Expert Meeting on “ Expert Meeting on “Developing visions for a Low Developing visions for a Low- - Carbon Society through sustainable development Carbon Society through sustainable development” ” Tokyo, 14- -16 June 2005 16 June 2005 Tokyo, 14 Emissions Scenarios: SRES, Emissions Scenarios: SRES, post- -SRES, MA, SRES, MA, post UNEP/GEO, and LCA UNEP/GEO, and LCA Mikiko Kainuma Mikiko Kainuma National Institute for Environmental Studies National Institute for Environmental Studies http://www-iam.nies.go.jp/aim/ 1
Scenarios Scenarios � Provide a framework for decision making Provide a framework for decision making � which illuminates the impact associated which illuminates the impact associated with alternative courses of action with alternative courses of action � Facilitate the interpretation of possible Facilitate the interpretation of possible � future states future states � Include elements that cannot be formally Include elements that cannot be formally � modeled modeled � Aimed at challenging prevailing mind sets Aimed at challenging prevailing mind sets � Source: Nakicenovic Nakicenovic, 2005 , 2005 Source:
Previous developed and used scenarios by IPCC 1990 1992 1995 1996 2000 2001 2004 ???? Six IS92 scenarios Evaluation Scenarios TAR Start writing AR5 Based on ??????? Start writing AR4 Panel decision Based on SRES Four SA90 scenarios new scenarios Start reviewing post-SRES scenarios and updating database Special Report Emissions Scenarios ( SRES) INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)
Purposes of Emissions Purposes of Emissions Scenarios Scenarios � Purpose 1: Evaluate the environmental and climatic Purpose 1: Evaluate the environmental and climatic � consequences of “ non- -intervention intervention ” ” futures futures consequences of “ non � Purpose 2: Evaluate the environmental and climatic Purpose 2: Evaluate the environmental and climatic � consequences of “ intervention ” ” futures futures consequences of “ intervention � Purpose 3: Examine the feasibility and costs of Purpose 3: Examine the feasibility and costs of � mitigating GHGs GHGs from different regions and sectors from different regions and sectors mitigating � Purpose 4: Negotiate possible emissions reductions Purpose 4: Negotiate possible emissions reductions � for different countries and regions for different countries and regions Source: IPCC, 1995 Source: IPCC, 1995
Purposes of Emissions Scenarios Purposes of Emissions Scenarios (Together with Climate Projections) (Together with Climate Projections) SA90 IS92 SRES TAR SA90 IS92 SRES TAR Purpose 1 Yes Yes Yes No Purpose 1 Yes Yes Yes No “non non- -intervention intervention” ” “ Purpose 2 Yes No No Yes Purpose 2 Yes No No Yes “intervention intervention” ” “ Purpose 3 No No No Yes (?) Purpose 3 No No No Yes (?) feasibility and costs feasibility and costs from different regions from different regions and sectors and sectors Purpose 4 Purpose 4 No (?) No (?) No (?) No (?) No (?) No (?) No (?) No (?) "Negotiation" "Negotiation" Source: Nakicenovic Nakicenovic, 2005 , 2005 Source:
Alternative Scenario Formulations Alternative Scenario Formulations Quantitative Models Scenarios Stories Qualitative Source: IPCC SRES, 2000 Source: IPCC SRES, 2000
SRES: Socioeconomic development scenarios for climate change prediction A1T A1T A1B A1B economy A1 A2 A2 A1FI A1FI globalism regionalism B2 B1 environment Population Agriculture(land use) Economic growth Energy Technology 7 Driving Forces Source: IPCC SRES
Global Population Projections Global Population Projections World Population (SRES, n=40) (pre SRES, n=62) 20 pre SRES range 15 billion 10 pre SRES SRES 5 0 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Source: Nakicenovic Nakicenovic et al., 2006 et al., 2006 Source:
Global Population Projections Global Population Projections World Population (post SRES, n=168) (pre SRES, n=62) 20 pre SRES range 15 billion 10 pre SRES post SRES 5 0 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Source: Nakicenovic Nakicenovic et al., 2006 et al., 2006 Source:
