Transcript Imperial College - CCC Report Jan 09

Building a Low-Carbon Economy –
The UK's Contribution to Tackling
Climate Change
www.theccc.org.uk
UK Climate Change Bill (Nov 2008)
Commitment to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 60% (80%) from
1990 levels by 2050
Established system of legally binding “carbon budgets”
Established the CCC as an independent body to provide expert
advice on budget levels and the policies to reach them
Climate Change Committee: Responsibilities
Recommend
Identify implications of
proposed budgets for
2050 CO2 target:
60%, 80%, or other
First 3 CO2 budgets:
2008-12, 2013-2017, 2018-2022 (≥26%)
How much buy-in of credits allowed
Whether & how international aviation
& shipping should be included
•
Competitiveness
•
Security of supply
•
Fuel poverty
•
Fiscal revenues
•
The regions
•
Ancillary environmental effects
Annual reports on
Budgets for CO2 or all GHGs
•
Progress against budgets
•
Extent of borrowing/banking
•
Other?
Contents of First CCC Report
Pt. I: Setting the target
1. Setting
2. Meeting
Pt. II: Setting & meeting the first 3 budgets
3. Summary 4. C markets 5. Decarb elec 6. Building & industry 7. Transport
Pt III: Extending the carbon budget framework?
8. International aviation & shipping 9. Non CO2 GHG
Pt IV: Wider economic & social considerations
10 Competitiveness 11. Econ costs & fiscal 12. Fuel poverty 13. Security 14. Nations
Pt V: Synthesis & recommendations
1. The 2050 target
(i)
Required global emissions reduction
(ii)
Appropriate UK contribution
(iii)
Technologies for meeting required reductions
(i) Required global emissions reduction
What’s changed?
• Advances in science
• Actual emissions higher
than forecast
Assessment of damage
Decision rule
• keep temperature
change close to 2°C
and probability of 4°C
increase at very low
levels
•
•
Global trajectories
considered
Early or later peak
(2015 vs. 2030)
3%/4% annual
emissions reduction
•
•
Required global
emissions reduction
of 50%
20-24 GtCO2e
emissions in 2050
8-10 GtCO2e in
2100
Kyoto GHG emissions trajectories designed by the CCC
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
2016:4%
40
2016:3%low
30
2016:3%high
2028:3%
40
2028:1.5%
30
A1B
20
GtCO2e
GtCO2e
•Peak in emissions around 2028 or 2016.
•Subsequent reductions in CO2 emissions range from 1.5% to 4% per year.
•Other Kyoto gas emissions are reduced at consistent rates, with consideration of the ultimate
emissions ‘floor’ that might be reasonably reached.
2016:1.5%
20
A1B
10
10
0
2000
2050
2100
2150
2200
Year
Peak 2028
CO2 emissions reducing at
1.5% or 4%.
0
2000
2050
2100
2150
2200
Year
Peak 2016
CO2 emissions reducing at 1.5% , 3% or 4%.
2016:3% and 2016:4% were given lower
emissions floors
Some CCC emission scenarios peaking at 2016
and projections of CO2e and T for one case
80
70
GtCO2e
60
50
2016:4%
40
2016:3%low
30
2016:3%high
20
2016:1.5%
10
0
2000
A1B
2050
2100
2150
2200
Year
2016:4%low
2016:4%low
4
ppm CO2e
650
600
90th percentile
550
500
450
central model
estimate
400
10th pecentile
350
2000
2050
2100
Year
2150
2200
°C above pre-industrial
700
3.5
3
90th percentile
2.5
2
central model
estimate
1.5
1
10th pecentile
0.5
0
2000
2050
2100
Year
2150
2200
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
60%
50%
2028:3%
40%
2028:1.5%
30%
20%
10%
Probability of exceedence
Probability of exceedence
Probability distributions of global mean temperature
increase by 2100
70%
60%
50%
2016:4%
40%
2016:3%
30%
2016:1.5%
20%
10%
0%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Global mean temperature increase by 2100 (°C)
1
2
3
4
5
Global mean temperature increase by 2100 (°C)
Preferred trajectories: emissions target for 2050
Emissions
trajectory
2016:3%
2016:4%
Kyoto gas emissions (GtCO2e)
1990
2007
2050
36.1
48.1
23.9
36.1
48.1
19.6
2050 emissions cut, from
1990
2007
34%
50%
46%
59%
This is broadly in line with the G8 commitment to halve emissions
by 2050.
CO2 abatement from IEA BLUE Map
(ii) Appropriate UK contribution
50% global reduction
Burden share
• Alternative methodologies (contract and
converge, intensity convergence, triptych
etc.)
