EEA 29-30 June 2004 Copenhagen

EEA scenario 2005 project : sustainable emission pathways

Presentation by Hans Eerens

EEA-ETC/ACC, RIVM/MNP

It is not most important to predict the future,but to be prepared for it

Perikles (about 500-429 b. Chr.)

ETC/ACC partners and others involved:• RIVM: IMAGE/TIMER/FAIR/EUROMOVE models,

global scenarios, climate effects, coordination

• NTUA: PRIMES/GEM-E3/PROMETHEUS models, European energy system

• IIASA: RAINS model, European air quality

• AEAT: non-CO2 GHGs and non-energy CO2 emissions

• IPTS: POLES model, technology variants

• AUTH: OFIS model, transport & urban Air Quality

• NILU: Air Pollution State & policies

• CCE: Air pollution effects on ecosystems/critical loads

• EEA: project guidance, links with issues other than air and climate change

ETC/ACC SCENARIOS IN SUPPORT OF EEA SOEOR2005

Objectives:• Explore air pollution and climate change

implications of CAFE baseline and policy scenarios– Long-Range Energy Modelling (LREM)– Clean Air For Europe Kyoto ratified (CAFE-KR)

• Explore alternative scenarios which meet sustainability goals also beyond CAFE

– Sustainable Emissions Pathways (SEP)

CAFE LREM

Dri

vin

g f

orc

es:

po

pu

lati

on

, ec

on

om

ic g

row

th

CAFE ETC/ACC for EEA/SoEOR2005

OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING SUSTAINABLE EMISSIONS PATHWAYS SCENARIO FOR EEA’S SOEOR2005 REPORT

CAFE LREM-E

Add 2030-2100

Add non CO2 GHGs

NEC targets? Yes

Kyoto targets? No

LREM-E/LE SEP-LELow Economic growth

Sustainable Emissions Pathways

scenario (SEP)

Energy system details and variants

NEC targets? Yes

Kyoto targets? Yes*

long-term targets? Yes

CAFE KR

NEC targets? Yes

Kyoto targets? Yes*

long-term targets? No

THREE TIMEFRAMES FOR SOEOR2005 ANALYSIS

0

120

1990 1997 2003 2007 2010 2017 2023 2030 2050 2070 2080 2100year

Ind

ica

tor

va

lue

do

me

sti

c G

HG

em

iss

ion

s E

U-

15

/OE

CD

Eu

rop

e

LREM-E: existing policies, no kyoto implementation

CAFE-KR full implementation kyoto, NECHistorical trend

Short termCost-effectivinessFocus on pressures

Medium-termFocus on pressures, impact

Long termSustainability/infrastructureFocus on driving forces/impact

IMAGE/SEP.

Sustainable emission window paths (2 degree target)

PRIMES/SEP

TOOLS USED FOR SOEOR2005 MODEL ANALYSIS

OFIS

AQ Impacts

GEM-E3 PROMETHEUS

SEP

EMEP model

Indicator unit2000 2030 2000 2030 2050

All scenariosHouseholds Billion 0,19 0,23 0,7Population Billion 0,45 0,46 0,03 1 6,1 8,2 9

LREM/SEP scenariosGDP/cap 1000 pppEuro2000 20,5 41,6 2,4 2,4 5,3 10,6 14,4LREM/SEP-LE scenarios

GDP/cap 1000 pppEuro2000 20,5 34,7 1,7 1,8 5,3 8,9 12,1LREM-E scenario

CO2/cap ton CO2/cap 8,1 9,4 0,5 0,8 4,6 5,9 6,3CO2eq/cap ton CO2eq/cap 10,3 11,7 0,4 0,8 6,2 7,8 8,2CO2 emission index 1990=100 97 114 0,6 1,9 105 181 210CO2eq emission index 1990=100 95 108 0,4 1,7 106 176 205Primary Energy demand Mtoe 1650 1960 0,6 1,8 9800 17000 22000

liguid fuels % (EU30) 38,3 34,9 -0,3 -0,2 38,7 36,2 29,1natural gas % (EU30) 22,4 32,2 1,3 0,5 20,9 24,4 30,9

nuclear % (EU30) 13,7 8,4 -1,6 -0,6 2,2 1,8 1,8renewables % (EU30) 7,1 9,4 1 -0,7 14,6 11,7 12,2Solid fuels % (EU30) 18,6 15 -0,7 0,3 23,4 25,8 26

