quantification of the mitigation impact of the 2030 ... · chamber of commerce 30161191 the...
TRANSCRIPT
Quantification of the mitigation impact
of the 2030 recommendations
Final report
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com
Chamber of Commerce 30161191
Quantification of the mitigation impact
of the 2030 recommendations Final report
By: Kornelis Blok, Heleen Groenenberg, Matthieu Bardout, Bram Smeets
Date: 24 June 2015
Project number: INTNL15824
© Ecofys 2015 by order of: The New Climate Economy
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com
Chamber of Commerce 30161191
Summary
The New Climate Economy contracted Ecofys to carry out an independent evaluation of the mitigation
impact of eight of the ten recommendations included in this report. (Recommendations 2 and 9 on
infrastructure and innovation were not included in the assessment. Recommendation 2 refers to general
policy principles for which the mitigation impact cannot be quantified. Recommendation 9 regards
technologies post 2030 extends beyond the time frame of the analysis).
Findings
Ecofys calculated the total mitigation impact of these recommendations to be between 16 and 26 Gt
CO2. This estimate considers the specific mitigation impacts of each recommendation and overlaps
between them. The analysis shows that the recommendations have the potential to close a large share
of the emissions gap in 2030, as illustrated below.
Figure 1: Individual and cumulative mitigation impact of NCE’s recommendations (note: the values provided are
medians. For the full range, see the quantifications of individual recommendations)
Approach
The general approach for estimating the mitigation impact of NCE’s recommendations was:
1. Define a business-as-usual baseline for emissions in the target year;
2. Determine what the emission reduction trajectory will be in case of full execution of the
recommendation, as put forward by NCE; and
3. Calculate the mitigation impact as the difference between the baseline and emission reduction
trajectory in the target year.
This general approach was applied separately to each recommendation on the basis of various
assumptions and corrections. Overlaps between recommendations were estimated, and deducted from
the initial estimate of the total mitigation impact of the recommendations. This was done to arrive at a
conservative final estimate for the total mitigation impact. To reflect uncertainties in both the baseline
and the emission reduction trajectory, estimates are provided as ranges.
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com
Chamber of Commerce 30161191
Baseline
In its latest Emissions Gap Report, UNEP indicates that 2030 emissions consistent with a 2°C target
are approximately 42 Gt CO2, with a range from 30 to 44 Gt CO2 (UNEP, 2014). 2030 emissions under
a business-as-usual scenario in the UNEP study are assumed equal to the median baseline in the IPCC’s
Fifth Assessment Report and amount to 69 Gt CO2. On this basis, UNEP (2014) estimates the ‘emissions
gap’ relative to a business as usual trajectory around 27 Gt CO2.
As a basis for quantifying the mitigation impact from each of the recommendations in our study an
elaborated and well documented baseline is needed. The median baseline in the IPCC AR5 database
does not include detailed information about the assumptions. Therefore, the baseline used for the
purpose of quantifying the impact of the recommendations was constructed as an aggregate of the
following:
45.1 Gt CO2 for energy-related CO2 emissions, as per the 6DS scenario detailed in the IEA’s
Energy Technology Perspectives (IEA, 2014);
3.5 Gt CO2 for non-energy CO2 emissions, as estimated from the median baseline used by the
IPCC in its latest report (IPCC, 2014a); and
15.4 Gt CO2 for non-CO2 emissions, as per the EPA’s latest estimates (EPA, 2012).
This baseline combines widely acknowledged and broadly used projections from the leading institutions,
the scenarios are well-documented and provide detail on underlying assumptions, and most
recommendations can be examined with reference to the 6DS scenario.
The resulting aggregated mitigation impact in this study can be considered a conservative estimate, as
it is based on the assumption of a baseline with total emissions of 64 Gt CO2 in 2030. The slightly higher
median baseline in IPCC AR5 (with 69 Gt CO2 in 2030) reflects higher activity levels and/or higher
carbon intensities. This implies a higher emissions reduction potential, and the possibility to bridge an
even larger part of the emissions gap, then what we found using a baseline with 64 Gt CO2 in 2030.
Assumptions & methodology
For recommendations on clean energy financing, energy efficiency, carbon pricing, business, maritime
and aviation, Ecofys performed calculations independently using existing data, models and studies. For
others, Ecofys reviewed and consolidated the work of other external consultants, ensuring consistency
and comparability.
Cities – 3.7 Gt CO2
The Commission recommends that all cities commit to developing and implementing low-carbon
development strategies by 2020 using the framework of the Compact of Mayors, prioritising policies
and investments in public and non-motorised transport, building efficiency, renewable energy and
efficient waste management.
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com
Chamber of Commerce 30161191
The mitigation impact was based on a study by SEI, which explores the extent to which urban policies
and programmes can contribute to climate mitigation in the building, transport and waste sectors (SEI,
2014). The study uses a baseline consistent with the ETP’s 4DS.1
Degraded land & forests – 3.3 – 9.0 Gt CO2
The Commission recommends that governments, multilateral and bilateral finance institutions and
willing investors work together in regional and national partnerships to mobilise investment to restore
lost or degraded forest and agricultural lands towards a target of restoring at least 500 million hectares
globally by 2030. Advanced economies and developing countries should enter into bilateral and
regional forest partnership agreements, supported by commodity supply chain commitments by the
private sector, aiming to reduce carbon emissions by at least 1 gigatonne per year by 2020.
The total impact from restoration of (i) degraded agricultural land (150 million hectares) at 0.5–1.7 Gt
CO2 per year, and (ii) degraded forest (350 million hectares) at 1.2–2.9 Gt CO2 per year, providing a
total range of 1.8–4.5 Gt CO2. For forestry, the abatement potential from halting net deforestation was
estimated at 1.6–4.4 Gt CO2 per year in 2030. Estimates for this recommendation were prepared for
the Better Growth, Better Climate report.
Clean energy financing – 5.5 - 7.5 Gt CO2
The Commission recommends that, to bring down the costs of financing clean energy and catalyse
private investment, multilateral and national development banks should scale up their collaboration
with governments and the private sector and their own capital commitments, with the aim of reaching
at least US$1 trillion of investment per year in low-carbon energy and energy efficiency by 2030.
The mitigation impact was derived based on the World Energy Investment Outlook (IEA, 2014) and the
World Energy Outlook (IEA, 2014). We assume an exponential growth path of investments, starting at
US$ 332 bln in 2014 an increasing to US$ 1 trillion investments per year in 2030. These funds will be
spent on renewables, industrial energy efficiency, energy efficiency in buildings, nuclear and CCS.
Because not all reductions in the 450 scenario are related to investments in these five classes, the
emission reductions in 2030 were obtained by making a correction to the projected emissions under
the 450 scenario. The resulting emissions are compared to the Current Policies scenario to determine
the impact of the measure.
Energy efficiency – 4.5 - 6.9 Gt CO2
The Commission recommends that the G20 and other countries converge their energy efficiency
standards in key sectors and product fields to the global best by 2025, and establish a global platform
under the G20 for greater alignment and continuous improvement of standards.
Existing studies were used to estimate the mitigation impact of the recommendation in four sectors:
Appliance, equipment & lighting (CLASP, 2011);
Industry, including only electric motors, which are the most likely target of standardisation
(ibid.);
1 This is a conservative estimate. If mitigation impact would be calculated relative to the 6DS scenario (which is the baseline used for all
other recommendations), a larger estimate would result.
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com
Chamber of Commerce 30161191
Transport including light–duty and heavy-duty vehicles (ICCT, 2014); and
Buildings, including only new buildings for which standards exist (GBPN, 2012; IEA, 2013b;
SEI, 2014).
Corrections were applied to the findings of these studies to ensure consistency and alignment with the
recommendation. These include a baseline correction to ensure alignment with the selected baseline
(IEA’s 6DS scenario), geographical corrections to include all / only G20 countries, a range correction
to reflect uncertainty, and a rebound correction to account for rebound effects.
Carbon pricing – 2.8 – 5.6 Gt CO2
The Commission recommends that all developed and emerging economies, at least, commit to
introducing or strengthening carbon pricing by 2020, and phase out fossil fuel subsidies.
The mitigation impact of carbon prices of 35 US$/tCO2 in developing countries and 75 US$/t CO2 in
developed countries was calculated using the IEA’s 6DS scenario as a baseline, interpolating from the
carbon prices and 2030 emissions from the 2DS scenarios. We assume different prices for the
developing and developed countries, and correct for the share of mitigation attributed to other policies
in this scenario. We arrive at an estimate of 2.8-5.6 Gt CO2. As a triangulation, similar assessment was
performed based on the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2014. We found that CO2prices as adopted in 430-
480 scenarios by IPCC (2014a) are similar to those in the 2DS scenario by IEA in the 2014 edition of
the Energy Technology Perspectives (IEA, 2014a). Therefore, we are confident that using IPCC
scenarios for this analysis would have resulted in similar estimates of GHG reductions.
For phasing out fossil fuel subsidies we consider an effect equal to the estimate from the Technical Note
to the report prepare by NCE (2014), which estimates the mitigation impact to be between 0.4 and 1.8
Gt CO2. Given the uncertainty around the extent of overlap between the carbon pricing and fossil fuel
subsidies estimates, we conservatively chose to exclude this from the impact of carbon pricing.
Business – 1.9 Gt CO2
The Commission recommends that all major businesses should adopt short- and long-term emissions
reduction targets and implement corresponding action plans, including on the evolution or transition of
their workforce, and all industry sectors and value-chains should agree roadmaps, consistent with the
long-term decarbonisation of the global economy. (Suggested addition: As part of this
recommendation, all companies in the Global 500 should adopt ambitious emission reduction targets.)
We evaluate the potential impact of a recommendation for the Global 500 to be 1.9 Gt CO2. Emission
growth until 2030 under business as usual is a based on the trend for industrial final energy demand
in the IEA ETP 6DS scenario. The estimate is based on the adoption of targets to reduce GHG emissions
by 30% in 2030. This is considered in line with typical targets set by companies for 2020 (around 22-
23%).
Aviation and maritime – 0.6 – 0.9 Gt CO2
The Commission recommends that greenhouse gas emissions from the international aviation and
maritime sectors be reduced in line with a 2°C pathway through action under the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) to implement a market-based mechanism and aircraft efficiency standard,
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com
Chamber of Commerce 30161191
and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) through a fuel efficiency standard,
respectively.(IMO) through a fuel efficiency standard, respectively.