Global Population Projections Global Population Projections World Population (post SRES, non intervention, n=64) 20 pre SRES range post SRES, non intervention range Median 15 billion 10 pre SRES post SRES 5 0 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Source: Nakicenovic Nakicenovic et al., 2006 et al., 2006 Source:
Gross World Product Gross World Product Range Across Emissions Scenarios Range Across Emissions Scenarios World GDP (SRES, n=40) (pre SRES, n=151) 800 pre SRES range 700 600 500 trillion 1990$ 400 300 SRES 200 pre SRES 100 0 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Source: Nakicenovic Nakicenovic et al., 2006 et al., 2006 Source:
Gross World Product Gross World Product Range Across Emissions Scenarios Range Across Emissions Scenarios World GDP (post SRES, n=194) (pre SRES, n=151) 800 pre SRES range 700 600 500 trillion 1990$ 400 300 200 post SRES pre SRES 100 0 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Source: Nakicenovic Nakicenovic et al., 2006 et al., 2006 Source:
Gross World Product Gross World Product Range Across Emissions Scenarios Range Across Emissions Scenarios World GDP (pre SRES, non intervention, n=113) 800 pre SRES range post SRES range 700 600 500 trillion 1990$ post SRES non intervention pre SRES non intervention 400 300 200 100 0 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Source: Nakicenovic Nakicenovic et al., 2006 et al., 2006 Source:
Carbon Emissions Carbon Emissions Range Across Emissions Scenarios Range Across Emissions Scenarios World CO2 emissions (pre SRES, non intervention, n=199) 80 70 60 50 Gt C 40 pre SRES non intervention 30 20 10 0 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Source: Nakicenovic Nakicenovic et al., 2006 et al., 2006 Source:
Carbon Emissions Carbon Emissions TAR Intervention Scenarios TAR Intervention Scenarios World CO2 emissions (tar, intervention, n=80) (SRES, n=40) 80 SRES range 70 60 50 Gt C 40 30 20 10 0 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Source: Nakicenovic Nakicenovic et al., 2006 et al., 2006 Source:
Difficulty of CO2 reduction depends on Difficulty of CO2 reduction depends on development path for future world development path for future world A1B A1T AIFI 40 40 40 Baseline 30 30 30 CO 2 emission (GtC) 20 20 20 Baseline Baseline 750 750 10 10 650 650 10 650 650 650 650 550 550 550 550 550 550 450 450 450 450 0 0 0 450 450 2000 2050 2100 2000 2050 2100 2000 2050 2100 B1 B2 A2 40 40 40 30 30 30 Baseline 20 20 20 Baseline 10 750 750 10 10 Baseline 650 650 550 550 550 550 550 550 450 450 450 450 0 0 0 2000 2050 2100 2000 2050 2100 2000 2050 2100 16 A1FI and A2 require much larger reduction than A1T and B1
Major findings of Post-SRES • Different development paths require different technology/ policy measures and show different costs of mitigation to stabilize atmospheric CO 2 concentrations • A portfolio of measures required for timely development, adoption and diffusion of mitigation options; Policy integration across an array of technologies, sectors and regions is the key to successful climate policies • However, associated socio-economic and institutional changes are required to realize the potential for the above stabilization in practice 17
Issues after Post-SRES • Greater need for the linkage of emission and impact analysis – Appropriate criteria of stabilization targets (ex. GHG concentration, radiative forcing, temperature change, rate of temperature change, sea level rise, rate of sea level rise) – Timing of mitigation (early vs. late) • Uncertainty in future technological advances ( risks of mitigation in later stage ) • Specific mitigation implementation strategies for achieving targets of 550 ppmv, 450 ppmv, etc. 18
Recent Stabilization Scenarios • Global level studies – e.g. MA, UNEP/GEO, EMF21, IEA/Energy to 2050, • Country level studies – Each country focusing on its own mitigation targets and ways to achieve them • Sector focused analysis – e.g. OECD/Environmentally Sustainable Transport 19
Recommend
More recommend
