Assessment of greenhouse gas emissions Veronika Wille Institut fr - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Assessment of greenhouse gas emissions Veronika Wille Institut für Energiewirtschaft und Rationelle Energieanwendung, Universität Stuttgart INSTREAM Workshop: Sustainability Indicators for Policy Making Green Growth and Green innovation 07. July 2011 in Berlin 1

Outline 1. Introduction 2. Indicators and their performance i. GHG emissions ii. Distance to target iii. Costs distance to target iv. Damage costs 3. Conclusion Veronika Wille 07.07.2011 2

2. Indicators and Performance - GHG emissions GHG emissions ● In a first stage, all annual emissions of substances to the atmosphere leading to a change in radiative forcing are estimated, converted into a common unit (e.g. CO 2,equivalent ) using the GWP and added. ● In a second stage, all processes leading to a change in radiative forcing (like changes in vegetation, carbon storage, albedo change) are added (not shown here, needs further research). Veronika Wille 07.07.2011 3

2. Indicators and Performance - GHG emissions Global warming potentials (GWPs for non-GHG substances preliminary rough estimates!) Gas GWP 100 years (Range) CO 2 1 25 (16 – 34) CH 4 N 2 O 298 SF 6 22800 -40 (-24 – -56) SO 2 680 (190 – 2240) BC -69 (-35 – -104) OC 3.4 (2 – 7) VOC 1.9 (1 – 3) CO NO x ~0 Sources: IPCC, 2007; http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html; Amann et al., 2010, Amann, 2011; http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/0710LetHouseBC%201.pdf Veronika Wille 07.07.2011 4

2. Indicators and Performance - GHG emissions GHG emissions 2005 in EU29 in CO 2 e 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 CO2 CH4 2,500 BC Mt CO2e N2O 2,000 CO NMVOC SF6 1,500 OC SO2 1,000 500 0 -500 2005 Source: HEIMTSA Common Case Study, UNFCCC, http://gains.iiasa.ac.at Veronika Wille 07.07.2011 5

2. Indicators and Performance - GHG emissions GHG emission path in EU29 in CO 2 e 6,000 5,000 4,000 NMVOC 3,000 N2O Mt CO2e CO CH4 CO2 2,000 SO2 1,000 0 BAU BAU 450ppm BAU 450ppm BAU 450ppm -1,000 2005 2020 2030 2050 year Source: HEIMTSA Common Case Study Veronika Wille 07.07.2011 6

2. Indicators and Performance - Distance to target Distance to target ● The indicator distance to target compares actual emissions with a ‘sustainable emission pathway’, that is a path for European GHG emissions leading to a reduction of ca. 71% of EU GHG emissions 1990 – 2050. This might be part of a worldwide strategy leading to fulfilling the 2°C target. ● Cost-Optimal pathway calculated with models (here TIMES), starting e.g. 2010) ● Each year the sustainable emission path would have to be newly calculated in case of a deviance. ● Alternatively: calculate cumulative deviation for each year; Problem: negligence of time of emission (now or future) ● Procedure: Compare emission of sustainable emission path with actual emissions. Add differences to accumulated difference of past years. Veronika Wille 07.07.2011 7

2. Indicators and Performance - Distance to target Emissions – TIMES model (only energy) 5,000 4,000 3,000 NMVOC CO Mt CO2e N2O 2,000 CH4 CO2 SO2 1,000 0 REF 450ppm REF 450ppm REF 450ppm REF 450ppm REF 450ppm REF 450ppm REF 450ppm REF 450ppm REF 450ppm REF 450ppm REF 450ppm -1,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 year Veronika Wille 07.07.2011 8

2. Indicators and Performance - Distance to target Distance to target emissions - TIMES 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 Mt CO2e Distance 1,500 1,000 500 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 year Veronika Wille 07.07.2011 9

2. Indicators and Performance - Distance to target Cumulated distance to target emissions - TIMES 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 Mt CO2e 8,000 cum. Distance 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 year Veronika Wille 07.07.2011 10

