CNAS Climate War Game Balaton 2008 Tom Fiddaman, Ventana Systems - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CNAS Climate War Game

Balaton 2008 Tom Fiddaman, Ventana Systems Drew Jones, Lori Siegel, Sustainability Institute http://blog.metasd.com/category/clout-climate-change/

Contributors

• Delivery

– CNAS – Center for a New American Security – ORNL, Pew Climate, SI, others

• Participants

– NGOs – Media – Military – Government

UN Secretary General’s State of the Atmosphere Briefing

Scenario

• 2015
• Copenhagen commitments were

significant, but no one is meeting them

• Dual focus:

– Get mitigation back on track – Deal with emerging impacts: refugees, water, adaptation aid

Our Hypothesis

(SI/Ventana)

• Decision makers don’t have an operational

understanding of the “bathtub dynamics”

• f carbon accumulation and temperature

change

• Even if they did, determining in real time

whether national commitments add up to a meaningful global outcome requires a decision support tool

Purpose of Simulator: Help Decision-makers Understand Dynamics of Climate Mitigation

Regional FF Emissions

6 B 4.5 B 3 B 1.5 B 2007 2023 2038 2054 2069 2085 2100 Time (year) TonsC/year

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere

750 600 450 300 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 ppm

• Fossil fuel emissions by

countries or “economy group”

• Land use emissions
• Additional sequestration

from aforestation

• Other greenhouse gas

emissions

Inputs

• CO2 in the atmosphere
• Global temperature
• Total emissions
• Total removals to oceans,

biomass etc.

Outputs

Emissions from Developed Major Economies And Developing Major Economies And Non-Major Economies One goal CO2 in the atmosphere

Developed major economies Carbon cycle Climate GHGs in atm Total fossil fuel CO2 emissions Temp Developing major economies Non major economies Forests Land use CO2 emissions CO2 Sequestration Changes to: Aforestation Deforestation Specific country emissions Other GHGs

Model Structure

Specific country emissions Specific country emissions

US and EU: Steady Growth in Emissions

12 B 9 B 6 B 3 B

1915 1935 1955 1975 1995 2015

TonsC/year

US EU O t h e r 2 Other 1

Fossil Fuel Emissions

Source: CDIAC, WEO, Pangaea

China and India: Emissions Rising

12 B 9 B 6 B 3 B

1915 1935 1955 1975 1995 2015

TonsC/year

Fossil Fuel Emissions

US EU China O t h e r 2 I n d i a Other 1

Source: CDIAC, WEO, Pangaea

Rest of World Emissions Rising

12 B 9 B 6 B 3 B

1915 1935 1955 1975 1995 2015

TonsC/year

US EU China O t h e r 2 I n d i a Other 1

Fossil Fuel Emissions

Source: CDIAC, WEO, Pangaea

Emissions from Global Deforestation

12 B 9 B 6 B 3 B

1915 1935 1955 1975 1995 2015

TonsC/year

US EU China O t h e r 2 I n d i a Other 1 L a n d U s e

Source: CDIAC, WEO, Pangaea

CO2 Emissions

12 B 9 B 6 B 3 B 1915 1935 1955 1975 1995 2015 Time (year) TonsC/year

CO2 Emissions

32 B 28 B 24 B 20 B 16 B 12 B 8 B 4 B 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 Time (year) TonsC/year

Emissions Trends to 2100

Business as usual

Source: CDIAC, WEO, Pangaea (based on A1FI)

80% Reduction by Nation

CO2 Emissions

32 B 28 B 24 B 20 B 16 B 12 B 8 B 4 B 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 Time (year) TonsC/year Source: CDIAC, WEO, Pangaea

What if Only the US and EU Act? (“only US EU 80”)

CO2 Emissions

32 B 28 B 24 B 20 B 16 B 12 B 8 B 4 B 2000 2013 2025 2038 2050 2063 2075 2088 2100 Time (year)

TonsC/year CO2 FF emissions[US] : only US EU 80 CO2 FF emissions[EU] : only US EU 80 CO2 FF emissions[China] : only US EU 80 CO2 FF emissions[India] : only US EU 80 CO2 FF emissions[Other ME] : only US EU 80 CO2 FF emissions[Non ME] : only US EU 80

US and EU reduction

Total Fossil Fuel Emissions Would be Less than BAU, But Much More than the Goal

Fossil Fuel Emissions

35 B 30 B 25 B 20 B 15 B 10 B 5 B 1900 1940 1980 2020 2060 2100 tonsC/year World CO2 FF emissions : bau World CO2 FF emissions : only US 80 World CO2 FF emissions : only US EU 80 World CO2 FF emissions : all 80

CO2 Levels Would Grow at a Slower Rate But Not Stabilize

CO2 in the Atmosphere

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 ppm ppm CO2 in Atmosphere : bau ppm CO2 in Atmosphere : only US 80 ppm CO2 in Atmosphere : only US EU 80 ppm CO2 in Atmosphere : all 80

Temperature Would Differ Little from BAU

Global Temperature Change Relative to 1990

6 5 4 3 2 1 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

degrees C Adjusted Model Temp Anomaly : bau Adjusted Model Temp Anomaly : only US 80 Adjusted Model Temp Anomaly : only US EU 80 Adjusted Model Temp Anomaly : all 80

Observations

• Useful components

– Data – Baseline generation – Target experimentation

• Challenges

– Too many possible commitment permutations to anticipate with an interface – Need representation of uncertainty

Observations II

• Players took the game very seriously
• Stark contrast between opening positions

and stabilization needs

• Difficulty talking about 2050 targets
• Large appetite for information (e.g., cost

curves) that doesn’t exist

• “Grow to help the poor” not questioned
• Hard to connect adaptation to

responsibility

Observations III

• Equity considerations are used as a lever,

but generally the conversation is practical more than ethical

• No non-climate limits; BAU growth engine

works

• Possibility of cobenefits or negative-cost

mitigation not considered

• Participants tend to rely on technology; no

Plan B

Conclusion?

• Decision support around the impact of

commitments is definitely useful; unclear who’s the best target user (negotiator or NGO)

• Uncertainty is critical
• Is there an alternative to commitments that

would be more robust?

• Is there an analog to “bathtub dynamics” that

makes equity implications of decisions transparent?

Part II

How We Got Involved

• Drew/Tom build simple carbon cycle/temperature

model

• Model provides scenarios for Climate Bathtub

Simulator

• Drew meets Jay Gulledge, chief scientist at Pew

Climate

• CNAS invites SI/Ventana to participate in wargame
• Lori/Drew/Tom retarget model at war game interface

needs

• Oak Ridge National Lab vettes science
• Use model to produce briefing materials and mid-

game assessment