SEP scenarioCO2 reduction, burden index 1990=100 95 62 -1,4 0,5 105 121 68CO2,domestically (TIMER) index 1990=100 95 74 -0,7CO2 domestically (PRIMES) index 1990=100 97 89 -0,3CO2eq emission (PRIMES) index 1990=100 95 84 -0,4 0,3 105 115 76CO2/cap ton CO2/cap 8,1 7,3 -0,3 -0,5 4,6 4 2CO2eq/cap ton CO2eq/cap 10,3 9 -0,3 -0,6 6,2 5,1 3,1Primary Energy demand Mtoe 1650 1800 0,3 0,8 9600 12200 12300

liguid fuels % (EU30) 38,3 35,2 -0,3 -0,5 38,7 33,8 24,8natural gas % (EU30) 22,4 33,5 1,4 1,0 20,9 28,3 28,4

nuclear % (EU30) 13,7 11,4 -0,6 1,1 2,2 3 6,4renewables % (EU30) 7,1 14 2,3 0,6 14,6 17,5 28,1Solid fuels % (EU30) 18,6 5,9 -3,6 -1,0 23,4 17,5 12,2

Europe (EU25)

2000-30annual change (%)

Global

ECONOMIC GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOEOR2005

European economic growth assumptions for LREM-E, CAFE-KR and SEP well in range of other projections, ranking moderate

optimistic

POPULATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOEOR2005

PRIMARY ENERGY DEMAND IN EU-15 AND EU10 FOR LREM-E, CAFE-KR AND SEP

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090

GH

G e

mis

sio

ns

(G

tCO

2-eq

)

LREM

A1b

B1

A2

B2

LREM emissions compared to SRES scenarios

LONG-TERM OBJECTIVE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

Objective adopted by EU

• The EU long-term climate objective of 2oC is roughly consistent with stabilisation of CO2equivalent concentrations at 550 ppm for low to medium estimates of the climate sensitivity

IPCC

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

2000 2100 2200 2300 2400

Tem

per

atu

re in

crea

se (

Deg

rees

C)

Temperature increase

LREM-E

S650e

SEP

pre-industrial level

• To explore and evaluate the environmental and abatement costs implications of possible future international climate policy regimes for differentiation of mitigation commitments

• The model is not made to promote any particular regime, but to allow for comparing regimes in consistent and transparent way

Objective FAIR 2.0

Global emission profile

Regional emissions targets

Regional GHG emissions after trade

Climate assessmentmodel

Per capita Convergence

Multi-stageapproach

emission intensity system

CLIMATE MODEL

Global emission profile

Abatement costs & permit price

DATASETS

EMISSIONS ALLOCATION MODEL

Mitigation costs & Emissions trade

EMISSION TRADE & COST MODEL

Historicalemissions

BrazilianProposal

Triptych approach

Baselinescenario

Emissionsprofile

MACs

FAIR 2.0 model

Global emission reduction objective

FAIR website: www.rivm.nl/fair

IMPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENT GLOBAL BURDEN SHARING OBJECTIVES FOR EUROPEAN EMISSIONS ALLOWANCES

For SoEOR2005, without prejudging negotiations outcomes, assume: -20% by 2020 and, -40 % by 2030 as a sustainability

benchmark when evaluating scenarios

Burden sharingapproach

2010 2020 2030 2050 gasses Remarks

C&C2100 -15 -34 -58 6 GHG’s No land-use related CO2

C&C2075 -9 -18 -38 -64 6 GHG’s No land-use related CO2

Multi stage 2 -9 -18 -46 -72 6 GHG’s No land-use related CO2

Multi stage 1 -9 -21 -48 -71 6 GHG’s No land-use related CO2

Multi stage 3 -9 -24 -51 -68 6 GHG’s No land-use related CO2

C&C2050 -24 -46 -76 6 GHG’s No land-use related CO2

Jacoby rule -11 -25 -55 -80 CO2 Only energy CO2

Brazilian Proposal -11 -31 -80 -133 CO2 Only energy CO2

Preference score -10 -39 -63 -81 CO2 Only energy CO2

CO2-eq. Emissions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050time (years)

GtCO2/ yr reduction for S550e profile (SEP) (%)

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

2025 2050

1990

LREM-E

SEP

LREM-E

Em

issi

ons

Gt

CO

2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

197090 10 30 50 70 90

Sinks

Carbon Capture

Fuelswitch

Solar, wind, nuclear

Biofuels

Efficiency improvementSEP

LREM-E

2100

2010 2020 2030 2050world 138 145 115 71EU25 90 82 58 36USA & Canada 121 101 71 39South-East +East Asia 203 203 168 133South Asia 206 253 243 267