• Equal per capita emissions:
̶
20-24 GtCO2e total at global level IN
2050
̶
Implies 2.1-2.6 tCO2e per capita
All GHGs
2.1-2.6 CO2e per
capita gives a UK
reduction of at least
80% in 2050
Aviation and
shipping included
(ii) Appropriate UK contribution (cont.): the scale of
the challenge
695 Mt CO2e
International aviation
& shipping*
42
UK non-CO2 GHGs
98
Other CO2
Industry (heat &
industrial processes)
108
Residential &
Commercial heat
103
Domestic transport
Electricity Generation
134
159 Mt CO2e
184
2006 emissions
* bunker fuels basis
77% cut
(= 80% vs. 1990)
2050 objective
UK Greenhouse gas emissions 1990-2006
UK sectoral CO2 emissions for
80% reduction at 2050 (MARKAL)
(iii) Meeting required reductions
Reducing power sector emissions:
Renewables (Wind, solar, tidal and marine, biomass), nuclear, CCS
Application of
power to transport
and heat
Reducing transport emissions:
• Fuel efficiency
• Electric/plug-in hybrids
Bio fuels (first vs. second
generation)
Reducing heat emissions:
• Energy efficiency
• Lifestyle change
• Electric heat (e.g. heat pumps,
storage heating)
• Biomass boilers
• CCS in industry
(iii) Meeting required reductions (cont.): power
sector evolution
Emissions intensity to 2050
Power generation to 2050
600
TWh electricity generation per year
600
g/CO2 per kWh
500
500
400
300
400
200
300
100
200
2000
0
2006
2010
2020
2030
2050
90% path
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
(iii) Meeting required reductions (cont): UK path to an
80% or more reduction in 2050
Wind and nuclear
Other renewable
and CCS
Energy efficiency
improvement
Renewable heat
Electric heat
Electric cars/plug in
hybrids
2008
2020
2050
1-2% of GDP
in 2050
2. The first three budgets
(i)
Level of budget (factors we have considered, CCC
proposals)
(ii)
Use of credits to meet budget
(iii) Feasible emissions reductions
(i) Level of budget: factors considered
The path to 2050
• 2020 ambition needed to
make path to 2050
technically feasible
• Early action needed as
contribution to global
emission containment
PROPOSED
BUDGETS
European Union
strategies
2008-12
2013-17
2018-22
• 30% reduction in GHG by
2020 versus 1990 if
global deal at
Copenhagen
• 20% unilateral cut
Bottom up sector by sector
analysis
• Technical feasibility
• Costs of achieving
reductions
• Policies in place or needed
to drive emissions
reductions
(i) Level of budget (cont.): CCC proposals
Intended budget
• To apply once a global deal has been agreed
Interim budget
• To apply before there is a global deal
• Should prepare for the Intended budget
Intended: 42% below 1990 in 2020
(31% below 2005)
Interim: 34% below 1990 in 2020
(21% below 2005)
(i) Level of budget (cont.): emissions ceilings (no IAS)
700
600
MtCO2e
500
400
Interim budget
300
Intended budget
200
100
0
2007
2008-2012
2013-2017
2018-2022
(annual average) (annual average) (annual average)
(i) Level of budget (cont.): treatment of aviation and
shipping
Aviation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
European and UK shares of
international emissions can be defined
No major competitiveness problems
with EU only policies
In EU 20% and 30% targets, and
within UK shares of these targets
In EU ETS – capped from 2012
But included in EU ETS on arbitrary
“allocation” basis, making
reconciliation with national budget
inclusion complex
Do not include in formal legal ‘budget’
But allow for in budget setting
And Committee to monitor progress
and policies
Shipping
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Precise UK or even European share
difficult to define
Dangers that European only policies
(e.g. inclusion within the EU ETS)
could produce carbon leakage
Not in EU 20% and 30% targets
Not in EU ETS
Do not include in formal legal
‘budget’
But allow for in budget setting
Committee to monitor progress and
policies
Global sectoral deal ideal way
forward
CCC proposed UK CO2e emission targets
…
900
800
…
MtCO2e
…
700
…
…
600
500
MtCO2e emissions Interim (no IAS)
MtCO2e emissions Intended (no IAS)
400
Total including IAS
300
200
2050
Target
100
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
Year
(ii) Use of credits to meet targets
•
•
•
Pros
Minimise costs
Promise of finance flow may help in
global deal negotiations
Finance flow helps achieve low carbon
developing economies
•
•
Cons
Essential for developed economies to
drive domestic emissions reductions
and illustrate feasibility of low carbon
economy
CDM type credits (versus notional BAU)
can never be as robust as allowances
within cap and trade system
Committee distinguishes between:
• European Union Allowances (EUAs) in EU ETS
• Offset credits (e.g. CDM)
Committee position
• No restrictions on use of EUAs to meet budget
• Restrictions on use of offset credits
• No purchase by government to meet Interim budget
• Purchase may be appropriate to transition between Interim and Intended
budgets
• This strategy is consistent with meeting 2050 target
(iii) Feasible emissions reductions - Power
600
500
g/CO2 per kWh
Power
•
Renewable and nuclear
•
Preparation for CCS
•
Required policies
- EU ETS longer term
extension
- CCS demonstration
- Price/non-price policies
to drive renewables
400
300
200
100
0
2006
2010
2020
Scenarios
•
40% emission reduction by 2020
- 30% renewables, nuclear in 2020s
- Less renewables (e.g. 25%) and some nuclear by
2020
•
Costing 0.2% of GDP
•
Average carbon intensity in 2020 around 300g/kWh, from
current 500g/kWh
2030
2050
(iii) Feasible emissions reductions – Power (cont.):
CCC position on coal generation
No role for conventional
coal beyond early
2020s
CCS not proven at
production scale
New coal investment only
with full expectation of
retrofit in early 2020s
Policy options:
• Requirement for retrofit
• Carbon price underpin
• Emissions limit
(iii) Feasible emissions reductions – Energy use in
buildings and industry
Our approach
•
•
•
Technical potential
Cost effective potential
Realistically achievable potential
Commercial
•
•
Residential
•
•
•
Technical potential over 100
MtCO2
Realistic potential
- Energy efficiency potential
22 MtCO2
- Renewable heat potential 10
MtCO2
Policy
- Supplier Obligation
- EPCs
- Appliance standards
- Renewable heat
•
•
Technical potential over 30
MtCO2 in energy efficiency
and micro-generation
Realistic potential 511MtCO2.