Ecofys carried out the analysis for the sub-recommendations on aviation and maritime transportation.
The mitigation impact from aviation results from modelling by ICAO on the impacts of a market-
based mechanism capping emissions at 2020 levels (ICAO, 2013). A correction was applied to
the findings of this study, which presents results for the year 2036.
For the maritime sector, energy efficiency gains are estimated based on existing policies and
additional potential for new and existing ships, based on a study by the ICCT (2014).
Corrections were applied to the findings of this study to ensure consistency with the
recommendation.
Hydrofluorcarbons – 1.1 – 1.7 Gt CO2
The Commission recommends that the Parties to the Montreal Protocol approve an amendment to
phase down the production and use of HFCs.
The analysis for HFCs was carried out by the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development. For
the impact of phasing down high GWP hydrofluorcarbons use was made of a study by Velders et al
(2009) who elaborated new HFC baseline (high and low growth) and phasedown scenarios. The
phasedown scenario closely represents what could be expected from an amendment within the Montreal
Protocol.
Overlaps
Overlaps were treated conservatively and the total overlap between NCE’s recommendations was
estimated to be between 7.7 and 11 Gt CO2. The following overlaps are excluded:
Cities vs. energy efficiency & clean energy financing - The mitigation impact for cities
overlaps with the impacts of clean energy financing (heating retrofits and fuel switching in the
buildings sector) and energy efficiency (various measures in the building and transport
sectors). We excluded this overlap (3.1 Gt CO2) entirely from the total mitigation impact.
Energy efficiency vs. clean energy financing - The mitigation impact from energy efficiency
in buildings overlaps with the impact from clean energy financing for the buildings sector. We
excluded this overlap (0.6-1.0 Gt CO2) entirely from the total mitigation impact.
Carbon pricing vs. other recommendations - The specific mitigation impact of carbon prices
cannot be isolated from the impact of other measures. We conservatively removed the entire
mitigation impact from carbon pricing (2.8-5.6 Gt CO2) from the total mitigation impact.
Business vs. other recommendations - It is likely that the adoption of emission reduction
targets by leading companies will be additional to government action, but also overlap with
other recommendations. We excluded 50% of the estimated mitigation impact of the
recommendation for business (i.e. 50% of 1.9 Gt CO2).
Aviation vs. other recommendations – It is likely that a very substantial share of reductions
in the aviation sector will be realized through offsetting. We conservatively excluded all of the
mitigation impact for aviation (0.2-0.3 Gt CO2) from the total mitigation impact.
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com
Chamber of Commerce 30161191
Additional note
We stress that the recommendations quantified in this report does include an explicit recommendation
for the power sector. Nevertheless, emission reductions in the power sector would be realized through
several recommendations, notably through carbon pricing, which should lead to a further upscaling of
low carbon electricity. Furthermore, a reduced demand for electricity following the recommendation on
energy efficiency will also lead to reduced emissions from the power generation sector. Finally, a
reduced energy demand and a greater use of renewable energy in cities and business would also
contribute to reduce emissions from conventional power generation. Further emission reductions in the
power generation sector are however possible beyond the scope of these recommendations.
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com
Chamber of Commerce 30161191
Table of contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Methodology and baseline 2
2.1 Overview of the methodology 2
2.2 Baseline and relevant scenarios 2
3 Quantification of 2030 recommendations 6
3.1 Cities 6
3.2 Forests & degraded land 6
3.3 Clean energy financing 8
3.4 Energy efficiency 12
3.5 Carbon pricing 18
3.6 Climate-smart infrastructure 20
3.7 Innovation 20
3.8 Business 21
3.9 Aviation & maritime 22
3.10 Hydrofluorcarbons 24
4 Overlaps 25
5 Conclusions 27
6 References 29
INTNL15824 1
1 Introduction
This report was compiled by Ecofys to support the New Climate Economy (NCE) and the publication of
a forthcoming report on the role of international collaboration in climate action, which provides ten
recommendations to catalyse international climate action.
The work presented in this report provides an evaluation of the mitigation impact of eight of the ten
recommendations to be proposed in the forthcoming NCE report, building on work carried out for Better
Growth, Better Climate, published in September 2014. It combines findings and analysis carried out by
Ecofys and work carried out by external consultants on behalf of NCE, which was verified and
consolidated by Ecofys. The roles and responsibilities of Ecofys and other external consultants are
presented in the following table.
Table 1: Roles and responsibilities
Recommendation Roles & responsibilities
R1: Cities Led by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and reviewed by Ecofys.
R2: Degraded land &
forests
The sub-recommendation on degraded land was led by the World Resources
Institute (WRI) and reviewed by Ecofys. The sub-recommendation on forests was
led by Climate Advisers and reviewed by Ecofys.
R3: Clean Energy
Financing Led by Ecofys.
R4: Energy Efficiency Led by Ecofys.
R5: Carbon Pricing Led by Ecofys.
R6: Climate Smart
Infrastructure These recommendation refers to general policy principles and their mitigation
impact was not quantified. R7: Innovation
R8: Business Led by Ecofys.
R9: Aviation & maritime Led by Ecofys.
R10: HFCs The HFCs component was led by the Institute for Governance and Sustainable
Development (IGSD) and reviewed by Ecofys.
The report is structured as follows:
Chapter 2 offers an overview of the methodology and provides information on the rationale
for selecting a baseline;
Chapter 3 details the methodology and findings for each recommendation;
Chapter 4 reviews overlaps between the recommendations; and
Chapter 5 aggregates findings and draws conclusions on the potential mitigation to be
expected from of NCE’s recommendations.
INTNL15824 2
2 Methodology and baseline
2.1 Overview of the methodology
The general approach for estimating the mitigation impact of NCE’s recommendations was:
1. Define a business-as-usual baseline for emissions in the target year;
2. Determine what the emission reduction trajectory will be in case of full execution of the
recommendation, as put forward by NCE; and
3. Calculate the mitigation impact as the difference between the baseline and emission reduction
trajectory in the target year.
Such baselines are based on existing scenarios, as described in Chapter 3.
When possible, the mitigation trajectory and expected emissions in the target year were estimated
using existing studies and modelling work, applying corrections as needed to adequately reflect the
scope of NCE’s recommendations. In some cases, expected emissions were derived by our own
calculations, applying specific assumptions and corrections to available scenarios, models and data.
To reflect uncertainties in both the baseline and the emission reduction trajectory, we provide our
estimates as ranges where possible.
2.2 Baseline and relevant scenarios
The work presented in this report collates findings from different studies. Establishing a coherent
baseline is thus pivotal to ensuring transparency and consistency.
A number of scenarios developed or aggregated by leading organisations and institutions such as the
IPCC, IEA and EPA provide a range of estimates for global anthropogenic GHG emissions, which are
quantified in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (t CO2) and divided in three categories:
Energy-related CO2 emissions, principally resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels;
Non-energy CO2 emissions, largely related to land-use changes; and
Non-CO2 emissions, resulting from industrial processes, agriculture, waste as well as energy2.
This section details the baseline used in this study, provides a comparison with other studies and
describes the most relevant scenarios for energy-related emissions, which represent the largest share
of the mitigation impact of NCE’s recommendations.
2 Non CO2 GHGs covered by the UNFCCC include: methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs),
and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
INTNL15824 3
2.2.1 Selected baseline
In its latest Emissions Gap Report, UNEP indicates that 2030 emissions consistent with a 2°C target
are approximately 42 Gt CO2, with a range from 30 to 44 Gt CO2 (UNEP, 2014). 2030 emissions under
a business-as-usual scenario in the UNEP study are assumed equal to the median baseline in the IPCC’s
Fifth Assessment report and amount to 69 Gt CO2. On this basis, UNEP (2014) estimates the ‘emissions
gap’ relative to business-as-usual scenarios around 27 Gt CO2. NCE’s Better Growth, Better Climate
report (2014) estimate the ‘emissions gap’ as 26 Gt CO2 for 2030, relative to the IPCC’s mitigation
trajectory with a likely chance of meeting the 2°C target.3 These numbers are consistent.
As a basis for quantifying the mitigation impact from each of the recommendations in our study an
elaborated and well documented baseline is needed. The median baseline in the IPCC AR5 database is
merely a range of numbers representing total greenhouse gas emissions over time. It does not include
detailed information about the assumptions. There, the baseline used for the purpose of quantifying
the impact of the recommendations was constructed as an aggregate of the following:
45.1 Gt CO2 for energy-related CO2 emissions, as per the scenario towards an average global
temperature increase of 6°C by 2100 (the 6 degree scenario or 6DS) detailed in the IEA’s
Energy Technology Perspectives (IEA, 2014);
3.5 Gt CO2 for non-energy CO2 emissions, as estimated from the median baseline used by IPCC
(2014a) and
15.4 Gt CO2 for non-CO2 emissions, as per the EPA’s latest estimates (EPA, 2012).
We have looked into a large set of baseline scenarios, and we consider the above-mentioned
combination most adequate, based on several arguments:
It combines widely acknowledged and broadly used projections from the leading institutions;
The scenarios are well-documented in the references provided above, and provide detail on
underlying assumptions; and
Most recommendations can be examined with reference to the 6DS scenario.
The combination of these three scenarios (for energy-related CO2, non-energy CO2 and non-CO2) into
one overall baseline can be justified as greenhouse gas emissions in each of these are governed by
different developments and policies. For instance, trends in land-use emissions are not directly linked
to developments in the production and end-use of energy. Also the emissions of F-gases do not have
a direct link to energy-related CO2.
The resulting aggregated mitigation impact in this study can be considered a conservative estimate, as
it is based on the assumption of a baseline with total emissions of 64 Gt CO2 in 2030 instead of the 69
Gt CO2 in IPCC AR5. The slightly higher median baseline in IPCC AR5 (with 69 Gt CO2 in 2030) reflects
higher activity levels and/or higher carbon intensities. This higher baseline implies a higher emissions
reduction potential, and the possibility to bridge an even larger part of the emissions gap. Therefore,
we consider the estimate we made using a baseline with 64 Gt CO2 in 2030 conservative.
3 NCE (2014) and UNEP (2014) respectively use baseline emissions of 68 and 69 GtCO2e for 2030, which are derived from IPCC baseline
scenarios. The baseline used in this study is therefore lower by 4-5 GtCO2e than those used in these two reference studies (median basis).
This discrepancy is largely a result of differences in the baseline for energy-related emissions resulting from modelling differences between
the scenarios used by the IPCC (the median of which amounts to approximately 49 Gt CO2) and the IEA’s 6DS scenario (45.1 Gt CO2).