CO2eq Energy, industry and non CO2 Land-use change

Permit prices assumed

CAFE-KR SEP SEP-LE SEP SEP-LEAssumed permit price at EU-level1 Assumed global

permit priceYear

Euro (2000)/ton CO2

Low medium High2010 6 12 18 12 6 5 22015 8 16 24 20 6 6 12020 10 20 30 30 20 25 152025 10 20 30 50 40 45 352030 10 20 30 65 55 60 502040 - - - 105 802050 - - - 115 952075 - - - 165 1052100 - - - 190 105

EU SD AND ADOPTED (2010)

ASSUMED (2020-30) ENERGY TARGETS

• EU Sustainable Development Strategy: 1%/yr GHG emissionreductions from 2012-2020 ; extended for SoEOR to 2030EU25(domestic): 2010 -5.3% 2020 -13% 2030 -23%

• EU Directive on renewables: electricity generation: 22.1% in 2010 (not met) extended for SoEOR to 27% by 2020 and 35% by 2030

;• EU Directive on biofuels in transport: 2% by 2005, 5.75% by 2010;

extended for SoEOR2005 to 7.5% by 2020 and 10% by 2030

• EU Directive on renewables: share of total energy use: 12% by

2010 (not met), at least 20%, we choose 15% (SEP 10%) by 2020; extended for SoEOR2005 to 20% ( SEP 13%) by 2030

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONSGHG emissions EU-15

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

MtC

O2/

yr

LREM-E CO2eq SEP CO2eq LREM-E CO2

CAFE-KR CO2 SEP CO2 Target EU-15/25

GHG emissions EU-25

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

LREM

SEP-Domestic

SEP

CO2

CO2eq

CO2eq

CO2

SEP

LREM

SEP-Domestic

In SEP GHGs domestic reduction 20-27 % (2030), supplemented with flexible mechanism to meet proposed targets SEP

As energy intensity improvements become more difficult and non-CO2 abatement options get exhausted, shift to fuel mix changes

• In LREM-E, Kyoto targets are not met.

• In CAFE-KR (carbon prices €12/tCO2eq in 2010, €20 in 2020/2030), Kyoto targets are assumed to be met by domestic measures plus significant usage of Kyoto mechanisms; emissions increase after 2010

• In SEP (carbon prices €12/tCO2eq in 2010, €30 in 2020 and €65 in 2030) emission allowances are in line with EU longer-term climate target, but use of the Kyoto mechanisms is still needed

• IN SEP, EU’s SD target (1% GHG reduction in 2010-2020) and renewable energy targets are not met -> technology variants (to be developed)

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS

• 2010 targets for NEC pollutants are assumed to be reached regardless of costs in CAFE

• Beyond 2010 emissions remain roughly stable in the scenarios

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030YEAR

kT S

(S

O2

), k

t N

(N

Ox,

NH

3), k

t (V

OC

)

CAFE-KR, VOC

CAFE-KR, SO2

CAFE-KR, NOx

CAFE-KR, NH3

Costs PRIMES uses behavioural costs (discount rates):

8% Large Utilities

12% Large industrial & commercial entities

17.5% Households spending

Recalculation to social costs (as in RAINS), 4% discount rate, assuming decisions have been taken)

(Billion Euro) 2010 2020 2030

Behavioural costs 26 30 21

Social costs 25 39 32

Declining energy costs results in less capital investments, counted more heavily in behavioural costs

GLOBAL CLIMATE IMPLICATIONS OF SCENARIOS

Rate of global temperature change

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

ch

an

ge

(o

C/d

ec

ad

e)

baseline

SEP

Global temperature change (compared to 1961-1990 average)

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

ch

an

ge

(o

C)

baseline

SEP

• In LREM-E, the EU climate goal is exceeded around 2050• In SEP, the global mean temperature increase remains

below the EU objective in this century• In SEP, also the rate of change is lowered to facilitate

adaptation of social and ecological systems

Percentage change in average annual water availability for European river basins as compared to today’s levels, realized with two different climate models (ECHAM4 and HadCM3) for the 2070s.

