CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Climate change:
the scientific essentials for a future framework
Diana Ürge-Vorsatz
March 13, Budapest
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Outline
Introduction Evidence of CC Future scenarios and impacts Costs of CC Emission reduction needs and
Fundamentals of mitigation Sharing the burden (opportunity?) in
CEE
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Introduction: the scientific basics
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Greenhouse effect
Greenhouse effect is a natural mechanism, which maintains the temperature of the Earth 33°C warmer than if it had no GHG “layer” (global average temperature is 15 °C).
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Global-average radiative forcing estimates and ranges:
Used to compare different drivers of climate change
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Global Warming Potential (GWP) weighted global greenhouse gas
emissions 1970-2004
Source: IPCC AR4 2007
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
The Evidence - Direct Observations of Recent Climate Change
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level.
The global average surface temperature has increased at the 100-year trend (1906–2005) of 0.74°C ± 0.18°C.
Source: Pachauri and Jallow, 2007.
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Projections of change and impacts
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Projections of Future Changes in Climate
For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.
Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.
The commitments to climate change after stabilisation of radiative forcing are expected to be about 0.5 to 0.6°C, mostly within the following century.
Source: Pachauri and Jallow, 2007.
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Projections of future changes in climate (selection)
Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized.
Temperatures in excess of 1.9 to 4.6°C warmer than pre-industrial sustained for millennia…eventual melt of the Greenland ice sheet. Would raise sea level by 7 m.
Source: IPCC, AR4, WG I. 2007
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITYSource: Stern Review, 2007.
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Projected warmingin 21st century expected to be greatest over land and at most high northern latitudes
and least over the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Atlantic Ocean
Projections of Future Changes in Climate
Source: IPCC, AR4, WG I. 2007.
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Projected change in precipitation for the period 2080 to 2099 relative to 1980 to 1999, SRES
A1B
Source: IPCC, AR4, WG I. 2007.
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Ecological vulnerability to future climate change
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Agro-economic vulnerability to future climate change (2061–2070) based on loss of agricultural productivity. Solar radiation, atmospheric CO2 concentration, temperature, soil moisture, nutrient availability, andfarming practices are represented using nonlinear (process-based or empirical) functions, implemented through the agricultural crops component in the LPJ model (Bondeau et al., 2007). Adaptation of farming practices is considered by allowing shifts in planting dates, varieties, and irrigation (Rosenzweig and Iglesias, 2003). If a significant yield loss in at least one important crop was identified in a country where the GDP share of agriculture is greater than 5%, then vulnerability was ranked as “high.” In the case of low dependency on agriculture and a decrease in only one significant crop yield (or no decrease at all), vulnerability was ranked as “low.” The remaining two combinations were ranked as “medium.”
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Temperature
This map illustrates what can be expected in
Europe by the end of the century, according to the IPCC scenario (SRES A2)
whereby no action is taken to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, so that the global mean temperature increases by about 3.4°C by the 2080s compared
to 1990 levels. Under this scenario, nearly all
European regions are expected to be
negatively affected and up to half of Europe’s plant species could be
vulnerable or threatened by 2080.
Source: Commission Adaptation Green Paper; 2007.
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
European heat-wave 2003 - estimation of return periods
extremelyrare
event
10 y10 y
1000 y1000 y
100 y100 ymean
Swiss Temperature Series 1864-2003 (mean of 4 stations)
More elaborate analysis shows it likely that most of the risk of the event due to increase in greenhouse gases - also that by 2050, likely to be average event and by 2100 a cool event (Stott et al 2004, Nature 432 610-614).
Source: Johansson, 2006, CEU lecture.
(Schär et al. 2004, Nature, 427, 332-336)
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
This map illustrates what can be expected in
Europe by the end of the century, according to the IPCC scenario (SRES A2)
whereby no action is taken to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, so that the global mean
temperature increases by about 3.4°C by the
2080s compared to 1990 levels. Under this
scenario, nearly all European regions are
expected to be negatively affected and up to half of Europe’s plant species could be
vulnerable or threatened by 2080.
Source: Commission Adaptation Green Paper; Marr, SUN presentation, 2007.
Precipitation
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Scenarios for future emissions and stabilisation targets
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Stabilisation and commitment to warming
Source: Stern Review, 2007.
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Projected CO2 emissions leading to stabilisation at different levels
IPCC AR4 (2007), WGI. The first figure shows the assumed trajectories of CO2 concentration (SP scenarios); the second shows the implied CO2 emissions, as projected with the Bern2.5CC EMIC. The upper and lower bounds are indicated by the top and bottom of the shaded areas. Alternatively, the lower bound (where hidden) is indicated by a dashed line.
The lower the stabilisation level the earlier global CO2 emissions have to peak
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Long term mitigation (after 2030)
Mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels
[1] The best estimate of climate sensitivity is 3ºC [WG 1 SPM].[2] Note that global mean temperature at equilibrium is different from expected global mean temperature at the time of stabilization of GHG concentrations due to the inertia of the climate system. For the majority of scenarios assessed, stabilisation of GHG concentrations occurs between 2100 and 2150.[3] Ranges correspond to the 15th to 85th percentile of the post-TAR scenario distribution. CO2 emissions are shown so multi-gas scenarios can be compared with CO2-only scenarios.
Source: IPPC, AR4, WG III, 2007.
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Stabilisation targets
Current evidence suggests a stabilisation need of 450 – 550ppm CO2-eq Anything higher has very harmful impacts Anything lower raises costs significantly and may
not even be feasible any more However, little can now be done to change
the likely adverse effects that some developing countries will face in the next few decades, and so some adaptation will be essential.
Strong and early mitigation is the only way to avoid some of the more severe impacts that could occur in the second half of this century.