INTNL15824 4
An overview of different emission levels by 2030 in the scenarios mentioned is provided in the table
below.
Table 2: Overview of different 2030 emission levels in selected scenarios
2030
emissions
Gt CO2
Type of emissions (scenario)
69 Baseline of total GHGs (IPCC AR5 median BaU, including 49 Gt CO2 related to energy)
64
Energy related CO2 (IEA ETP 6DS)
+ non energy CO2 (IPCC scenarios close to 6DS)
+ non CO2 (EPA) (our proposed baseline)
42 Total GHGs (UNEP 2 degree scenario; range 30-44)
2.2.2 Relevant scenarios for energy-related emissions
A majority of NCE’s recommendations (carbon pricing, clean energy financing, energy-efficiency, cities,
business, aviation & maritime) relate to energy-related emissions. The IEA provides the most widely-
recognised and used models in its yearly Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP; IEA, 2014a) and World
Energy Outlook (WEO; IEA, 2014b), which are developed independently. We have prioritised the use
of ETP scenarios in this study (6DS as a baseline, and 2DS as a 2°C scenario) as it provides more detail
on scenario assumptions and implications. We have nonetheless considered WEO scenarios, which we
have used to cross-check our findings in some cases. A short overview of ETP scenarios is provided
below. Still, an overall finding is that the energy related CO2 emissions by 2030 in the IPCC median
baseline are significantly higher (10-20%) than commonly used energy scenario (WEO Current
Policies).
INTNL15824 5
Table 3: IEA scenarios from IEA and energy-related emissions in 2030
Energy-related
scenarios
2030
emissions Description
ETP 2014, 6DS 45.1 Gt CO2
The 6DS scenario is an extension of current emission trends. In this
scenario, energy use grows steadily to 2050, where it is forecast to be two
thirds higher than 2011 levels. The scenario is consistent with a global
temperature rise of at least 6°C.
ETP 2014, 4DS 39.4 Gt CO2
The 4DS scenario includes recent national pledges and policies to limit
GHG emissions. The IEA reports that this is already an ambitious scenario,
yet that it is consistent with 4°C of global warming.
ETP 2014, 2DS 27.8 Gt CO2
The 2DS scenario describes an energy system that is consistent with
mitigation pathways that have at least 50% chance of limiting global
warming to 2°C. Under this scenario, energy-related emissions are cut by
more than half by 2050, and additional efforts are needed from non-
energy and non-CO2 emissions.
WEO 2014
Current Policies
Scenario (CPS)
40.8 Gt CO2 The CPS is based on policies and implementing measures that had been
adopted as of mid-2014.
WEO New
Policies Scenario
(NPS)
36.3 Gt CO2
The NPS takes into policies and implementing measures that had been
adopted as of mid-2014, as well as relevant policy proposals, even though
specific measures needed to put them into effect have yet to be fully
developed.
2.2.3 Pledges to date and the baseline adopted
As described above, we adopt in this study the 6DS scenario from IEA Energy Technology Perspectives
(2014a). This scenario is largely an extension of current trends and does not account for the Intended
Nationally Determined Contributions developed to date by national governments. Consequently, the
6DS scenarios can be considered a ‘clean’ baseline. Using this baseline implies that any intended action
is not taken for granted.
It must be acknowledged, though, that governments around the globe are increasingly taking action
to mitigate climate change. For 2020 the impact of government action is estimated to be 4 Gt CO2
(UNEP, 2014). For 2030, such an estimate is not available, but it may be assumed that a modest part
of the 27 Gt CO2 emissions gap presented above, has been bridged already. Further analysis is required
to quantify the impact of national pledges made so far for each of the recommendations in this report.
INTNL15824 6
3 Quantification of 2030 recommendations
In the following sections we provide a synthetic review of our methodology and findings for each of the
recommendations for 2030, which are provided in text boxes.
3.1 Cities
The Commission recommends that all cities commit to developing and implementing
low-carbon development strategies by 2020 using the framework of the Compact of
Mayors, prioritising policies and investments in public and non-motorised transport,
building efficiency, renewable energy and efficient waste management.
Summary of findings
The total mitigation impact for cities has been estimated to be 3.7 Gt CO2 by 2030, assuming energy-
related GHG emissions develop as suggested in the 4DS from IEA’s Energy Technology Perspective
(2014)4. These emission reductions would be additional to those generated by any national policies
adopted as a result of recent pledges.
Assumptions & methodology
For this recommendation we base our findings on a report by SEI (2014), which explores the extent to
which urban policies and programmes can contribute to climate mitigation. The study reports a total
mitigation impact of 3.7 Gt CO2 in 2030, composed of 2.4 Gt CO2 in the building sector, 1.1 Gt CO2 in
the transport sector and 0.2 Gt CO2 in the waste sector.
3.2 Forests & degraded land
The Commission recommends that governments, multilateral and bilateral finance
institutions and willing investors work together in regional and national partnerships to
mobilise investment to restore lost or degraded forest and agricultural lands towards a
target of restoring at least 500 million hectares globally by 2030. Advanced economies
and developing countries should enter into bilateral and regional forest partnership
agreements, supported by commodity supply chain commitments by the private sector,
aiming to reduce carbon emissions by at least 1 gigatonne per year by 2020.
Summary of findings
The total mitigation impact for degraded land and forests is estimated to be between x and x. The
impact comes consists of reductions in three sectors:
Degraded land: 1.8-4.5 Gt CO2 mitigation impact
Forests: 1 Gt CO2 mitigation impact
4 This is likely an underestimate relative to the baseline selected in this study. Starting from the 6DS scenario as the baseline (which is the
baseline used for all other recommendations), a greater mitigation would result. This is based on emissions reported in ETP 2014 for 6DS,
4DS and 2DS. The IEA’s 6Ds scenario is an extension of current emission trends rather, whereas 4DS includes recent national pledges and
policies to limit GHG emissions.
INTNL15824 7
3.2.1 Degraded land
Summary of findings
The total impact from restoration of (i) degraded agricultural land (150 million hectares) at 0.5–1.7 Gt
CO2 per year, and (ii) degraded forest (350 million hectares) at 1.2–2.9 Gt CO2 per year, resulting in a
total range of 1.8–4.5 Gt CO2.
Assumptions & methodology
For the restoration of degraded agricultural land, it was assumed the 150 million hectares are generated
from 15 million hectares in intensive projects5 and 135 million hectares of farmer-managed natural
regeneration (FMNR) over 15 years to 2030. For the abatement potential from 15 million hectares in
intensive projects, estimates were based on the carbon savings achieved by two World Bank watershed
rehabilitation projects in the Loess Plateau of China. These represent good practice in intensive
landscape restoration projects implemented by multilateral financial institutions in concert with national
governments. If the carbon savings achieved in this example were applicable to 15 million hectares,
emissions would be reduced by 0.1 Gt CO2 per year in 20306.
For the 135 million hectares of FMNR reference can be made to the good practice example of 5 million
hectares of agricultural landscape restoration in the Maradi-Zinder region of Niger, which achieved
significant benefits at scale with minimal fiscal investment (Pye-Smith, 2013; Sendzimir et al, 2011).
Independent estimates suggest carbon sequestration in this case of 2 tonnes of carbon per hectare per
year (corresponding to 7.33 t CO2 per ha per year), a common figure for drier tropical woody areas
(Niles et al, 2002). If this rate of sequestration were applicable to the full 135 million hectares, it would
give a mean estimate of 1.0 Gt CO2 per year in 2030.
The total illustrative estimate from intensive projects and FMNR therefore is 1.1 Gt CO2. In
consideration of the uncertainties around both sequestration rates (i.e. whether the Niger value is
representative for a global portfolio of projects) and feasible implementation, a range around the mean
of +/- 0.6 Gt is applied or 0.5–1.7 Gt CO2 per year in 2030.
For the restoration of forests (mainly trees), an estimate of 1 Gt CO2 sequestered from 150 million
hectares of restoration is adopted. Applied to the area of 350 million hectares by 2030, this implies
sequestration of 2.3 Gt CO2. This is based on an assumed mix of planted forest, naturally regenerated
forests and agroforestry with different carbon sequestration potentials. For a lower end of the range, it
was assumed that the same mix would apply to the 350 million hectares, but that only half of the
potential would actually be achievable. This results in a lower-end estimate of 1.2 Gt CO2 per year in
2030. For the upper end of the range, it was assumed that the full 350 million hectares are
implemented, and that the mix includes a greater proportion of agroforestry and other types of
plantations with greater sequestration potential. Therefore, the number was adjusted by up by 25%
from 2.3 Gt CO2 to 2.9 Gt CO2 per year to account for this possibility.
5 This is based on a ceiling of 1 million hectares of degraded agricultural landscape that could reasonably be expected to be brought into
restoration projects for the first time each year through intensive projects, providing a total of 15 million hectares in net area added over 15
years. 6 A World Bank evaluation of the Loess Plateau projects in 2005 estimated 6.25 t/ha in net CO2 savings per year which we use as an
average: 0.09 Gt CO2/year = 6.25 X 20 X 50,000 X 15 (see World Bank, 2005). A separate Chinese evaluation report found higher carbon
sequestration rates (see Cooper et al, 2013).
INTNL15824 8
3.2.2 Forests
Summary of findings
For forestry, the abatement potential from halting net deforestation was estimated at 1.6–4.4 Gt CO2
per year in 2030.
Assumptions & methodology
The estimate is based on triangulating a range of estimates surveyed by the IPCC (2014a). There is
significant uncertainty about the net GHG emissions from land use change. The IPCC recently surveyed
13 global process models assessing net emissions from all sectors for the period 2000–2009. It found
the average estimate of emission reductions from halting deforestation as 4.4 Gt CO2, but with a
substantial range of uncertainty of +/- 2.2 Gt. More recent estimates for the period 2002–2011 are
lower (2.93 Gt CO2 +/- 2.2 Gt) than those for 2000–2009 (table 6.2 in IPCC AR5 WGIII). Another
significant source of uncertainty is the extent to which lowered deforestation (land use change) implies
lowered degradation (tree removal). It is possible to significantly increase tree removal, but have no
impact on deforestation if the harvested areas are allowed to regenerate into forest instead of being
converted to some other use. Higher degradation means greater immediate carbon loss, and the
success in halting tree removal is thus a strong determinant of the extent to which emissions savings
can be realised. The starting assumption has been that baseline emissions remain relatively stable over
time in the absence of additional policy action7. A central estimate was adopted of 3 Gt CO2 net savings
from halting deforestation and associated degradation, based on the IPCC mean estimate for 2002–
20118. For a high-end estimate the IPCC’s meta-analysis was used with an average of 4.4 Gt CO2 for
2000– 2009, and an equal proportionate lower-end estimate was adopted of 1.6 Gt CO2, to represent
a case with lower baseline emissions, less success in halting deforestation, and/or less success in
halting tree removal where deforestation is halted.