EXAMPLE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AT EUROPEAN LEVEL

LREM-E SEP

Climate Change induced Species disappearance 1995-2100

Database 1400 species, 270-1100 per country

223

55

196

520

188

-50 -25 0 25 50 75

X

2-4 (cold)

5

6

7-9 (warm)

change (%)

187

27

54

115

165

-5 0 5 10 15

x

1 - 3

4

5

6-8

change (%)

Changes in frequencies of groups of plant species adapted to ‘warm’and cold’conditions in theNetherlands (left) and a study area in Norway (right, according Ellenberg numbers. LowEllenberg represent plant groups that are accustomed to cold conditions, high numbers aregroups accustomed to warm (upper part) growing conditions. For the Netherlands the periods1975-1984 and 1985-1999 have been compared, for Norway 1958-1961 and 2000-2002Source: Tamis et al. , (2001), Often & Stabbetorp, (2003), EEA (2204)

UNCERTAINTY TREATMENT IN SOEOR2005

• Measuring and monitoring: are statistics/measurement data precise? – Noted, not addressed in report

• Representativess indicators: Are impacts avoided if climate/air quality goals are met? Is GDP an adequate measure for welfare?– Noted, not addressed in report

• Model dynamics: do models adequately represent real world?– Differences models (PRIMES, POLES, TIMER) discussed in report

• Assumptions about the future: how uncertain is the future?– No probabilities analysed– Results compared with other studies– Low economic growth variant; low/high carbon price sensitivities– Technology variants

SCENARIOS FOR SOEOR2005: PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 1

• Additional (global) action will be needed to facilitate a transition

to a more sustainable Europe in terms of air pollution and

climate change -> SEP

• In SEP carbon prices go from €12/tCO 2eq in 2010 to €65 in 2030,

cost-effective action requires a major part of the GHG emissions

reductions reached through international mechanisms.

SCENARIOS FOR SOEOR2005: PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 2

• SEP does initiate changes, but does not yet (2030) requires afundamental “transition” in the European energy system.

• A sustainability transition meeting all EU’s climate and energytargets appears to be feasible, but at significant costs (400Euro/household/year in 2030); there is not one optimal solution -> SEP variants.

• Integrated CC&AP policies can result in cost savings, avoidanceof trade-offs, and effective abatement of air pollutant and GHGemissions.

• A sustainability transition in Europe has to be viewed in a globalcontext.

• The costs for medium term GHG emissions reductions aresignificant dependent on the assumed economic growth, asshown by a lower economic growth variant.

SoEOR2005 variants2003:• Low economic growth• Renewables

Considered for 2004:• Hydrogen economy/C-capture-storage• CAP reform• Nuclear

– Phase-out– increased

• External/internal burden sharing regimes

LREM-E LOW ECONOMIC GROWTH VARIANT

• LREM-E assumes moderately optimistic GDP growth -> a similarly pessimistic variant has been explored

• In the low economic growth variant, the effect of lower activity levels outweighs the effect of slower technological development

• Hence, GHG emissions are significant lower than in the base case, making it easier to meet NEC and Kyoto targets

• The emissions in the energy-intensive industry, the power and transport sectors are particularly sensitive to economic growth assumptions??

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Series: GDP growth rate OECD EuropeSample 1 1000Observations 1000

Mean 1.968327Median 1.983300Maximum 3.951006Minimum 0.271533Std. Dev. 0.613173Skewness 0.065407Kurtosis 2.848421

Jarque-Bera 1.670359Probability 0.433797

Probability distribution of the 2000-2030 growth rate for OECD Europe

-40.0

-35.0

-30.0

-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

BU,RO,TU NO,SW EU-15 CCA Europe 30

2010 2020 2030

Change in GDP by region in Europe 30 (% difference from baseline levels)Source: PRIMES, GEM-E3

-6.9 -7.3

-3.9

-6.2

-4.5

-6.2-7.0

-2.2

-4.2

-12.6

-11.1

-8.2

-10.7

-7.0

-12.4-12.0

-5.6

-17.6

-15.4

-11.4

-14.6

-9.5

-17.2-16.6

-20.0

-18.0

-16.0

-14.0

-12.0

-10.0

-8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

GDP householdincome

metalindustries

chemicals otherenergy

intensiveindustries

non-energyintensiveindustries

services agriculture

2010

2020

2030

Change in GDP, private income and value added by sector in Europe 30 (difference frombaseline levels)

-6.9

-9.6

-12.0

-14.3

-16.6

-3.4

-12.7

-11.0

-9.2

-7.1

-5.0

-1.6

-11.3

-9.6

-7.9

-1.6

-6.1

-4.3

-18.0

-16.0

-14.0

-12.0

-10.0

-8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

GDPCO2 emissionsPrimary Energy demand

Europe 30 primary energy indicators in the low growth case (% change from baselinelevels)

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

90.0

95.0

100.0

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Energy intensityCarbon intensity

