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” of 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 Inputs Outputs • Fossil fuel emissions by • CO 2 in the atmosphere countries or “economy • Global temperature group” • Total emissions • Land use emissions • Total removals to oceans, • Additional sequestration biomass etc. from aforestation • Other greenhouse gas emissions Regional FF Emissions 6 B CO2 concentration in the atmosphere Emissions from 750 Developed Major 4.5 B Economies TonsC/year 600 3 B And Developing Major ppm Economies One goal 1.5 B 450 And Non-Major CO2 in the Economies 0 atmosphere 300 2007 2023 2038 2054 2069 2085 2100 Time (year) 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

Model Structure Specific country Developing Other emissions major GHGs economies Specific country Total fossil emissions fuel CO 2 Carbon Developed Climate emissions cycle Temp major GHGs economies in atm Specific country Land use Non emissions CO 2 emissions major CO 2 economies Sequestration Changes to: Forests Aforestation Deforestation

US and EU: Steady Growth in Emissions 12 B Fossil Fuel Emissions 9 B TonsC/year 2 r e h t O Other 1 6 B 3 B EU US 0 1915 1935 1955 1975 1995 2015 Source: CDIAC, WEO, Pangaea

China and India: Emissions Rising 12 B Fossil Fuel Emissions 9 B TonsC/year 2 r e h t O Other 1 6 B a i d n I China 3 B EU US 0 1915 1935 1955 1975 1995 2015 Source: CDIAC, WEO, Pangaea

Rest of World Emissions Rising 12 B Fossil Fuel Emissions 9 B TonsC/year 2 r e h t O Other 1 6 B a i d n I China 3 B EU US 0 1915 1935 1955 1975 1995 2015 Source: CDIAC, WEO, Pangaea

Emissions from Global Deforestation 12 B 9 B e s U d n TonsC/year 2 a L r e h t O Other 1 6 B a i d n I China 3 B EU US 0 1915 1935 1955 1975 1995 2015 Source: CDIAC, WEO, Pangaea

Emissions Trends to 2100 CO2 Emissions 32 B Business as usual 28 B 24 B 20 B TonsC/year 16 B CO2 Emissions 12 B 12 B 9 B TonsC/year 8 B 6 B 4 B 3 B 0 0 1915 1935 1955 1975 1995 2015 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 Time (year) Time (year) Source: CDIAC, WEO, Pangaea (based on A1FI)

80% Reduction by Nation CO2 Emissions 32 B 28 B 24 B 20 B TonsC/year 16 B 12 B 8 B 4 B 0 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 Time (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 TonsC/year 16 B 12 B US and EU reduction 8 B 4 B 0 2000 2013 2025 2038 2050 2063 2075 2088 2100 Time (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

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 tonsC/year 15 B 10 B 5 B 0 1900 1940 1980 2020 2060 2100 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 ppm 600 500 400 300 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 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 degrees C 3 2 1 0 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 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