50% covered by caps
Need for wider policy
coverage
Industrial
•
•
•
Technical potential 7 MtCO2
Realistic potential 4-6 MtCO2
95% covered by caps
(iii) Feasible emissions reductions – Transport
Improved carbon efficiency of vehicles
Demand side measures
Cars: Improved fuel efficiency,
electric/plug in hybrids offer potential for
12 MtCO2 emission reduction
Eco driving: 3 MtCO2 in 2020
Vans : Fuel efficiency improvement,
electric/plug in hybrids offer potential for
at least 3 MtCO2 in 2020
Journey planning and modal shift:
3 MtCO2 in 2020
HGVs: Fuel efficiency improvement
offers potential for at least1 MtCO2 in
2020
Demand Management:
Need ambitious EU targets and domestic
implementing mechanisms( information,
fiscal levers)
Information and encouragement.
Response is inherently uncertain
•
Eddington Review
(iii) Feasible emissions reductions – Transport
(cont.): path to 100 g/km emissions by 2020 for new
cars in UK
200
Average new car gCO2 / km
180
160
UK
UK converging to EU
EU
140
120
100
80
1997
2002
2007
2012
2017
2020
(iii) Feasible emissions reductions – Agriculture
•
8% of all UK GHG emissions: 44 MtCO2e
•
Preliminary cost curve analysis suggests technical potential of
15 MtCO2e: some controversial, some not
•
No policies currently in place to drive emissions reductions;
no reductions included in budget calculations
•
Further work needed to:
- Indentify realistic potential
- Design policies
(iii) Feasible emissions reductions - Emissions
reduction scenarios
Criteria:
•
Cost per tonne of carbon saved
•
Measures required on the path to 80% in 2050
•
Practical given constraints on deliverability
Current Ambition
Current detailed policies plus 30%
renewable power generation
Extended Ambition
Existing policies plus in policy intent
Stretch Ambition
Includes measures where there is no
current policy or commitment
•
•
Extended Ambition delivers Interim budget
Intended budget measures either credit purchase or some Stretch
Ambition actions
(iii) Feasible emissions reductions – resource cost of
meeting the Intended budget
2020 abatement cost as % of 2020 GDP
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Additional
knock-on
and
dynamic
effects
“Resource costs”
0.4
0.3
0.0%
Cost
from
macro
models
0.3-0.8%
0.1%
0.2
0.3%
0.1
0.2%
Electricity
Other measures Purchase of
decarbonisation (buildings,
EUAs and
industry,
international
transport)
credits
Total
resource
cost
Total
estimated
impact on
2020 GDP
3. Wider social and economic impacts of
budgets
Competitiveness
Fuel Poverty
Security of supply
Fiscal
Regional
•Risk in specific sectors accounting for less than 1% of
UK GDP and employment
•Risk can be mitigated by appropriate policy e.g. free
allowance allocation , border carbon price
adjustments, sectoral agreements
1.7 million increase in fuel poverty numbers but
mitigation possible at manageable cost
•Technical: supply intermittency manageable
•Geopolitical and economic volatility: positive impact
of reduced dependence on imported oil and gases
•Positive impacts from auctioning (£9 bn p.a.)
•Negative VED and fuel duty effect (£4 bn p.a.)
•£500 m p.a. to offset fuel poverty effects
Significant difference in pattern of opportunities and
challenges: important role for devolved
administrations
Conclusion
•
80% cut in GHG emission by 2050 relative to 1990, all
GHGs, aviation and shipping included
•
Unilateral 34% cut in GHGs by 2020 relative to 1990 (21%
relative to 2005)
•
42% cut in GHGs by 2020 relative to 1990 (31% relative to
2005) after global deal is achieved
•
34% cut predominately through domestic emissions
reduction
•
42% through domestic emissions reduction and credit
purchase
•
2020 cost less than 1% of GDP
CCC proposed UK CO2e emission targets
…
900
800
…
MtCO2e
…
700
…
…
600
500
MtCO2e emissions Interim (no IAS)
MtCO2e emissions Intended (no IAS)
400
Total including IAS
300
200
2050
Target
100
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
Year