3.3 Clean energy financing
The Commission recommends that, to bring down the costs of financing clean energy
and catalyse private investment, multilateral and national development banks should
scale up their collaboration with governments and the private sector and their own
capital commitments, with the aim of reaching at least US$1 trillion of investment per
year in low-carbon energy and energy efficiency by 2030.
7 Some studies assume LULUCF emissions may decline between 2010 and 2030 (for example, OECD’s World Environmental Outlook, 2012).
However, other bottom-up estimates – such as that undertaken by McKinsey (2014) for a new Global Abatement Cost Curve – suggest
emissions from forestry will still account for 7 Gt in 2030, remaining static over time. Moreover, a declining baseline is not consistent with
the latest evidence on the trends in global gross tree cover loss from remote sensing (see www.GFW.org, for example). There is also a lot of
uncertainty about the projected trends, but the main global drivers of forest degradation remain significant (e.g. timber and pulp demand in
the BRICS countries and charcoal in Africa) (see also McKinsey (2014) and Kissinger et al (2012). 8 For example, according to the FAO, net deforestation amounts to 5.2 M ha/year, based on the average of the preceding 10 years. Halting
net deforestation could imply that an additional area equivalent to 5.2 million hectares is allowed to regenerate into forest, rather than being
converted after tree removal into another land use. Alternatively it could imply the regeneration of forest on 5.2 million hectares that was
previously cut down and shifted into another land use (i.e. no forest degradation and no land use change). The actual carbon savings
involved depend on whether any of the halted deforestation also involved halting the associated forest degradation, such that trees were not
cut down in the first place. If the annual 5.2 million hectares were all harvested but allowed to regenerate, net deforestation would be
halted, but the 5.2 million hectares would conservatively sequester only 0.038 Gt of CO2e/year while regenerating. If the 5.2 million
hectares were instead left intact (without tree removal), this would imply an emissions savings of up to 5.1 Gt of CO2e relative to complete
tree harvest with no regeneration and a significant fall in wood products production (see Houghton, 2013). The 3 Gt CO2e estimate thus can
also be interpreted as assuming that 60% of the trees on the land saved from deforestation are not cut down – in addition to the whole area
not changing use – when using the higher estimate of 5.1 Gt of emissions from stopping both deforestation and forest degradation.
INTNL15824 9
Summary of findings
We estimate the total mitigation impact of this measure to lie in a range of 5.5-7.5 Gt CO2 per year by
2030. This estimate is based on an analysis of the impacts of an increase in clean energy financing
from US$ 332 billion in 2014 to US$ 1 trillion investments per year in 2030, following the World Energy
Investment Outlook9 (WEIO, IEA, 2014). These investments lead to emission reductions as projected
under the 450 scenario from the World Energy Outlook (IEA, 2014). Compared to the Current Policies
scenario, these reductions amount to 15.4 Gt CO2 in 2030. We apply two types of corrections to this
number. First, not all developments in the 450 scenario are driven by investments in renewables,
nuclear, CCS, energy efficiency in buildings and energy efficiency in industry (as assumed under this
measure). Second, we assume a more conservative investment path than the path assumed in the
WEIO. Applying these corrections, and taking into account uncertainties, we derive an impact of 5.5-
7.5 Gt CO2 in 2030.
Assumptions & methodology
As starting point, we use investment figures from the WEIO 2014 for the 450 scenario. The report (pp.
162) provides projections for the cumulative investments in the period 2014-2035, whereas for the
analysis of this measure, we are only interested in the period until 2030. Therefore, we use the New
Policies (NP) scenario, for which the WEIO gives a more detailed ramp-up path of investments. For
each of the investment groups (renewables, industrial energy efficiency, energy efficiency in buildings,
nuclear and CCS), we determine the cumulative investments until 2030 as a share of cumulative
investments between 2014 and 2035, based on the NP scenario. Next, we apply these same shares to
the cumulative investments under the 450 scenario, as shown in Table 4. This modification helps to
assess what share of total cumulative investments in the period 2014-2035 is made by 2030. The
technology share of the investments remains exactly in line with the split that the IEA assumes for its
450 scenario (and which is reported in column ‘Cumulative 2014-2035’ under ‘450 Scenario’ in Table
4).
9 The WEIO assumes a growth path of clean energy investments starting at 332 bln US$ in 2014, and growing to 1 trn US$ in 2030. We use
the same starting and end point, but assume a more conservative growth path of funds, as specified in the assumptions & methodology.
INTNL15824 10
Table 4: Investments under New Policies and 450 scenarios in WEIO (IEA, 2014, pp. 162), US$ trillion
New Policies Scenario 450 scenario
Cumulative
2014-35 Cumulative
2014-30 Share before
2030 Cumulative
2014-35 Implied
2014-30
Fossil fuels 2,635 2,010 76% 2,877
Implied CCS - 76% 933 712
Nuclear 1,061 857 81% 1,722 1,391
Renewables 5,857 4,227 72% 8,809 6,357
EE industry 739 502 68% 1,371 931
EE buildings 2,334 1,689 72% 4,040 2,924
Total Clean Energy Finance
9,991 7,275 - 16,875 12,315
From the WEO 2014 (table on pp. 609), we observe that the total energy-related emissions under the
450 scenario in 2030 amount to 25.4 Gt CO2, which is 15.4 Gt CO2 lower than the Current Policies
scenarios (projecting 40.8 Gt CO2). Moreover, the Current Policies scenario already assumes
investments in renewables and nuclear to increase towards 2030, resulting in 5522 TWh additional
clean capacity. Applying an emission factor10 based on the mix of fossil fuel-capacity under Current
Policies in 2030 (0.76 t CO2/MWh), the equivalent emission reductions triggered by these investments
under Current Policies are 4.2 Gt CO2.11 As a consequence, emissions under the 450 scenario are not
15.4 Gt CO2, but 19.6 Gt CO2 lower than under a scenario in which there would have been no
investments in clean energy.
Table 5: CO2 emissions in 2030 under Current Policies and 450 scenario in WEO (IEA, 2014, pp. 609), Mt CO2
Total
emissions12 Power Transport
Other final energy use
Emissions from other energy sector
Current Policies 40,848 17,717 9,194 12,059 1,878
450 scenario 25,424 7,262 6,742 10,007 1,413
Difference 15,424 10,455 2,452 2,052 465
In order to assess the mitigation impact of the measure, we need to make two corrections to the
emission reductions described above. First, not all reductions in emissions can be attributed to
investments under the 450 scenario. These investments focus on renewables, nuclear, CCS and
industrial and buildings energy efficiency, but exclude transport. Therefore, we subtract the emission
reduction due to transport measures in the 450 scenario, which is 2.45 Gt CO2 (see Table 5). The
remaining emissions resulting from total final consumption (i.e., those not related to transport) differ
by 2.05 Gt CO2 in the 450 scenario, compared to Current Policies13.
10 This emission factor was calculated based on the projected fossil fuel capacity and related emissions under Current Policies on pp. 609 of
the WEO 2014 (IEA, 2014): 23.5 PWh, and 17.7 GtCO2. 11 We neglect here investments in CCS, energy efficiency in buildings and energy efficiency in industry that are already included in the
Current Policies scenario. Investments in CCS most likely will be zero as Current Policies does not have the right conditions for these
investments. However, we expect the impact to be small, also given the limited impact in the 450 scenario (see Table 3). 12 Total emissions includes power, transport, other final energy use and ‘emissions from other energy sector’ 13 Emissions from total fuel consumption excluding transport are 21.25 – 9.19 = 12.06 GtCO2 for Current Policies, and 16.75-6.74 = 10.01
GtCO2 for the 450 scenario.
INTNL15824 11
This reduction cannot be completely attributed to investments, since it can also be triggered by pricing
policies, by efficiency gains through technology improvements that do not require explicit investments
or by good housekeeping measures and activity shifts. The magnitude of this effect is difficult to
quantify, therefore we conservatively assume that only 50% of the reductions through energy efficiency
in ‘other final energy use’ can be attributed to investments. For the energy supply side, we consider it
plausible to link all emission reductions to investments. Applying both corrections, we derive that the
total reduction in emissions that are realized through the US$12.3 trillion investment is 16.1 Gt CO2.
This includes the emission reductions through clean energy investments that are already included in
the Current Policies scenario.
A second correction relates to the assumed investment path. Whereas the WEIO assumes an optimistic
(almost linear) increase in funds, towards a level of investments of US$1 trillion in 2030, we assume a
more conservative, exponential path. In this path, the available funds show a modest increase in the
first years, and a strong incline during the last 5 years before 2030. In 2025, investments will exceed
US$500 billion for the first time, and in 2030 they reach a level of US$1 trillion (see Figure 2). The
cumulative investments by 2030 are US$8.01 trillion, which is 34% lower than the US$12.3 trillion
derived above. Applying this 34% downward correction to the 16.1 Gt CO2 reduction that was calculated
above, we arrive at 10.6 Gt CO2 emissions that can be attributed to US$8.01 trillion. Subtracting the
4.2 Gt CO2 reduction that is already triggered by measures as part of the Current Policies scenario, we
arrive at a net impact of 6.5 Gt CO2 under the 450 scenario in 2030, modified for the investment path
and for elements that are excluded from the measure.
Figure 2: Assumed increase in Clean Energy Funds, 2014-2030 (US$ billion)
Finally, we assess the uncertainties in the calculation above. The two key aspects in this context are
the assessment of cumulative investments by 2030 (applying shares of the 2014-2035 time window)
and the 50% correction for energy efficiency measures. Given the magnitude of both modifications, we
apply a +/- 1 Gt CO2 uncertainty range. The emission reduction now equals 5.5 – 7.5 Gt CO2.
Table 6 provides a summary of the calculation steps.
