1 / 35

Unintended Consequences: Policies on Biofuels and Climate Change

Unintended Consequences: Policies on Biofuels and Climate Change. Matthias JONAS International Institute for Systems Analysis Laxenburg, Austria jonas@iiasa.ac.at. IIASA Energy Day, Warsaw, Poland – 10 June 2008. Poland short-term policy implications (Kyoto/post-Kyoto). global

haracha
Télécharger la présentation

Unintended Consequences: Policies on Biofuels and Climate Change

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Unintended Consequences:Policies on Biofuels and Climate Change Matthias JONAS International Institute for Systems Analysis Laxenburg, Austria jonas@iiasa.ac.at IIASA Energy Day, Warsaw, Poland – 10 June 2008

  2. Poland • short-term • policy implications • (Kyoto/post-Kyoto) • global • long-term • anthroposphere • vs biosphere to 1. My talk will take you from

  3. 1. In detail 2. Brief historical GHG review 3. Understanding the carbon balance 4. How good do we know the FF emissions? 5. Terrestrial biosphere: some plain insights 6. Signal analysis under the KP 7. Conclusions

  4. Nakicenovic (2007) 2. Brief historical GHG review

  5. Humanity‘s draw on terrestrial ecosystems: The human appropriation of net primary production Global HANPP in 2000: 23.8% DLU-induced productivity: 9.6% Biomass harvest: 12.5% Human-induced fires: 1.7% Haberl et al. (2008: http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/socec/inhalt/1088.htm) 2. Brief historical GHG review

  6. Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4 and N2O have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice-cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in CO2 concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of CH4 and N2O are primarily due to agriculture. Today’s atmospheric concentration of CO2 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm). IPCC WG I (2007: Fig. SPM.1; http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/gr-ar4-wg1.htm, SPM) 2. Brief historical GHG review

  7. Perturbation of Global Carbon Budget (1850-2006) 2000-2006 balance: Fossil Fuel Emissions 7.6 Source Deforestation 1.5 CO2 flux (Pg C y-1) Atmospheric CO2 4.1 Sink Land 2.8 Ocean 2.2 Time (y) Canadell et al. (2007a, b); modified 3. Understanding the carbon balance

  8. Anthropogenic Land Use Change: Tropical deforestation 13 Million hectares each year Borneo, Courtesy: Viktor Boehm 2000-2006 Tropical Americas: 0.6 Pg C y-1 Tropical Asia: 0.6 Pg C y-1 Tropical Africa: 0.3 Pg C y-1 1.5 Pg C y-1 Canadell et al. (2007a, b); modified 3. Understanding the carbon balance

  9. 4% relative 66% relative IPCC WG I (2007: Tab. 7.1) Consequence (FF example): D relative uncertainty of FF emissions by 1%  Drelative uncertainty of net terrestrial uptake by 4% 3. Understanding the carbon balance The net terrestrial C flux is determined as the remainder of the other fluxes. The same is done with its uncertainty (error propagation).

  10. 3. Interim summary Spatial scale: global Temporal scale: 2000–2005 Our ignorance of the net terrestrial carbon flux (uptake) is 16 times greater than our ignorance of the emissions from the use of fossil fuels and 4 times more sensitive.

  11. Anthropogenic Fossil FuelC Emissions 2006 Fossil Fuel: 8.4 Pg C [2006 Total Anthrop. Emissions: 8.4+1.5 = 9.9 Pg] 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010 1990 - 1999: 1.3% y-1 2000 - 2006: 3.3% y-1 Canadell et al. ( 2007a, b); modified 4. How good do we know the FF emissions?

  12. Trajectory of Global Fossil Fuel Emissions 50-year constant growth rates to 2050: B1 1.1%, A1B 1.7% A2 1.8% A1FI 2.4% Observed 2000-2006: 3.3% 2006 2005 Canadell et al. ( 2007a, b); Raupach et al., (2007); modified 4. How good do we know the FF emissions?

  13. Characteristics of post-TAR stabilization scenarios: IPCC WG III ( 2007: Tab. SPM-5) 4. How good do we know the FF emissions?

  14. Emissions Initial emission estimates Initial precision estimates Most recent emission estimates Accuracy Most recent precision estimates Time 4. How good do we know the FF emissions? Hamal ( 2008: Fig. 9); modified

  15. 5.5 EU-15: Total Uncertainty (CO2, w/o LULUCF) 4.5 UNFCCC: - 4.2%/yr (%) 3.5 2.5 2 R = 0.9345 1.5 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 4. How good do we know the FF emissions? Hamal ( 2008: Fig. 11); Hamal et al. (2008: pers. comm.); modified

  16. Global: "initial - most recent" (absolute; reference: 2004) 7.0 CDIAC w/o “emission leaders” 6.0 5.0 4.0 (%) 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 CDIAC CDIAC w/o: China (main land), USA, Canada, Algeria, United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, India, South Africa, Nigeria, Iran, Kuwait, USSR 4. How good do we know the FF emissions? Hamal et al. (2008: pers. comm.); modified

  17. 4. Interim summary • Spatial scale: EU-15–world regions–global • Temporal scale: 1980s–2015 • FF emissions are extremely dynamic (upward). • We have difficulties to project them even 10 years ahead. • Global emissions will not peak before 2015. • We will not be able to keep the warming below 2oC globally. • We are overconfident about the FF emissions. Globally, their • uncertainty is most likely closer to 10% rather than 4%. • So far, the change in uncertainty can be grasped reasonably • well only for the EU-15 MSs.

