National transition pathways – theoretical framework

Berlin

Cochin

Potsdam Hyderabad

Mumbai

kropp@pik-potsdam.de

Jürgen P. Kropp Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)

Climate Change & Development www.pik-potsdam.de/nsp

Amazon drought

2005

Soil Erosion Morocco 2006

Cyclon Nargis/Myanmar 2008

Sea Level Fiji 2008

Machu Picchu 2011

New Delhi Infrastructure 2008

Hyderabad 2010

Sahel Zone/Africa

European drought 2003

Definition: What are transition pathways? • Hypothetical pathways for a national economy that

considers climate protection and other near future sustainability targets

• If the assessment done properly trade-off analysis and the examination of synergies for certain kind of action should be feasible

• How to? Quantitatively, Qualitatively, mixed-approach

• Purpose: to underpin policy with a more scientifically sound basis – solution screening

Example: The Global Calculator: www.globalcalculator.org www.globalcalculator.org

IEA 6DS and lever controls

Lever 4 „Ambitious, but feasible“

Lever 1 „BAU“

IEA 6DS and lever controls

Freight dist. increase: 146% → 53%; calories: 2520 → 2100 cal/cap d; meat: 281 → 14 cal/cap d; meat type: red meat: 28% → 10%, population: 10.9 → 8.3bn

What can be done in Colombia and Peru?

• Similar economic structure

• Different spatial size of agriculture

• Similar Size, welfare indicators

What‘s about climate and sustainability?

Colombia • Climate Change: +1.4-2.5 °C/2050, rainfall variation ±6%, more heavy rain, decrease

in North increase in South • Agriculture: loss of coffee crop niches, migration towards higher altitudes • Forestry: deforestation rate 0.5% per year (due to cattle ranching, agriculture, mining

timber logging • Disaster losses: 0.5% GDP per year • Hydropower: 73% of total • Diversification: low, less specialised, 79% of exports depend on 10 products • Poverty line: 33% (2012) and further declining • Food security: 10% (2012) undernourishment • GHG emissions: increasing, but per cap. constant or even decreasing (~220 Mt in

2011, 0.45% of global, more than 50% from agriculture, forestry) • CDM portfolio: reduction potential 17.4 Mt CO2 Mitigation capacities: unexploited potential of hydropower, biofuel use Energy: Hydropower: 77% in 2020, 20% biofuels INDC: BAU 2030: 335 Mt CO2; 20% reduction: 270 MtCO2 CDM: 54.8 Mt CO2 in 2020

Compatibility?

1,63

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

1,20

1,40

1,60

1,80

2,00

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

tCO2/cap MtCO2e

Bunker Fuels (MtCO₂‍)

LUCF (MtCO₂‍)

Waste (MtCO₂e‍)

Agriculture (MtCO₂e‍)

Industrial Processes (MtCO₂e‍)

Energy (MtCO₂e‍)

tCO2 per capita

Emission targets per capita (tCO2) to keep below 2°C by 2050

Colombia

Colombia

Peru

• Climate Change: +1-4 °C/2050, Andes glaciers rapidly shrinking, 44mm precipitation decrease/decade central Andes (1970-2005), southern Andes -11-2mm/decade

• Agriculture: strong impact on S. Tuberosum, S juzepczuki • Forestry: deforestation rate is low (0.15%/yr), but increasing (fostered by weak land

tenure rights, illegal logging), Amazon carbon source, due to droughts • Disaster losses: sometimes very high due to ENSO • Diversification: low, less specialised, 80% of exports depend on 22 commodities • Poverty line: 26% (2012) and further declining • Food security: 12% (2012) undernourishment • GHG emissions: increasing, (~150Mt in 2011, 0.3% of global, more than 60% from

agriculture, forestry) INDC: BAU 2030 300 MtCO2: 30% reduction, 20% through investments, 10% international aid CDM: reduction of 47% CO2 in 2021/2000, deforestation = zero in 2021

1,97

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

1,20

1,40

1,60

1,80

2,00

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

tCO2/cap MtCO2e

LUCF (MtCO₂‍)

Waste (MtCO₂e‍)

Agriculture (MtCO₂e‍)

Industrial Processes (MtCO₂e‍)

Energy (MtCO₂e‍)

tCO2 per capita (excluding forestry and agriculture)

Emission targets per capita (tCO2) to keep below 2°C by 2050

Peru

Peru

So far the framing and now?

Analysing relationship between HDI and CO2 emissions show Kuznets Behaviour

Classical Kuznets Revised Kuznets

New toxics Pollution haven

Kornhuber et al. (2016) PNAS under review

We know the country dynamics.......

Kornhuber et al. (2016) PNAS under review

HDI

We can estimate compatibility of INDCs with the actual Kuznets dynamics (empirical & bootstrapping)

Kornhuber et al. (2016) PNAS under review

INDC as proposed by the US in Paris

INDC more ambitious as Kuznets dynamics

Global gross effect of Kuznets.....

Kornhuber et al. (2016) PNAS under review

What we need to know in order to check country trajectories whether are compatible with emission reduction targets.....

• Agricultural perspectives, planning • Energy planning • Demographic growth • Lifestyle changes, consumption changes • Human development perspective • Industry policy • Transport & infrastructure development • Economic perpectives

NB! There is still an emission gap of approx. ~ 50 %

Contact

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) Telegraphenberg A 31 14473 Potsdam - Germany

Prof. Dr. Jürgen P. Kropp Deputy Chair Research Domain II: Climate Impacts & Vulnerabilities Head: Climate Change & Development E-Mail: nsp@pik-potsdam.de

www.pik-potsdam.de/nsp

Questions?