2. Indicators and Performance - Costs distance to target Costs distance to target ● The indicator ‘costs distance to target’ is based on the indicator distance (of emissions) to target. The annual costs for reducing the emissions values to the target value is estimated. ● This is done using partial equilibrium models (energy, agriculture). Veronika Wille 07.07.2011 11

2. Indicators and Performance - Costs distance to target Costs distance to target – Annual System Costs (TIMES) 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 Mio. € 250,000 Distance 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 year Veronika Wille 07.07.2011 12

2. Indicators and Performance - Total damage costs Total damage costs ● The indicator damage costs shows the monetized damage caused by the greenhouse gases emitted in a year (e.g. for EU29). ● Extra: Avoided damages can be compared with avoidance costs. ● Procedure: Calculate total damage costs of emissions by multiplying marginal damage costs with emissions (e.g. EU29) from all sectors in CO 2 e. ● Marginal damage costs are calculated using integrated assessment models, here: FUND. Marginal damage costs here are estimated for two emission scenarios: SRES A1b (which leads to +3°C until 2100 and SRES B1 (leads to about +2°C). ● Open questions: usage of equity weighting or not; how to deal with uncertainty whether important damages are missing. Veronika Wille 07.07.2011 13

2. Indicators and Performance - Total damage costs Damage costs due to emissions of a year – EU29 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 REF_A1b_noEW Mio. € REF_A1b_WeuEW 800,000 450ppm_B1_noEW 450ppm_B1_WeuEW 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 2005 2020 2030 2050 year Veronika Wille 07.07.2011 14

2. Indicators and Performance - Total damage costs Avoided annual damage costs – EU29 1,200,000 1,000,000 avoided_damages_ REF_450_noEW 800,000 Mio. € avoided_damages_ 600,000 REF_450_WeuEW 400,000 200,000 0 2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 year Veronika Wille 07.07.2011 15

2. Indicators and Performance - Total damage costs Avoided damage costs and avoidance costs – EU29 (TIMES) 1,200,000 1,000,000 avoided_damages_ REF_450_noEW 800,000 avoided_damages_ REF_450_WeuEW Mio. € 600,000 annual system costs smoothed 400,000 200,000 0 2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 year Veronika Wille 07.07.2011 16

3. Conclusion Conclusion ● GHG emissions: + easy to calculate; minor errors; new: also non-GHGs included - only relative comparison to previous year or per capita; no certainty if sustainable path. ● Distance to target: + distance to sustainable path visible - path calculated by model; comparison with other indicators and aggregation not possible Veronika Wille 07.07.2011 17

3. Conclusion Conclusion ● Costs distance to target: + comparability to other indicators; aggregation possible - costs depend on assumptions (e.g. innovation potential difficult to determine) ● Damage costs: + similar to indicator above; aggregated measure for damages; worldwide emission path - possibly not all damages included (precautionary principle); to be decided, if EW or no EW. ● All indicators could/ should be further developed! Veronika Wille 07.07.2011 18

References: GWPs IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch Amann, M., I. Bertok, C. Heyes, Z. Klimont, K. Kupiainen, W. Schöpp (2010): Identifying promising measures that could help reducing near- term forcing, State of play of the UNEP BC assessment, 38thSession of the Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modelling, Dublin, May 17- 19, 2010 Amann, M. (2011): The UNEP/WMO Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone, 39th Meeting of the Task Force for Integrated Assessment Modelling, Stockholm, February 23-25, 2011. HEIMTSA – Common Case Study: http://www.heimtsa.eu TIMES model Blesl, M., D. Bruchof, T. Kober, R. Kuder (2011): Energy model runs with TIMES PanEU for the Common Case Study – Scenario analysis of the 2 °C target with and without external costs. Deliverable within the HEIMTSA project, Stuttgart. FUND model: http://www.fund-model.org Veronika Wille 07.07.2011 19