Climate policy/Policy issues: Difference between revisions

From IMAGE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
m (Text replacement - "et al. 2" to "et al., 2")
(18 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ComponentPolicyIssueTemplate
{{ComponentPolicyIssueTemplate
|Reference=Den Elzen et al., 2007; Den Elzen and van Vuuren, 2007; Van Vuuren et al., 2011a; Van Vuuren et al., 2012; European Commission, 2010; Den Elzen et al., 2011b; Den Elzen et al., 2012a; UNEP, 2012; Hof et al., 2013; Höhne et al., 2012; Roelfsema et al., 2013a; Roelfsema et al., 2013b; Den Elzen and Höhne, 2010; Den Elzen et al., 2012c; Hof et al., 2012; Den Elzen et al., 2011a; Mendoza Beltrán et al., 2011; Hof et al., 2009; Hof et al., 2011; Hof et al., 2009; Hof et al., 2010; Den Elzen et al., 2012b; Van Vliet et al., 2012;
|Reference=Den Elzen et al., 2007; Den Elzen and van Vuuren, 2007; Van Vuuren et al., 2011a; Van Vuuren et al., 2012; European Commission, 2010; Den Elzen et al., 2012b; Den Elzen et al., 2011b; UNEP, 2012; Hof et al., 2013; Höhne et al., 2012; Roelfsema et al., 2013; Roelfsema et al., 2014; Den Elzen and Höhne, 2010; Den Elzen et al., 2012a; Hof et al., 2012; Mendoza Beltrán et al., 2011; Hof et al., 2011; Hof et al., 2008; Hof et al., 2010; Den Elzen et al., 2012c; Van Vliet et al., 2012; Admiraal et al., 2016; Van den Berg et al., 2015; Harmsen et al. (2016); UNEP (2016); Rogelj et al., 2016; Den Elzen et al., 2015a; Kuramochi et al., 2016; Hof et al., 2016;
|Description=[[FAIR model|FAIR]] can be used to analyse baseline developments, such as expected climate change damage. However, more often baseline developments are explored using the larger IMAGE framework, and the FAIR model receives this information as input for policy analysis.
|Description=[[FAIR model|FAIR]] can be used to analyse baseline developments, such as expected climate change damage. However, more often baseline developments are explored using the larger IMAGE framework, and the FAIR model receives this information as input for policy analysis.
|Example=As part of the IMAGE framework, FAIR can be used to evaluate a range of policies and strategies, including:


*Long-term mitigation strategies such as emission reductions over time ([[Den Elzen et al., 2007]]; [[Den Elzen and Van Vuuren, 2007]]; [[Van Vliet et al., 2009]]; [[Van Vuuren et al., 2011b]]; [[Van Vuuren et al., 2012|2012]]);
As part of the IMAGE framework, FAIR can be used to evaluate a range of policies and strategies, including:


*Evaluation of current reduction proposals by countries and policy options for the next 10 to 20 years ([[European Commission, 2010]]; [[Den Elzen et al., 2011a]]; [[Den Elzen et al., 2011b|2011b]]; [[Den Elzen et al., 2012b|2012b]]; [[UNEP, 2012]]; [[Hof et al., 2013]]);
*Long-term mitigation strategies such as emission reductions over time ([[Den Elzen et al., 2007]]; [[Den Elzen and van Vuuren, 2007]]; [[Van Vliet et al., 2009]]; [[Van Vuuren et al., 2011b]]; [[Van Vuuren et al., 2012|2012]]);


*Evaluation of domestic climate and energy policies for the next 10 to 20 years ([[Höhne et al., 2012]]; [[Roelfsema et al., 2013]]; [[Roelfsema et al., 2014|2014]]);
<div class="version changev31">


*Evaluation of burden sharing or effort sharing regimes ([[Den Elzen and Höhne, 2010]]; [[Den Elzen et al., 2012a]]; [[Hof et al., 2012]]);
*Evaluation of current reduction proposals by countries and policy options until 2030 ([[Den Elzen et al., 2011a]]; [[Den Elzen et al., 2011b|2011b]]; [[Den Elzen et al., 2012b|2012b]]; [[Hof et al., 2013]]; [[UNEP (2016)]]; [[Den Elzen et al., 2016]]);
 
*Evaluation of domestic climate and energy policies for the next 10 to 20 years ([[Höhne et al., 2012]]; [[Roelfsema et al., 2013]]; [[Roelfsema et al., 2014|2014]]; [[Den Elzen et al., 2015a]]; [[Kuramochi et al., 2016]]);
 
*Evaluation of burden sharing or effort sharing regimes ([[Den Elzen and Höhne, 2010]]; [[Den Elzen et al., 2012a]]; [[Hof et al., 2012]]; [[Hof et al., 2016]]);


*Analysis of regional abatement costs and emission trading ([[Den Elzen et al., 2008]]; [[Den Elzen et al., 2011a]]; [[Mendoza Beltrán et al., 2011]]);
*Analysis of regional abatement costs and emission trading ([[Den Elzen et al., 2008]]; [[Den Elzen et al., 2011a]]; [[Mendoza Beltrán et al., 2011]]);
Line 16: Line 19:
*Evaluation of proposals for financing climate policies ([[Hof et al., 2009]]; [[Hof et al., 2011|2011]]);
*Evaluation of proposals for financing climate policies ([[Hof et al., 2009]]; [[Hof et al., 2011|2011]]);


* Evaluation of trade-offs between mitigation costs, adaptation costs and the benefits of reduced climate damage ([[Hof et al., 2008]]; [[Hof et al., 2009|2009]]; [[Hof et al., 2010|2010]]).
* Evaluation of trade-offs between mitigation costs, adaptation costs and the benefits of reduced climate damage ([[Hof et al., 2008]]; [[Hof et al., 2009|2009]]; [[Hof et al., 2010|2010]]); [[Admiraal et al., 2016]]);
</div>