-
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1,000.00
1,200.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
INTNL15824 12
Table 6: Summary of calculation steps to determine impact of Clean Energy Finance
Calculation step Impact
Emission reductions through renewable and nuclear investments in CPS 4.2 Gt CO2
Difference between 450 scenario and Current Policies 15.4 Gt CO2
Impact of clean energy investments in 450 scenario 19.6 Gt CO2
Correction 1: exclude impact of transport -2.5 Gt CO2
Correction 2: exclude energy efficiency improvements not attributable to investments
-1.0 Gt CO2
Emission reductions by 2030 through clean energy finance under linear growth path
16.1 Gt CO2
Correction 3: assume a more conservative growth path -34%
Emission reductions by 2030 through clean energy finance under a more conservative growth path
10.7 Gt CO2
Emission reductions through renewable and nuclear investments in CPS -4.2 Gt CO2
Total Clean Energy Finance (Emission reductions through Clean Energy Finance measures by 2030, comparing 450 to CPS, assuming a moderate growth path of investments)
6.5 Gt CO2
Uncertainty margin +/- 1 GtCO2
Impact of Clean Energy Finance measure 5.5-7.5 Gt CO2
3.4 Energy efficiency
The Commission recommends that the G20 and other countries converge their energy
efficiency standards in key sectors and product fields to the global best by 2025, and
establish a global platform under the G20 for greater alignment and continuous
improvement of standards.
Summary of findings
We estimate the total mitigation impact to be 4.5 to 6.9 Gt CO2. This aggregates the mitigation impact
in four sectors as follows:
1.8 to 2.9 Gt CO2 for appliances, equipment & lighting;
80 to 160 Mt CO2 for industry (electric motors only);
2.1 to 2.7 Gt CO2 for transport (including light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles); and
0.6 to 1.0 Gt CO2 for buildings (new buildings only).
Assumptions & methodology
We have included sectors, sub-sectors and products for which standardisation is possible and for which
the mitigation impact can be quantified. For this recommendation, we consolidate the findings of
leading studies, namely:
A study by the Collaborative Labelling and Appliance Standards Program (CLASP), which
examines the impacts of energy savings and the mitigation impact of better harmonisation of
standards and labelling for 24 products (CLASP, 2011)14.
14 Room air conditioners (non-ducted), Central air conditioner (ducted), Chillers for commercial buildings, Household refrigeration appliances,
Household clothes washers, Household clothes dryers, Household dishwashers, Water heating appliances, Televisions, Set top boxes,
External power supplies, Lighting (GLS & CFLi), Lighting (ballasts) , Lighting (halogen and reflector lamps) , Lighting (linear fluorescent
lamps), Lighting (HID lamps), Lighting (LEDs), Space heating devices, Fans and ventilators, Office equipment, ICT, standby power, Electric
INTNL15824 13
A study by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), which quantifies the
climate benefits of transport policies (ICCT, 2014). In particular, this study includes analyses
for light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs), which focuses on energy
efficiency standards. The mitigation impact in the maritime and aviation sectors is reported
separately (see recommendation 9).
Studies by the GBPN (GBPN, 2012, see also GBPN-KPMG, 2013), IEA (2013b) and IPCC
(2014b), which examine the potential energy savings and emissions reductions for buildings in
different scenarios. We only include new buildings, for which standards have already been
developed and implemented.
Several corrections of the findings of the above studies are required to ensure alignment with NCE’s
recommendation. All of these are explained in this section. We have applied:
A baseline correction to ensure alignment of the assumptions in the respective studies with our
chosen energy-related emissions baseline (IEA ETP’s 6DS scenario);
A geographical correction to ensure the mitigation impact is provided for G20 countries;
A rebound correction to account for rebound effects; and
A range correction to ensure we adequately reflect uncertainty, for example to consider
enforcement issues or discrepancies between theoretical and practical energy efficiency
savings.
Baseline, geographical and range corrections are applied separately in the different sectors. We apply
a rebound correction of 20% across all sectors, meaning that only 80% of the energy savings register
in terms of reduced energy use. We base this correction on a study by the American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE, 2012), which is an assessment of a range of studies. It concludes
that the total rebound effect, both direct and indirect, is about 20%. The IEA also investigated the
rebound effect in the World Energy Outlook 2012. The report notes that depending on the country or
the consumption sector at stake, the direct rebound effect generally ranges from 0-10%, and that
estimates of the indirect rebound effect vary widely. Accounting for this, the IEA estimates the overall
rebound effect to be 9%. We understand that uncertainty remains on the extent of the rebound effect
and that studies have estimated numbers higher than 20%. However, as we calculate the correction at
an aggregate level, we consider the rebound correction of 20% to be realistic.
Appliances, equipment & lighting
The study by CLASP (2011) reports a potential mitigation impact of 2.6 Gt CO2 by 2030 (corresponding
to 12% energy savings relative to BaU) for the worldwide adoption of the “current most broadly based
and stringent equipment energy efficiency regulations”. It further reports that the universal adoption
of “today’s most energy efficient technologies by 2030” hold a mitigation impact of 6.7 Gt CO2 (slightly
over 40% energy savings). These numbers are consistent with a recent study by Ecofys (2014) which
evaluated the European Commission’s Energy Labelling15 and Ecodesign Directives16 and estimated
energy savings of 19% by 2020 compared to business as usual.
To arrive at an estimation of the mitigation impact for appliances, equipment and lighting we take a
number of steps. The details of our calculations are provided below.
motors, Cooking appliances, Transformers, Commercial refrigeration equipment. For more information:
http://www.clasponline.org/en/Resources/Resources/PublicationLibrary/2011/Opportunities-for-appliance-EE-harmonization.aspx#file 15 2010/30/EU 16 2009/125/EC
INTNL15824 14
We remove the estimated mitigation impact for electric motors (0.15 to 0.3 Gt CO2), which we
report separately (see industry section below).
We apply a base year correction as the CLASP study uses 2006 as the base year for electricity
consumption, while the ETP’s 6DS uses 2011 as a base year. For this correction, we remove
efficiency gains for the period 2006-2011 assuming linear growth in efficiency gains between
2006 and 2030. This correction is likely conservative as efficiency gains are typically lower in
early years due to progressive uptake of energy efficient equipment as a result of
standardisation policies.
We apply a geographical correction to limit impacts to G20 countries. We base this correction
on the ratio between the total net electricity consumption of G20 countries (scope of the
recommendation) and worldwide (scope of the CLASP study) as obtained from the IEA17. We
use current data, rather than projected data for 2030, which is subject to uncertainty.
We apply the rebound correction of 20%.
Lastly, we apply an uncertainty range of 25 to 75% between the mitigation impact of current
regulations and best-available technologies reported in the CLASP study to reflect uncertainty
in the level of standardisation achievable by 2025. We assume that improvements are possible
relative to the current and most broadly-based standards reported in the study, yet that
universal adoption of current most efficient technologies is not possible by 202518. The range
also acknowledges a degree of uncertainty in the enforcement and convergence of standards
toward best practices, as the estimate of the mitigation impact presented by CLASP is based
on a simplified global analysis19.
17 For 2011, the net electricity consumption of G20 countries represents 85% of the global net electricity consumption, which we use as a
correction factor. 18 This range reflects a conclusion of the CLASP study that “existing requirements fall far short of best available technology performance
levels and thus much more could be saved by the adoption of dynamic World Best requirements that make a greater effort to accelerate the
uptake of energy efficient technology solutions”. (CLASP, 2011, p. 224) 19 The results presented in the CLASP study “assume that the OECD economies have similar savings potentials to the EU, and that the rest of
the world has similar savings potentials to India except China”, which is examined separately.
INTNL15824 15
Table 7: Overview of the correction for energy efficiency in equipment, appliances and lighting
Steps Low
(Gt CO2)
High
(Gt CO2) Description
Starting range 2.45 6.4
The low number corresponds to current standards and the
high number corresponds to current best available
technologies (this excludes the potential impacts from
electric motors).
Baseline correction -0.51 -1.33
The baseline correction accounts for temporal differences
between the CLASP and the IEA ETP’s base years (2006
and 2011 respectively).
Geographical correction -0.3 -0.77 The geographical correction limits the mitigation impact to
G20 countries (the CLASP study’s estimates are global).
Rebound correction -0.32 -0.86 The rebound correction corrects for rebound at an
aggregate level.
Range correction 0.53 -0.53
The range correction assumes that standards in 2025 will
be more demanding than current standards (increase of
the low range) but will not meet current best technologies
(decrease of the high range).
Final range 1.84 2.91 The final range results from the successive corrections.
As a result of these calculations, we estimate the mitigation impact for appliances, equipment & lighting
to be between 1.8 and 2.9 Gt CO2 in 2030.
Industry
For industry, we only include standardisation of electric motors and also base our estimate on the study
by CLASP (2011). The report notes that electric motors are estimated to represent 15% of the final
energy demand of industry and to account for a total emissions of 4.4 Gt CO2. The report estimates
that the adoption of best practice minimum energy performance standards holds a mitigation potential
of 0.15 to 0.3 Gt CO2 worldwide by 2030. Another study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
estimates the cost-effective potential of minimum efficiency performance standards for electric motors
in industry in a selection of major economies20 to be 0.14 Gt CO2 (LBNL, 2012), which is broadly
consistent.
For this recommendation we use the range provided by CLASP (2011) and apply base year,
geographical and rebound corrections similarly as for appliances, equipment and lighting (see above).
As a result, we find the mitigation impact from electric motors by 2030 to be between 80 and 160 Mt
CO2. The details of our calculations are provided below.
20 Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, EU, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, USA, South Africa
INTNL15824 16
Table 8: Overview of the correction for industry (electric motors)
Steps Low
(Mt CO2)
High
(Mt CO2) Description
Starting range 150 300 The range reflects the estimates provided by CLASP.
Baseline correction -30 -60
The baseline correction accounts for temporal differences
between the CLASP and the IEA ETP base years (2006 and
2011 respectively).
Geographical correction -20 -40 The geographical correction limits the mitigation impact to
G20 countries (the CLASP study’s estimates are global).
Rebound correction -20 -40 The rebound correction corrects for rebound at an
aggregate level.
Range correction na na No range correction is applied to electric motors
Final range 80 160 The final range results from the successive corrections.
Transport
For energy efficiency standards in transport, we include the potential for LDVs and HDVs. The ICCT
study reports a mitigation potential of 1.76 Gt CO2 for existing standardisation policies (1.5 for LDVs
and 0.26 for HDVs). Additionally, it reports an additional mitigation potential of 1.1 Gt CO2 for LDVs if
best practices were implemented in all countries of study21, and an additional mitigation potential of
0.65 Gt CO2 for HDVs if best practices were implemented worldwide.
For the transport sector, we assume that the best practices reported in the ICCT report form the basis
for convergence in G20 countries by 2025. We include the mitigation impact of existing policies in our
assessment given that we use the ETP 6DS as a baseline, which is based on current trends rather than
current policies. We then take the following steps to ensure alignment of the ICCT findings with the
Commission’s recommendations. The details of our calculations are provided below.
