Transcript Climate Change: Indian Perspectives

Climate Change: Indian
Perspectives Post Copenhagen
Prodipto Ghosh, Ph.D
Distinguished Fellow
The Energy & Resources Institute
20 August 2010
The Energy Challenge
 Some 600 million fellow Indians, c. 10% of global population, live without electricity!
 Traditional biomass is the primary cooking fuel for over 700 million Indians
 34.7% and 79.9% population below income level of $1 and $2 a day respectively
 Lack of access to commercial energy leads to Illiteracy, Gender
Inequality/Disempowerment, High IMR and MMR, Poor Health & and hence a low HDI
 India’s per capita commercial energy consumption is about 20% of the world average,
4% that of the US and 28% that of China
 Sustained GDP growth of 8-9% a year will enable India over the next 25 years to lift the
bottom 40% of her citizens to an acceptable level of economic & social well being – this
will require provision of modern energy to them
2
Myth 1:
“India has a very high level of energy intensity
(inefficiency?) of its economy (and has done
nothing about it)!”
3
India’s Decreasing Energy Intensity
0.31
0.29
0.27
0.25
0.23
0.21
0.19
0.17
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
0.15
1971
TPES (kgoe)/GDP ($2000 PPP)
Energy intensity of GDP (kgoe/$ 2000 PPP) based
on IEA data
4
Specific Energy Consumption in Integrated Steel
Plants
10
9.5
G Cal / tcs
22% reduction
in SEC from
1990-91 to
2004-05
9.3
9.0
9
8.9
8.8
8.7 8.7
8.4
8.5
8.3
8.1
8
8.0 7.9
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.5
Source: Steel Authority of India Ltd.
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
2000-01
1999-00
1998-99
1997-98
1996-97
1995-96
1994-95
1993-94
1992-93
1991-92
1990-91
7
Actual impact
higher as
share of D/R
rising
5
Source: BEE, 2007
6
Source: BEE, 2007
7
Trends in Energy Consumption of Ammonia & Urea
Plants
World’s Best: 7.0
Gcal/ton of Ammonia
13
12.48
12
25% REDUCTION
10
9.3
9
8.87
26% REDUCTION
India’s Best: 7.2
Gcal/ton of Ammonia
FAI Target: 6.5
Gcal/ton of Ammonia
8
6.59
7
AMMONIA
UREA
Source: Fertiliser Association of India (FAI)
2002
-0 3
2001
-02
2000
-01
1999
-00
1998
-9 9
1997
-98
1996
-9 7
1995
-96
1994
-9 5
1993
-94
1992
-9 3
1991
-92
1990
-9 1
6
1987
-88
Gcal/ton
11
Already average of
top 25% ammonia
plants more efficient
than world’s top 25%
plants
8
The fossil fuel CO2 intensity of the Indian
economy in 2004 was the same as Japan; better
than Germany!
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
CO2 2004/GDP in 2000$ at PPP % of US
Me
xi
Sa
u d co
iA
ra b
ia
Uk
ra i
ne
Sp
a in
Br
az
il
In d
on
es
ia
al i
a
Au
str
Ira
n
fri c
a
Fra
nc
e
SA
Ita
ly
Ro
K
UK
Ch
in a
Ru
ss
ia
Ja
pa
n
In d
Ge ia
rm
an
y
Ca
na
da
US
0%
GDP in 2000$ at PPP per Capita % of US
Data: “Growth and CO2 Emissions – How do different countries fare?” :
Roger Bacon and Soma Bhattacharya: World Bank, 2007:
9
Myth 2:
“India’s low per-capita GHG emissions reflect
its low per capita incomes, but India is
extremely inefficient when it comes to CO2
intensity of consumption!”
10
GHG emissions depend upon lifestyles!
• India’s low per-capita GHG emissions are only
partly due to poverty. A significant part is due
to inherently sustainable lifestyles that do not
change significantly as people become betteroff!
• Some international comparisons illustrate the
point:
11
CO2 emission from food sector--from Field (production) to
Table (processed food)-excluding cooking
Production related CO2 emission (tonne CO2/million kcal of food energy)
Processing related CO2 emissions (tonne CO2/million kcal of food energy)
Total CO2 emissions (tonne CO2/million kcal of food energy)
ton CO2/m kcal of food energy
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.7
1.75
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.2
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.1
0.1
0.00
India
China
United
Kingdom
Germany
Netherlands
Australia
United States
Source: TERI analysis (various data sources)
12
Municipal solid waste
Average rate of recycling (%) (excl. re-use)
70
80
53
47.3
60
30
40
20
0
US
Germany
Japan
India
GHG emissions from waste (gm/’000$GDPppp)
25
23
20
15
10
10
8
4
5
0
USA
UK
Germany
India
Source: TERI Analysis, based on National Communications of different countries
13
Estimated CO2 emissions from passenger transport
(gm/passenger-km)
250
193
200
150
118
100
50
16
0
India
EU (15 countries)
USA
Source: TERI Analysis, various data sources
14
(thousand tonnes/capita/sq. kilometres)
Per-capita consumption of construction materials per-unit of
inhabited land area
1907
2000
1800
1599
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
630
456
600
400
200
0
0.4 1 17
94
74
Aluminium
India
43
22 45
Cement
Japan
EU-15
Steel
USA
15
What will India’s GHG emissions be
in the future?