  18. Net Storage in the Atmosphere Sphere of Activity under the KP Non-Kyoto Biosphere Kyoto Biosphere FF Industry Impacting? Globe or Group ofCountries or individual Country 5. Terrestrial biosphere: some plain insights Jonas and Nilsson (2007: Fig. 4); modified

  19. 5. Terrestrial biosphere: some plain insights • Problematic: Partial C or GHG accounting under the KP! • Global carbon budget data between 1959 and 2006 show that the efficiency of natural carbon sinks to remove atmospheric CO2 has declined by about 2.5% per decade. This may look modest but • it represents a mean net ‘source’ to the atmosphere of 0.13 PgC y-1 during 2000–2006. • Or, in comparison: • a 5% reduction in the mean global FF emissions during the • same time period yields a net ‘sink’ of 0.38 PgC y-1. Canadell et al. ( 2007a, b); Ciais (2007: pers. comm.); modified

  20. Atmosphere imagine continents Fnet 2e e = const Time t1 t2 5. Terrestrial biosphere: some plain insights Jonas and Nilsson (2007: Fig. 6); modified

  21. 5. Interim summary • Spatial scale: multi country–continental–global • Temporal scale: KP / post-KP • The KP cannot be verified if the terrestrial biosphere is split up • into a “Kyoto biosphere” and a “non-Kyoto biosphere”. • We need to understand the entire system: Emissions, removals • and their trends in toto ( FCA, FGA). • Scientists can be expected to consistently account CO2 Bu/Td • at the scale of continents in  10 years from now (FF CO2 • most likely sooner than terrestrial CO2) and to disaggregate • emission changes on a country scale. Politically driven (mis-) • accounting reported Bu annually under (post-) Kyoto can and • will be instantaneously corrected.

  22. 6. Signal analysis under the KP Jonas and Nilsson (2009: Tab. 1); modified

  23. 6. Signal analysis under the KP Jonas and Nilsson (2009: Tab. 1); modified

  24. Emissions Biosphere VT > t2 e1 e2 a) Time VT t2 t1 VT < t2 e1 e2 b) FF-Sphere Time VT t2 t1 Jonas and Nilsson (2007: Fig. 7); modified 6. Signal analysis under the KP

  25. Emissions ~ Risk a Base Year Level x1 x2 Committed Level Undershooting U Time t2 t1 6. Signal analysis under the KP Jonas and Nilsson (2007: Fig. 11); modified

  26. 6. Signal analysisunder the KP Hamal and Jonas (2008: Fig. 9)

  27. a = 0.1 Emissions in Tg CO2-eq (w/o LULUCF) Emissions in Tg CO2-eq (w/o LULUCF) 6. Signal analysis under the KP Bun et al. ( 2008: Fig. 5, 6); modified

  28. 6. Interim summary • Spatial scale: country • Temporal scale: KP / post-KP • For most countries the emission changes agreed on under the • KP are of the same order of magnitude as the uncertainty that • underlies their combined CO2-equivalent emissions estimates. • Some GHG emissions and removals estimates are more • uncertain than others. Options exist to address this issue, and • these could be incorporated in the design of future policy • regimes. These include the option of not pooling subsystems • with different relative uncertainties but treating them individually • and differently.

  29. 6. Interim summary—cont’d • Signal analysis techniques differ; each has its pros and cons. • Any such technique, if implemented, could ‘make or break’ • compliance, especially in cases where countries claim • fulfillment of their reduction commitments. • Emission changes at the level of countries (and legal entities) • can be evaluated against true emission changes and in terms • of uncertainty, risk, etc. Scientists will do it! • Poland would be an extremely credible (low-risk) seller of • emission permits. However, a holistic view indicates that an • emissions market will face serious (inconceivable?) constraints • if uncertainty is taken into account—which would be rational to • do.

  30. 7. Conclusions • Science will, most likely, break the neck of the KP which follows a Bu approach and does not consider uncertainty, unless it • becomes flexible in that it adapts to Td accounting. • gives up fake accounting of the ‘Kyoto Biosphere’ but treats the • terrestrial biosphere (including hot issues such as deforestation, • avoided deforestation, bio-energy, etc.) in a holistic context • which is appropriate for this natural system. • and • becomes rigorous on uncertainty.

  31. References

  32. Drivers of Anthropogenic Emissions 1.5 1.5 1.5 World 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 Factor (relative to 1990) 1 1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 Emissions F (emissions) P (population) 0.7 0.7 0.7 Population g = G/P 0.6 0.6 0.6 Wealth = per capita GDP h = F/G Carbon intensity of GDP 0.5 0.5 0.5 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1980 1980 Canadell et al. ( 2007a, b); modified Drivers of anthropogenic emissions

  33. Anthropogenic C Emissions: Regional Contributions 100% D3-Least Developed Countries 80% D2-Developing Countries 60% India 40% China FSU 20% D1-Developed Countries Japan EU 0% USA Cumulative Emissions [1751-2004] Flux in 2004 Population in 2004 Flux Growth in 2004 Canadell et al. ( 2007a, b); modified Anthropogenic C emissions: regional contributions

  34. IPCC SR ( 2001: Fig. SPM-5) Inertia and time scales

  35. UNFCCC( 2007); CANA (2007) The Bali Roadmap

More Related