We apply a base year correction as the ICCT report and 6DS scenario present different
estimates of transport related emissions, respectively 7.1 Gt CO2 in 2010 and 6.8 Gt CO2 in
2011. We apply a correction based on the ratio of these numbers.
We apply a geographical correction to extend (LDVs) or limit (HDVs) the analysis to G20
countries. We base this correction on the total energy demand of the transport sector, as
obtained from the IEA22.
We apply a rebound correction of 20%.
Lastly, we apply a range correction to reflect uncertainty. We take the sum of the mitigation
impact from existing policies and best practice implementation reported by the ICCT as a
maximum and apply a range of 25% below this value as a minimum. This range correction
accounts for uncertainty in the degree of convergence and enforcement of best-practice
standards.
21 Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, EU countries, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, and the USA 22 For LDVs, the ICCT study estimates the mitigation potential from best practices in a selection of major economies (Australia, Brazil,
Canada, China, EU, India, Japan, Mexico South Korea, Russia and US), which represent approximately 93% of the total energy demand of
the transport sector in G20 countries. For HDVs, the ICCT study estimates the mitigation potential from best practices extended worldwide,
and G20 countries represent approximately 82% of the worldwide total energy demand in the transport sector. To obtain this number,
aviation and maritime bunkers were removed from the global total as these are only reported globally, not on a country-by-country basis.
INTNL15824 17
Table 9: Overview of the correction for energy efficiency in transport
Steps Low
(Gt CO2)
High
(Gt CO2) Description
Starting range 1.76 3.51
The lower range corresponds to current policies in a
selection of countries. The upper range corresponds to
additional energy efficiency measures and extension of
existing policies to the countries of study (LDVs) or
worldwide (HDVs).
Baseline correction -0.07 -0.14 The baseline correction accounts differences in the ICCT
and this study’s baseline emissions for the transport sector.
Geographical correction 0.08 0.06
The geographical correction extends (LDVs) or limits
(HDVs) the mitigation impact to G20 countries. The overall
effect of this correction is positive as a result of the balance
of these sub-corrections.
Rebound correction -0.36 -0.69 The rebound correction corrects for rebound at an
aggregate level.
Range correction 0.65 0
We apply a range correction assuming that existing policies
will be exceed by 2030 and that the combined effect of
current policies and extended policies from the ICCT study
corresponds to the maximum mitigation impact.
Final range 2.06 2.74 The final range results from the successive corrections.
As a result of these calculations, we estimate the mitigation impact for transport to be between 2.1
and 2.7 Gt CO2 in 2030.
Buildings
For the building sector, we combine findings from different studies. We only include the mitigation
impact from best practice standards for new buildings, as mandatory standards have not yet been
developed and applied widely for building renovations. Further, as energy efficiency gains in appliances
and lighting are reported separately, we do not include these in our assessment. As such, we focus on
energy efficiency gains resulting from standards on building envelopes and materials, heating and
cooling devices.
In a recent report, the IEA calculates the requirements for buildings to close the gap between the ETP’s
6DS and 2DS scenarios (IEA, 2013b). It reports that energy savings of 40 EJ are possible in the building
sector, and that total emissions reductions of 8.9 Gt CO2 can be achieved by 2050. Interpolating to
2030 suggests approximately 4.6 Gt CO2 of potential emissions reductions, of which only approximately
0.7 Gt CO2 relate to heating & cooling or building envelopes, and the remainder to cooking, lighting,
appliances and fuel switching (0.8 Gt CO2) and electricity decarbonisation (3.1 Gt CO2).
Another study by the Global Buildings Performance Network (GPBN), examines the energy saving and
emissions reduction potential from space heating & cooling and water heating in new and existing
buildings (GBPN, 2012). It explores three scenarios: a ‘frozen efficiency’ scenario (FES), which is based
on 2005 conditions, a ‘moderate efficiency’ scenario (MES), which takes into account existing policies
and standards such as the EU’s Energy Building Performance Directive, and a ‘deep efficiency’ scenario
(DES), which is based on best practices. The study reports that energy use related to space heating &
cooling could more than double by 2050 relative to 2005 levels in the FES (from 52.7 to 106.9 EJ),
INTNL15824 18
increase by half in the MES (to 79.5 EJ) and could be reduced by a third in the DES (34.9 EJ). With
regard to emissions, the study reports emissions related to heating & cooling of 7 Gt CO2 as a baseline
in 2005, and of 11.2, 8.2 and 3.6 Gt CO2 in 2050 for FES, MES and DES respectively.
These reports do not provide data on the specific mitigation impact for new buildings in 2030.
Extrapolation based on IEA (2013b) suggests that the heating & cooling potential of new buildings only
is lower than 0.7 Gt CO2. Extrapolation based on data provided in the GBPN report suggests a potential
for heating & cooling in new buildings of the order of 1.3 Gt CO2, assuming the mitigation impact in
2030 corresponds to the difference between the MES and DES and that approximately half of the
potential is attributable to new buildings.
Another study by SEI, includes estimates on the mitigation impact from heating efficiency in new
buildings, reporting that cities could reduce emissions by 0.9 Gt CO2 by 2030 (SEI, 2014). This number
however uses the ETP 4DS scenario as a baseline. Corrections relative to the 6DS scenario would
suggest a mitigation impact of approximately 1.2 Gt CO2.
Based on the above we estimate the mitigation potential of energy efficiency in new buildings to be in
the range of 0.7 to 1.3 Gt CO2, which we consider to adequately reflect the range represented in the
literature. Applying a rebound correction of 20% yields a mitigation impact of between 0.6 and 1.0 Gt
CO2.
3.5 Carbon pricing
The Commission recommends that all developed and emerging economies, at least,
commit to introducing or strengthening carbon pricing by 2020, and phase out fossil fuel
subsidies.
Summary of findings
We estimate the total mitigation impact of carbon pricing to lie in the range of 2.8-5.6 Gt CO2 by 2030,
based on an average global carbon price of around $50 per tonne by 2030. For phasing out fossil fuel
subsidies we assume an additional effect equal to the estimate from the Technical Note to the report
prepared by NCE (2014). This is 0.4–1.8 Gt CO2. IEA (2013a) presents a lower number, namely 0.37
Gt CO2 by 2020. To avoid potential overestimation, and given the uncertainty around overlap, we did
not include the impact of removing fossil fuel subsidies in the total impact of carbon pricing.
Assumptions & methodology
We assess the impact of carbon pricing based on two leading global projections: the IEA’s ETP 2014,
and the WEO 2014. Both publications contain several scenarios, including a scenario that assumes
carbon pricing at a global scale by 2030, and including one with no, or limited carbon pricing. By
analysing the differences in projected emissions in these scenarios, and correcting for other differences
between the scenarios that will drive this gap in emissions, we estimate the difference in emissions
between the scenarios that can be attributed to carbon pricing. The steps taken in this analysis are
summarized in Table 10.
INTNL15824 19
As part of the 2DS scenario in the ETP, IEA (2014a) assumes that carbon prices (in real terms) will
range between $80-100 per tonne by 2030.23 The 6DS scenario only assumes carbon prices (of
$40/tonne) in Europe, and only for those sectors that are currently included in the EU Emissions Trading
Scheme. The total level of energy-related CO2 emissions by 2030 amounts to 27.8 Gt CO2 in the 2DS
scenario, and to 45.1 Gt CO2 in the 6DS scenario.
We anticipate that the average price by 2030 lies around $50/tonne, which can be considered to be
roughly halfway the assumptions of the 6DS and the 2DS scenarios described above. As an extension
of the ETP scenarios, assuming global prices, we differentiate between the emerging economies and
the developed world, assuming a carbon price of $35/tonne for the former group, and $75/tonne for
the latter. Linear interpolation between the two projections for total emission levels in 6Ds and 2DS
yields emissions of 31.1 Gt CO2 under a carbon price of $75, and 39.7 Gt CO2 under a carbon price of
$35 by 2030.
Next, we apply weights according to the projected contribution to global GDP of both groups (65% for
the developing world and 35% for the developed24) to calculate saved emissions under a differentiated
price regime. This results in weighted average emissions of 36.7 Gt CO2. Compared to emissions under
the 6DS scenario this implies a reduction of 8.4 Gt CO2. Finally, we assume that only 33-66% of the
difference in emission levels can be attributed to carbon pricing. Consequently, we estimate the range
of the total reduction potential to be 2.8 to 5.6 Gt CO2.
As a triangulation to this method, we also made an assessment based on the World Energy Outlook
2014 using a similar interpolation between the Current Policies scenario and the 450 scenario using a
CO2 price of 50 $/t. Again, we varied the share of the mitigation impact that should be attributed to
the carbon pricing from one third to two thirds. This resulted in a range for the mitigation impact from
2.3 to 4.7 Gt CO2 by 2030.
We have also checked CO2 prices as adopted in scenarios in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report for
Working Group III (chapter 6). The median of CO2 price levels used in 430-480 ppm scenarios is
approximately 90 US$/t CO2, with 25th and 75th percentiles at around 70 and 130 US$/tCO2. This is
similar to the 80-100 US$/t CO2 price range adopted in the 2DS scenario by IEA ETP. Therefore, we
are confident that using IPCC scenarios for this analysis would have resulted in similar estimates of
GHG reductions.
It must be noted that the ETP scenario relies on carbon pricing as a central parameter to represent
climate policies. If other effective policy instruments are implemented apart from carbon prices, as part
of a well-aligned and integrated policy portfolio, the carbon price level could be lower to achieve the
same level of emissions reductions.
