quantification of the mitigation impact of the 2030 ... · chamber of commerce 30161191 the...

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



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.



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.



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.



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,



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.



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.



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.


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.


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.


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.


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).


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

http://www.clasponline.org/en/Resources/Resources/PublicationLibrary/2011/Opportunities-for-appliance-EE-harmonization.aspx#file

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.


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.


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.


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.


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

quantification of the mitigation impact of the 2030 ... · chamber of commerce 30161191 the...

Documents