Baseline Low growth case

-279

-336

-41

-226

-112

-166-144

-305

-251

-198

-100

-26

-67

-212

-309

-425

-530

-641-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Demand side

Supply side

Total

Changes in CO2 emissions in Europe 30 in the low growth case (diff. from baseline in MtCO2)

AIR QUALITY TARGETSPollutant Value (average time) nr of exceedances allowed/min

exceedance areaTo bemet in

Human HealthOzone (T) 120 μg/m 3 (8h average) < 76 days/3 year 2010PM10 (LV) 50 μg/m 3 (24h average) < 36 days/year 2005PM10 (LV) 40 μg/m 3 (annual mean) None 2005SO2 (LV) 350 μg/m 3 (1h average) < 25 hours/year 2005SO2 (LV) 125 μg/m 3 (24h average) < 4 days /year 2005NO2 (LV) 200 μg/m 3 (1h average( < 19 hours/year 2010NO2 (LV) 40 μg/m 3 (annual mean) None 2010

Ecosystem protectionOzone(T) AOT40c of 18 (mg/m3).h (5 year average) Daylight hours May-July 2010Ozone AOT40c of 6 (mg/m3).h (5 year average over

22500 km2)Reduction >33% compared to1990

2010

Acifidication Critical load exceedances (year, averagedover 22500 km2)

Reduction >50% compared to1990

2010

NOx(LV) 30 μg/m 3 (annual mean) > 1000 km2 2001SO2(LV) 20 μg/m 3 (annual mean) > 1000 km2 2001SO2((LV) 20 μg/m 3 (winter average) > 1000 km2 2001

Long-term targets

PM10 50 μg/m 3 (24h average) None -

PM10 20 μg/m 3 (annual mean) None -

Ozone 120 μg/m 3 (8h average) None -

Ozone AOT40c of 6 (mg/m3).h (5 year average) Daylight hours May-July -Acifidication Critical load exceedances (year) None -Eutrophication Critical load exceedances (year) None -

DRIVING FORCES, PRESSURE, STATE, IMPACTS AND RESPONSES IN SOEOR2005

POPULATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOEOR2005

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-1 GHG emissions of the LREM-E scenarioby region

CO2 emissions(in GtCO2 per year)

GHG emissions(in GtCO2-eq per year) *

1995 2025 2050 1995 2025 2050Canada & USA 6.10 8.09 8.40 7.55 9.50 9.58Enlarged EU 4.36 5.10 5.32 5.38 6.00 6.05FSU 2.32 3.24 3.59 3.20 4.50 4.71Oceania 0.33 0.54 0.64 0.53 0.79 0.87Japan 1.26 1.48 1.41 1.37 1.58 1.51Latin America 1.18 2.89 5.11 2.33 4.54 7.00Africa 0.79 2.32 4.52 1.60 4.17 7.32ME & Turkey 1.06 2.85 4.36 1.35 3.69 5.73South Asia 0.97 3.79 7.46 2.11 5.54 9.44SE & E Asia 4.62 11.36 16.03 6.64 14.42 19.28World 22.99 41.65 56.83 32.06 54.74 71.48

LREM scenario

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-1: Trends in atmosphericconcentration of different greenhouse gases between 1990 and 2100 for the LREM-E andSEP scenario

Year CH4

(ppb)N2O(ppb)

O3

(Du)F-gases(ppt)1

LREM-E SEP LREM-E SEP LREM-E SEP LREM-E SEPHistoric 700 Id 270 Id 16 Id 0 Id1990 1687 Id 308 Id 32 Id 9 + 1813 Id2000 1825 Id 314 Id 33 Id 35 + 1947 Id2010 2016 1989 321 Id 35 Id 140 + 1998 Id2020 2246 2025 330 329 36 35 302+ 1899 259+18942030 2458 1944 340 338 36 33 524+1707 319+16882050 2691 1699 361 350 37 30 1126+1147 499+13932075 2655 1552 389 364 36 29 1736+1293 628+11872100 2552 1453 416 376 35 28 1892+1271 568+1069

1 Two numbers are given for F gases. The first number represents the concentration of F gases under theKyoto protocol (e.g. HFC’s), the latter number represents F gases under the 1987 Montreal protocol (e.g.HCFC’s)

Changes in growing season throughout Europe for the LREM-E (left)

and SEP (right) scenario (2100 compared to 1990). Unit: days per year

Temperature increase in 2100 in LREM-E (LEFT) and SEP (right) for different regions in theworld (compared to 1990), ranging from 0-1 oC (blue areas) to 5-6 oC (red areas)