23 We assume the dollar prices are $2013, and therefore all carbon prices should be considered in real terms. The ETP report is not explicit
about the base year they use for these dollar price levels, but the WEO reports prices in $2013, and includes prices in the same range. 24 Based on ESPAS (2013)
INTNL15824 20
Table 10: Estimates of total GHG emissions by 2030 under a differentiated CO2 price regime, based on linear
interpolations of total GHG emissions in the 6Ds and 2DS scenarios and contributions to global GDP
CO2 price by 2030
US$/t CO2
Total GHG emissions 2030
Gt CO2
6DS 40 (in the EU only)1 45.1
2DS 80-100 27.8
Linear interpolation 35 39.7
Linear interpolation 75 31.1
Weighted average 35 for developing countries (65% global GDP)
75 for developed countries (35% global GDP) 36.7
1) We assume this corresponds to a global average of 10 $/tCO2
3.6 Climate-smart infrastructure
All countries, including working together through groups such as the G20, should adopt
key principles to ensure the integration of climate risk and climate objectives in national
infrastructure policies and plans, and these principles should be used to guide the
investment strategies of public and private finance institutions, particularly multilateral
and national development banks.
This recommendation refers to general policy principles and its mitigation impact was not quantified,
as agreed with NCE.
3.7 Innovation
The Commission recommends that emerging and developed country governments work
together and with the private sector and developing countries in strategic partnerships
to accelerate research, development and demonstration in low-carbon areas critical to
post-2030 growth and emissions reduction.
This recommendation refers to technologies that will be important after 2030. Therefore, the related
mitigation impact is not relevant for this analysis.
INTNL15824 21
3.8 Business
The Commission recommends that all major businesses should adopt short- and long-
term emissions reduction targets and implement corresponding action plans, including
on the evolution or transition of their workforce, and all industry sectors and value-
chains should agree roadmaps, consistent with the long-term decarbonisation of the
global economy.
Suggested addition: As part of this recommendation, all companies in the Global 500
should adopt ambitious emission reduction targets.
Summary of findings
We estimate the potential impact of a recommendation for all of the Global 500 companies to be 1.9
Gt CO2.
Assumptions & methodology
The mitigation impact has been calculated as the product of base year emissions, a growth factor, the
share of companies adopting a target, and an indicative reduction target. These are provided in Table
11.
The estimate for base year emissions of the Global 500 is based on two estimates for 2011 emissions
of the Global 500. 2011 emissions from 370 disclosing companies out of the Global 500 were 3.01 Gt
CO2 (CDP, 2015). A simple extrapolation to 500 companies results in an estimate of 4.18 Gt CO2.
Alternatively, emissions for the full Global 500 may be based on Thompson Reuters (2014) including a
proprietorial estimate for non-disclosing companies of 4.71 Gt CO2.
Growth in until 2030 under business as usual is a based on the trend for industrial final energy demand
in the IEA ETP 6DS scenario. In line with emissions growth under 6DS scenario from IEA ETP. Under
this scenario global industrial final energy demand in 2011 and in 2030 are 118,954 PJ and 163,619
respectively.
The assumption of reducing BaU emissions by 30% in 2030 is reasonable and can be justified by
company targets adopted to date. A recent study for UNEP demonstrated that companies participating
in company initiatives on average took up commitments of 22-23% compared to BaU by 2020 (UNEP,
2015). This is based on average GHG reduction commitments in 50 companies. These 50 companies
were sampled from 167 companies in the Global 500 participating one or more company initiatives,
including the Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC), Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI),
World Wide Fund for Nature (WFF) Climate Savers, Ultra-Low CO2 Steelmaking (ULCOS0, Caring for
climate and Science Based Targets. Based on this average commitment of 22-23% over BaU by 2020,
we make an estimate of typical commitments level by 2030. Since until the year 2030 more action can
be taken, higher targets, e.g. on the order of 30%, can be adopted.
On this basis the impact on 2030 BaU emissions of this recommendation for the Global 500 can be
estimated at 1.9 Gt CO2.
INTNL15824 22
Table 11: Potential impact on 2030 BaU emissions for various formulations of a recommendation for business
Target
group
Base year
emissions
Growth
until target
year
Target year
Companies
adopting
target
Reduction
target
Impact
Gt CO2
Global 500 4.5 Gt (2011)1 38% 3 2030 100% 30% 1.9
3.9 Aviation & maritime
The Commission recommends that greenhouse gas emissions from the international
aviation and maritime sectors be reduced in line with a 2°C pathway through action under
the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to implement a market-based
mechanism and aircraft efficiency standard, and the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) through a fuel efficiency standard, respectively.
Summary of findings
We estimate the total mitigation impact to be 0.6 to 0.9 Gt CO2, broken down as follows:
0.2 to 0.3 Gt CO2 for the aviation sector; and
0.4 to 0.6 Gt CO2 for the maritime sector.
Assumptions & methodology
Ecofys carried out the analysis for the sub-recommendations on aviation and maritime transportation.
As the nature of the sub-recommendations differ for these two sectors, assumptions and methodology
are reported separately below.
Aviation
For the aviation sector, we use a study by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which
models the impacts of the adoption of a market-based mechanism (MBM) to 2036 (ICAO, 2013). This
study is based on six scenarios reflecting the adoption of three different types of MBMs: global
offsetting, global offsetting with revenue, and a global emissions trading scheme. The quantitative
results presented in the study reflect economic modelling without revenue generation, and thus relate
to an offsetting scheme. In these scenarios it is assumed that emissions will be capped at 2020 levels.
The study finds that the introduction of a market-based mechanism would mitigate 464 Mt CO2 by
2036, relative to the baseline scenario. Of this, 12 Mt CO2 would be the result of in-sector CO2 reduction
caused by a reduction of the traffic demand, and 452 Mt CO2 would result from capping emissions at
2020 levels. Results from a supplementary study presenting two additional scenarios are also
presented. Under these, the mitigation impact is 443 Mt CO2 in 2036 for low technology & moderate
operational improvements, and 609 Mt CO2 in 2036 for optimistic technology & operational
improvements.
As the ICAO’s results are presented for 2036, we apply a correction of the mitigation impact in 2030.
We do so through linear interpolation using traffic demand projections. To reflect uncertainty, we us
the range of 25% above and below the ICAO core study findings. Based on our calculations, we estimate
the mitigation impact from the implementation of an MBM in the aviation sector to be between 0.2 and
0.3 Gt CO2 in 2030.
INTNL15824 23
Maritime sector
For the maritime sector, we base our analysis on estimates provided by the ICCT in a recent report
(ICCT, 2014). The report indicates that efficiency standards adopted by the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) hold a mitigation impact of 0.34 Gt CO2 in 203025. Further, additional efforts to
strengthen the standards for new ships and to increase the operational efficiency of existing ships could
result in an additional mitigation of 0.4 Gt CO2 in 203026.
Other studies provide comparable insights. A recent study by the IMO models carbon dioxide emissions
in the maritime sector to 2050 (IMO, Reduction of GHG emissions from ships., 2014). In this study,
various scenarios are developed and, for each, two efficiency improvement options are modelled. In
the high-efficiency gain scenario, 60% efficiency gain is assumed between 2030 and 2050. In the low
efficiency gain scenario, 40% is assumed between these dates. Although these efficiency improvements
take place between 2030 and 2050, their magnitude is informative. Another study by the IMO dating
back to 2009 estimated that efficiency gains in the maritime sector could amount to between 25% and
75% (IMO, 2009). Lastly, a study by DNV examined the broader mitigation impact in the maritime
sector, including non-efficiency measures, and concluded that emissions reduction of 33% from a
baseline scenario were achievable in 2030 (DNV, 2010). Together, these studies suggest that the
estimate provided by the ICCT is achievable and that additional reductions are possible through the
implementation of alternative measures.
We assume that both the efficiency gains resulting from existing policies and additional efficiency
measures should be counted toward the mitigation impact relative to the IEA ETP’s 6DS scenario, which
is based on current trends rather than current policies. We then take the following steps to ensure
alignment with the Commission’s recommendations. These steps are similar to those taken for the
recommendation on energy efficiency in the transport sector.
We apply a baseline correction to account for discrepancies in the estimates of transport related
emissions by the IEA (ETP 2014) and ICCT (2014) (7.1 and 6.84 Gt CO2 respectively).
We apply a conservative range of 25% below the cumulative mitigation impact of existing
policies and additional efficiency gains reported by the ICCT.
Lastly, we apply a rebound correction of 20%.
No geographical correction is applied as the ICCT’s estimates refer to international shipping, which is
also the scope of the recommendation. As a result, we find that the mitigation impact from efficiency
gains in the maritime transport sector is between 0.4 and 0.6 Gt CO2 in 2030.
25 This number relates to the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) adopted by the IMO’s Marine Environmental Protection Committee
(MEPC) in 2011, which will improve efficiency gains in new ships by 30% by 2025. 26 ICCT bases this number on further efficiency gains of 1.5% per year for new ships after 2025, and 1% per year for existing ships from
2015.
INTNL15824 24
3.10 Hydrofluorcarbons
The Commission recommends that the Parties to the Montreal Protocol approve an
amendment to phase down the production and use of HFCs.
Summary of findings
We estimate the total mitigation impact to be 1.1 to 1.7 Gt CO2.
Assumptions & methodology
The estimated impact was taken from Velders et al (2009) who elaborated new HFC baseline (both
high and low growth) and corresponding phasedown scenarios. The phasedown envisaged in the
recommendation could be linked to these. The phasedown scenario contemplate a freeze in the growth
of HFC consumption and production at 2014 for developed countries and 2024 for developing countries.
The freeze is then followed by an annual 4% decrease in consumption and production.
In the high HFC baseline scenario 3.8 GtCO2 are emitted in 2030. In the corresponding phasedown
scenario this is reduced by 1.7 to a level of 2.1 Gt CO2. In the low HFC baseline scenario 2.5 Gt CO2
are emitted in 2030. In the corresponding phasedown scenario this is reduced by 1.4 to a level of 1.1
Gt CO2. These numbers were provided by Borgford-Parnell (2015) who is undertaking emissions
analysis based on the work by Velders et al (2009).
INTNL15824 25
4 Overlaps
We estimate the total overlap between the various recommendations to be between 7.7 and 11 Gt CO2.
We have accounted for the overlaps described below and have treated these conservatively. Indeed,
as it is difficult to quantify the exact share of overlap between recommendations, we have erred on the
side of caution and consider 100% overlap for specific components of the cities recommendation,
between energy efficiency in new buildings and clean energy financing, for the carbon pricing
recommendation and for the aviation sub-recommendation. Additionally, we consider that 50% of the
mitigation impact from the business recommendation overlaps with other recommendations. The
following table summarises the overlap that was removed and further description is provided below.
An overview of the overlaps removed from our initial mitigation impact is in Table 12.