Source: Stern Review, 2007. www.sternreview.org.uk
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Key challenge for appropriate response to climate change
Exceeding 2-2.5° C above 1750 levels would entail sharply increasing risk of intolerable impacts
Avoiding this will require prompt action
Two-pronged strategy: avoid the unmanageable (mitigation) and manage the unavoidable (adaptation)
Mitigation and adaptation measures should be integrated and reinforcing
Source: Urge-Vorsatz. 2007. Presentation of the UN SEG Report
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Costs of climate change
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Total cost of CC
The total cost of BAU CC is app. a 20% reduction in consumption per head, “now and into the future” (Stern Review, Executive summary, p. x)
Source: The Stern Review, 2007. www.sternreview.org.uk
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Illustration of costs numbers for stringent mitigation
GDP without mitigation
GDP with stringent mitigation
GDP
Time
80%
current
77%
~1 year
Source: IPPC, AR4, WG III, 2007.
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Mitigation strategies
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
The Three Key Pillars of Mitigation Strategies
1. Lowering the energy intensity of economic activity through increases in the efficiency of vehicles, buildings, appliances, and industrial processes
2. Lowering the carbon-emissions intensity of energy supply through additions of renewable and nuclear energy supply and through modifications to fossil fuel technologies that enable the capture and sequestration of CO2
3. Reducing the carbon emissions from land-use change by means of reforestation, afforestation, avoided deforestation, and improved soil-management practices in agriculture
Source: Urge-Vorsatz. 2007. Presentation of the UN SEG Report
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Sectoral economic potential for global mitigation for different regions as a function of carbon price,
2030
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Estimated potential for GHG mitigation at a sectoral level in 2030 in different cost
categories , transition economies
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Buidlings Industry Agriculture Energy supply Forestry Waste Transport
Gton CO2eq.
<20 <0 0-20 20-100
Cost categories* (US$/tCO2eq)
* For the buildings, forestry, waste and transport sectors, the potential is split into three cost categories: at net negative costs, at 0-20US$/tCO2, and 20-100 US$/tCO2. For the industrial, forestry, and energy suppy sectors, the potential is split into two categories: at costsbelow 20 US$/tCO2 and at 20-100 US$/tCO2.
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Mitigation portfolio for electricity, 2030
Improved energy-efficiency in buildings can supply the largest Improved energy-efficiency in buildings can supply the largest mitigation reduction, comparable to all renewable energy generation, mitigation reduction, comparable to all renewable energy generation,
and to other measures combinedand to other measures combined
Source: IPPC, AR4, WG III, 2007.
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Sharing the burden – or the opportunity?
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Per Capita and Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in Year 2000
Source: UN SEG 2007, www.confrontingclimatechange.org
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
CO2 emissions per capita
0 5 10 15 20 25
Nepal
Bangladesh
Kenya
India
Kyrgystan
Iraq
Thailand
Azerbaijan
China
Macedonia
Romania
Hungary
Bulgaria
Belarus
Serbia & Montegro
Slovakia
South Africa
EU-25
Greece
Israel
Japan
Czech Republic
Canada
US
tonnes per cap.
Source: IEA Key Statistics, 2007
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
CO2 per TPES
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Nepal
Kenya
Bangladesh
India
Kyrgystan
Slovakia
Canada
Thailand
Hungary
EU-25
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Japan
Romania
Bulgaria
US
Czech Republic
South Africa
Iraq
China
Israel
Macedonia
Serbia & Montegro
Greece
t CO2/ toe
Source: IEA Key Statistics,2007
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Emission reductions for Eastern Europe under different regimes
in comparison to baseline
2025
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0Preference
Score
Multi-Stage
BrazilianProposal
Per CapitaConvergence
Jacoby Rule
% 2050
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
BrazilianProposal
MultiStage
Per CapitaConvergence
PreferenceScore
Jacoby Rule
%
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Fossil CO2 emissions in Eastern Europe and FSU: different regimes
The purple line is the baseline
Source: Den Elzen et al 2003.
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
Conclusion
The evidence of anthropogenic climate change is now unequivocal
All countries in CEE are and will be badly affected, although severity and type of impacts vary
Avoiding dangerous impacts requires urgent and strong action today
Emission reduction needs for CEE in 2025 are 30 – 50%, while for above 80% for 2050
However, the AR4 concludes that this is feasible, and The costs of even the more ambitious stabilisation targets are not substantial if action starts today
Many mitigation options are associated with economic and social benefits. For instance, capturing the cost-effective potential in buildings can supply 38% of mitigation needs in 2030 for a 3C target. CEE has especially high potential.
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
THANK YOU FOR YOUR THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!ATTENTION!
For more questions:For more questions:[email protected]
CENTRAL
EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITY
References Publications: UN SEG. (2007). Confronting climate change challenge: Avoiding the
unmanageable, managing the unavoidable. Scientific Expert Group report on Climate Change and Sustainable Development. URL: http://www.unfoundation.org/files/pdf/2007/SEG_Report.pdf
Presentations: Johannson, T. B. (2006). Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change.
Lecture at the CEU, October 30, 2006. Pachauri, R. K. and Jallow, B. (2007). Climate change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Working group I contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Nairobi, 6 February, 2007. URL: http://www.ipcc.ch/present/presentations.htm Accessed on September 8, 2007.
Manning, M. (2007) Climate Change 2007: Observations and Drivers of Climate Change.
Graphics: Planets and atmospheres. (2000). In UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics
Library. Retrieved 02:48, September 9, 2007 from http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/planets_and_atmospheres.
Greenhouse effect. (2002). In UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library. Retrieved 15:16, September 8, 2007 from http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/greenhouse_effect.
Cooling factors. (2000). In UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library. Retrieved 23:29, September 10, 2007 from http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/cooling_factors.