTechnology

Key findings: Models show a wide variety of future energy systems

across time and scenarios. Variation is due to differences in assumed technology

cost, resource availability, etc. While there is some variation across regions within a

model due to resource constraints, many models tend to “favor” certain technologies.

Asia

Exercise

ModelingOther Analyses

Urban/Rural Development: Analyzed the effect of urbanization on energy use and emissions Finding: Urbanization has an effect on solid fuel consumption,

but may not strongly influence total CO2 emissions

National Policies & Measures: Compared results from the models to Copenhagen pledges and

MEF/G8 goals Finding: Stringency of Copenhagen pledges varies across

regions, and to a lesser extent across models

Low Carbon Societies: Assessed policies and measures needed to implement 2 degree

scenarios

Asia

Exercise

ModelingSummary

The Asia Modeling Exercise brought together more than 20 energy-economy and integrated assessment models.

These models ran a set of coordinated scenarios. We focused our analysis of the results on Asian regions. We analyzed results across a variety of dimensions,

including base year data, baselines, global & regional mitigation, technology, and national policies & measures.

We find that models differ significantly across a number of variables, reflecting uncertainty in the future evolution of the world’s economy and energy system. However, there were some robust results across models.

Asia

Exercise

Modeling

THANK YOU!