Table 12: Overview of the overlaps accounted for in this study
Recommendation Overlap with
Overlap to
remove
(Gt CO2)
Low High
Cities (heating retrofits & fuel switching / solar PV, building
heating efficiency, vehicle efficiency for passenger cars & freight)
Clean energy financing,
energy efficiency 3.1 3.1
Energy efficiency in new buildings Clean energy financing 0.6 1.0
Carbon pricing All 2.8 5.6
Business All 1.0* 1.0*
Aviation All 0.2 0.3
Total 7.7 11
1) We assume only 50% of the mitigation impact for business (1.9 ) overlaps with the other recommendations
Cities
The mitigation impact for cities overlap with the several other recommendations. As it is difficult to
quantify the exact overlap between these elements, we have removed 100% of the mitigation impact
of different components of the cities recommendations overlapping with the following other
recommendations. This is 3.1 Gt CO2 in total.
Clean energy financing: this overlap () concerns heating retrofits and fuel switching, which may
result from investments in the building sector. While it is likely that such investments will mostly
be made by private individuals and businesses for residential and commercial buildings
respectively, it is probable that governments, multilateral and national development banks will
contribute funds. The overlap removed is therefore conservative.
Energy efficiency: the mitigation impact for the cities recommendation includes various energy
efficiency measures in the building and transport sector. Cities are likely to hold additional
potential relative to the energy efficiency recommendation which focuses on standardisation.
As such, removal of 100% of the energy efficiency-related components of the cities
recommendation is conservative.
INTNL15824 26
Energy efficiency & clean energy financing
One component of the energy efficiency recommendation concerns new building energy efficiency. This
is overlaps with the recommendation on clean energy financing which includes financing in the building
sector. We have excluded 100% overlap of the mitigation impact from the implementation of standards
in new buildings, which is 0.6-1.0 Gt CO2. This is likely conservative as a portion of the investments
and financing needed would be provided by the general public and businesses outside of the financing
scope included in the recommendation on clean energy financing.
Carbon pricing
The specific mitigation impact of carbon pricing is subject to considerable uncertainty as carbon prices
have significant economy-wide impact, and as detailed models are not yet available. Although, we have
made assumptions to isolate the mitigation impact of carbon prices as much as possible, and although
carbon pricing is likely to have a strong impact on power generation, which is not included separately
in the recommendations, it is likely that overlaps remain. In the absence of robust and reliable models
on the impact of carbon pricing, the estimate for the overlap is subject to significant uncertainty. We
err on the side of caution and conservatively assume that 100% of the mitigation impact we have
identified overlaps with other measures. This is 2.8-5.6 Gt CO2.
Business
It is likely that the adoption of emission reduction targets by leading companies will result in overlaps
with other recommendations, particularly those on clean energy financing and energy efficiency. As we
believe business has a significant role to play on top of action by national government we chose to
exclude 1.0 Gt CO2. This is approximately 50% of the mitigation impact of the recommendation for
business.
Aviation
ICAO is currently developing a market-based mechanism for international aviation and exploring
different possibilities. It is likely that an offsetting scheme will be preferred, which implies that the
overlap between the recommendation on aviation and other recommendations is likely significant.
Additionally, according to the ICAO’s model, only 12 of the 464 Mt CO2 that are projected to be avoided
by 2036 occur within the sector. Additional in-sector emissions could result from the adoption standards
in the aviation sector or from increased use of bio-jetfuels. However, these options are not considered
in our efforts to quantify the mitigation potential in the aviation sector. Conservatively, we exclude
100% of the mitigation impact from the recommendation for aviation, which is 0.2-0.3 Gt CO2.
INTNL15824 27
5 Conclusions
Based on our evaluation of the recommendations for global climate action from the Commission, we
estimate the total mitigation of these recommendations to be between 16 and 26 Gt CO2 in 2030.
This estimate is based on the cumulative mitigation impact of eight measures (21 to 34 Gt CO2) from
which we have subtracted the estimated overlap (7.7 to 11 Gt CO2 for respectively low and high
mitigation impact estimates for each of the recommendations).
This mitigation impact should be compared to the emissions gap of 20 to 34 Gt CO2 identified for this
study. The impact was calculated relative to a baseline with total GHG emissions by 2030 adding up to
64 Gt CO2. The IPCC median baseline scenario from its Fifth Assessment Report is higher (69 Gt CO2
in 2030). This may be because activity levels in the IPCC AR5 median baseline are higher, or because
GHG emissions relative to the activity levels are higher. In either case, the potential mitigation impact
would likely have been even higher. Thus, the mitigation potential range of 16 to 26 Gt CO2 may be
considered a conservative estimate.
Our analysis shows that the recommendations have the potential to a large share of the emissions gap
in 2030, as illustrated below.
The recommendations quantified in this report do not include an explicit recommendation for the power
sector. Nevertheless, emission reductions in the power sector would be realized through several
recommendations, notably through carbon pricing, which should lead to a further upscaling of low
carbon electricity. Furthermore, a reduced demand for electricity following the recommendation on
energy efficiency will also lead to reduced emissions from the power generation sector. Finally, a
reduced energy demand and a greater use of renewable energy in cities and business would also
contribute to reduce emissions from conventional power generation. Further emission reductions in the
power generation sector are however possible beyond the scope of these recommendations.
INTNL15824 28
Figure 3: Individual and cumulative mitigation impact of recommendations for global climate action by 2030 (note:
values provided are medians. For the full range, see individual recommendations)
We stress that rapid and effective action by public and private actors worldwide is needed. Lastly, we
note that, although ambitious, the recommendations have the potential to be complemented by other
measures, or exceeded in favourable contexts.
INTNL15824 29
6 References
ACEEE. (2012). The rebound effect: Large or Small? An ACEEE White Paper. Washington D.C.:
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Borgford-Parnell, N. (2015). Oral communication (email 8 May 2015).
CDP. (2015). Oral communication. Email 30 April 2015.
CERES. (2014). The Clean Energy Trillion.
CLASP. (2011). Opportunities for Success and CO2 Savings from Appliance Energy Efficiency
Harmonisation. Prepared by Paul Waide (Navigant Consulting) on behalf of CLASP.
Cooper, P. J. M., Cappiello, S., Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M., Zougmoré, R. and Kinyangi, J.
(2013). Large-Scale Implementation of Adaptation and Mitigation Actions in Agriculture. CCAFS
Working Paper No. 50. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food
Security.
Ecofys. (2014). Evaluation of the Energy Labelling Directive and specific aspects of the Ecodesign
Directive. Utrecht: Ecofys.
EPA. (2012). Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990 - 2030. Washington
D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
ESPAS. (2013). The Global Economy in 2030: Trends and Strategies for Europe.
GBPN. (2012). Best Practice Policies for Low Carbon & Energy Buildings Based on Scenario Analysis.
Paris: Global Buildings Performance Network.
GBPN-KPMG. (2013). Building for our Future. The Deep Path for Closing the Emissions Gap in the
Building Sector. Paris: Global Buildings Performance Network.
Houghton. (2013). The emissions of carbon from deforestation and degradation in the tropics: Past
trends and future potential. Carbon Management, 4(5), 539–546).
ICAO. (2013). Report on the Assessment of Market-Based Measures. Montreal: International Civil
Aviation Organization.
ICCT. (2014). The State of Clean Transport Policy: a 2014 Synthesis of Vehicles and Fuel Policy
Developments. Washington D.C.: ICCT.
IEA. (2012). World Energy Outlook 2012. Paris: OECD/IEA.
IEA. (2013a). Redrawing the energy-climate map. Paris: International Energy Agency
IEA. (2013b). Transition to Sustainable Buildings. Strategies and Opportunities to 2050. Paris:
International Energy Agency.
IEA. (2014a). Energy Technology Perspectives 2014: Harnessing Electricity's Potential. Paris:
OECD/IEA.
IEA. (2014b). World Energy Outlook 2014. Paris: International Energy Agency.
IMO. (2009). Second IMO GHG study, 2009. London: IMO.
IMO. (2014). Reduction of GHG emissions from ships. London: International Maritime Organization.
IPCC. (2014a). Assessing Transformation Pathways. In IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of
Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 413-510). Cambridge (UK) & New York (USA):
Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2014b). Buildings. In IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation Climate Change. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (pp. 671-738). Cambridge (UK) & New York (USA): Cambridge University Press.
INTNL15824 30
Kissinger, G., Herold, M. and de Sy, V. (2012). Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation: A
Synthesis Report for REDD+ Policymakers. Lexeme Consulting, Vancouver. Available at:
LBNL. (2012). Estimate of Cost-Effective Potential for Minimum Efficiency Performance Standards in
13 Major World Economies: Energy Savings, Environmental and Financial Impacts. Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory.
McKinsey. (2014). McKinsey’s Global GHG Abatement Cost Curve v.3.0.
NCE. (2014). Better Growth, Better Climate. Washington D.C.: The Global Commission on the
Economy and Climate.
Niles, J. O., Brown, S., Pretty, J., Ball, A. S. and Fay, J. (2002). Potential carbon mitigation and
income in developing countries from changes in use and management of agricultural and forest
lands. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering
Sciences, 360(1797). 1621–1639. DOI:10.1098/rsta.2002.1023.
Pye-Smith, C. (2013). The Quiet Revolution: how Niger’s farmers are re-greening the parklands of
the Sahel. ICRAF Trees for Change, No. 12. World Agroforestry Center, Nairobi.
Sendzimir, J., Reij, C. P. and Magnuszewski, P. (2011). Rebuilding Resilience in the Sahel:
Regreening in the Maradi and Zinder Regions of Niger. Ecology and Society, 16(3), Art. 1.
DOI:10.5751/ES-04198-160301.
SEI. (2014). Advancing climate ambition: How city-scale actions can contribute to global climate
goals. Working Paper 2014-06. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute.
ThomasReuters. (2014). Global 500 Greenhouse Performance 2010-2013.
UNEP. (2014). The Emissions Gap Report 2014. Nairobi: United Nations Environmental Programme.
UNEP. (2015). Climate commitments of subnational actors and business. A quantitative assessment
of their emission reduction impact. Nairobi: United Nations Environmental Programme.
Velders, J.M., Fahey, D.W., Daniel, J.S., McFarland, M. and Andersen, S.O. (2009). The large
contribution of projected HFC emissions to future climate forcing. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 10949-10954.
World Bank. (2005). China – Second Loess Plateau Watershed Rehabilitation Project. Report No.
34612. Washington, DC.
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V.
Kanaalweg 15G
3526 KL Utrecht
T: +31 (0) 30 662-3300
F: +31 (0) 30 662-3301
I: www.ecofys.com