The FAIR Policy Evaluation module has been used in determining emission reductions resulting from pledges made for 2020 ([[Den Elzen et al., 2012c]]). In 2011, Brazil presented a new, higher estimate for national business-as-usual ({{abbrTemplate|BAU}}) emissions, against which a 36 to 39% reduction pledge was made. The total pledge for all greenhouse gas emissions including emissions from deforestation was a reduction of 20 to 24% compared to the PBL/IIASA BAU emission projections. This reduction is substantially lower than pledged by Brazil from national {{abbrTemplate|BAU}} projections .
<div class="version newv31">
* Assessment of the policy costs, emission profiles and climate effects resulting from the use of different climate metrics such as the {{abbrTemplate|GWP}} ([[Van den Berg et al., 2015]]; [[Harmsen et al. (2016)]]);
</div>




The FAIR Policy Evaluation module has been used in determining emission reductions resulting from pledges made for 2020 ([[Den Elzen et al., 2012c]]). In 2011, Brazil presented a new, higher estimate for national business-as-usual ({{abbrTemplate|BAU}}) emissions, against which a 36 to 39% reduction pledge was made. The total pledge for all greenhouse gas emissions including emissions from deforestation was a reduction of 20 to 24% compared to the PBL/IIASA BAU emission projections. This reduction is substantially lower than pledged by Brazil from national {{abbrTemplate|BAU}} projections .


As shown in the figure below, all reductions result from reduced emissions from deforestation (REDD). The contributions from {{abbrTemplate|REDD}} projects (about 560 MtCO2) are expected to exceed or match the required total reduction in all greenhouse gas emissions of 470 and 570 Mt CO2eq for the 36% and 39% reduction pledge scenarios.
|Example=<div class="version changev31">


The Global Pathfinder module FAIR-SiMCaP was used to determine what the pledges for 2020 and the {{abbrTemplate|INDC}} targets (mainly for 2030) imply for global emission pathways consistent with meeting the 2 °C target ([[Van Vliet et al., 2012]], [[UNEP (2016)]], [[Den Elzen et al., 2016]];). The main findings were as follows (see also the figure below):
* The global 2020 emission level resulting from implementation of the Copenhagen Accord pledges exceeds those of least-cost pathways that achieve a 2 °C target;
* Slightly postponing mitigation action compared to the least-cost scenario seems technically feasible but at higher cumulative discounted mitigation costs;
*Despite the reductions from the {{abbrTemplate|INDC}}s, the global and G20 emission level is still projected to be higher in 2030 than it was in 2010.
*The 2030 emissions are expected to reach 54 to 56 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent – far above the level of 42 needed to have a chance of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius this century.


</div>


===Evaluation of emission reductions on country level===
* For an even longer delay (the current Copenhagen scenario), the FAIR-SiMCaP model cannot fully compensate the higher emission level in the short term;
The policy evaluation module was used for determining the emission reductions resulting from the pledges made for 2020 ([[Den Elzen et al., 2012b]]). Here, as an example, the results for Brazil are presented (see Figure above). In 2011, Brazil provided a new, higher estimate for its business-as-usual emissions, against which its 36% to 39% reduction pledge is to be applied. The total pledge for all greenhouse gas emissions (including emissions from deforestation) lead to reductions of 20% to 24% according to the [[PBL]]/[[IIASA]] business as usual emission projections.
* A delay in emission reductions limits the flexibility in the portfolio of emission reduction options. Such delayed scenarios rely more on the use of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage ({{abbrTemplate|BECCS}}), an option with uncertain prospects for large-scale implementation.
 
These reductions are substantially lower than those pledged from national BAU projections by Brazil (see Figure above, left-hand graph). This figure also shows that all reductions result from reduced emissions from deforestation. The contributions from [[REDD]] projects (about 560 MtCO2) are expected to exceed or match the required total reduction in all greenhouse gases of 470 and 570 MtCO2 eq for the unconditional minimum (low: 36%) and maximum (high: 39%) pledge scenarios.
 
 
===Contribution of pledges in global climate target===
The global pathfinder module was used to determine what effect the pledges for 2020 have on the global pathway for meeting the 2 °C target ([[Van Vliet et al., 2012]]). The main findings were:
 
* The global 2020 emission level resulting from the implementation of the Copenhagen Accord pledges exceeds those of least-cost pathways that achieve a 2 °C target;
* Slightly postponing mitigation action (the potential Copenhagen scenario) compared to the least-cost scenario seems technically feasible, although at higher cumulative discounted mitigation costs;
* For an even longer delay (the current Copenhagen scenario), the [[FAIR-SiMCaP model]] cannot fully compensate the higher emission level in the short term;
* A delay in emission reductions limits the flexibility in the portfolio of emission reduction options. Such delayed scenarios rely more on the use of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage ([[HasAcronym::BECCS]]), an option with uncertain prospects for large-scale implementation.
}}
}}

Revision as of 14:44, 20 June 2017

Link to framework components overview

Parts of Climate policy/Policy issues

  1. Introduction page
  2. Model description
  3. Policy issues
  4. Data, uncertainty and limitations
  5. Overview of references
Component is implemented in:
Components:
Related IMAGE components
Models/Databases
Key publications
References
FAIR, the climate policy model in IMAGE 3.0
Flowchart Climate policy. See also the Input/Output Table on the introduction page.
Retrieved from "https://models.pbl.nl/index.php?title=Climate_policy/Policy_issues&oldid=30214"