What does it cost to mitigate GHG
emissions?
Results of three coordinated
modeling studies:
NCAER-CGE: GDP growth rate projections till
2030
Growth rate (in percentage)
9.5
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
2029-30
2027-28
2025-26
2023-24
2021-22
2019-20
2017-18
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
2009-10
2007-08
2005-06
7.0
Year
While GDP growth slows slightly till 2030, the CAGR of GDP is
8.84%
17
India’s Per capita GHG emissions till 2030
Per capita GHG emissions projections for India from 5 studies in Illustrative
Scenarios (2010-2030)
Per capita emissions, tons CO2e
6
TERI-Poznan
5
McKinsey
4
TERI-MoEF
3
IRADe-AA
2
NCAER-CGE
1
0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032
Year
The projections range from 2.77 tons/capita CO2e (NCAERCGE) to 5.0 tons/capita CO2 (TERI-Poznan). Except for the last
all studies indicate that India’s per capita GHG emissions in
2030 will be below the 2005 global average of 4.22 tons!
18
18
India’s Aggregate GHG emissions till 2030
Aggregate GHG emissions projections for India from 5 studies in
Illustrative Scenarios (2010-2030)
Total GHG emissions, billion tons CO2e
8
TERI-Poznan
7
McKinsey
6
TERI-MoEF
5
4
IRADe-AA
3
NCAER-CGE
2
1
0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032
Year
The projections range from 4.0 billion tons CO2e
(NCAER-CGE) to 7.3 billion tons (TERI-Poznan)
19
19
0.12
CO2e intensity, kg/$GDP
at PPP
kgoe/$ GDP at PPP
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.10
Energy intensity,
Kgoe/$GDP at PPP
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.15
2029-30
2027-28
2025-26
2023-24
2021-22
2019-20
2017-18
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
2009-10
2007-08
2005-06
Year
20
03
-04
20
05
-06
20
07
-08
20
09
-10
20
11
-12
20
13
-14
20
15
-16
20
17
-18
20
19
-20
20
21
-22
20
23
-24
20
25
-26
20
27
-28
20
29
-30
0.02
0.10
2003-04
kg CO2/US$ of GDP at PPP
Declines in energy and CO2e intensities of the
economy:
Year
Both CO2e and energy intensities of the economy decline steadily till
2030. Even at present they are among the lowest in the world!
20
Costs of GHG Mitigation
• Model results for:
 NCAER-CGE: GHG mitigation and GDP losses from
imposition of carbon taxes
 TERI-MoEF: Energy system incremental investment
and economic costs from CO2 constraints
Undiscounted Incremental Investment Cost for CO2
Reductions from Illustrative Scenario (2011-31)
Undiscounted Incremental Investment
800
700
Billion US$
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Progressive CO2 emissions reduction from illustrative scenario in year 2031(in %)
10% reduction: ~ US$ 215 Billion
20% reduction: ~ US$ 493 Billion
30% reduction: ~ US$ 798 Billion
22
Undiscounted Incremental Energy System Cost for
CO2 reductions from Illustrative Scenario (2011-31)
Undiscounted Incremental System Cost
1200
1000
Billion US$
800
600
400
200
0
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Progressive CO2 emission reduction from Illustrative scenario in year 2031(in %)
10% reduction: ~ US$ 240 Billion
20% reduction: ~ US$ 499 Billion
30% reduction: ~ US$ 1062 Billion
23
Loss of GDP in the Carbon Tax Scenario (201011 to 2030-31)
$10 Carbon Tax
Scenarios
$20 Carbon Tax $40 Carbon Tax
$80 Carbon Tax
Loss of GDP
0
-1000
-2000
-668
-1194
-2173
-3000
-4000
Undiscounted Cummulative GDP Loss
-5000
US $ billion (constant 2005)
REV +ve
-4013
Loss of GDP in the Carbon Tax Scenario (201011 to 2030-31)
$10 Carbon Tax
Scenarios
$20 Carbon Tax $40 Carbon Tax
$80 Carbon Tax
Loss of GDP
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-632
-1109
-2035
Undiscounted Cummulative GDP Loss
US $ billion (constant 2005)
REV neutral
-3563
Myth 3:
“Indian policymakers are oblivious to the
potentially catastrophic impacts of climate
change on its people!”
26
Adaptation to Climate Change
• India is historically vulnerable to climate
variability: floods, droughts, vector borne
disease, cyclones, ocean storm surges, etc.
• For over 6 decades, India has had large,
nationally funded programmes to address
climate variability and disasters.
27
Percent Expenditure
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1997-98 1998-99 1999- 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
2000
Years
Expenditure on adaptation as % of total Govt. expenditure
Expenditure on adaptation as % of GDP
India’s fiscal expenditures on programs directly related to
adaptation to climate variability was 2.63% of GDP in 2006-07!
This is more than its annual defence expenditure.
28
The Global Regime:
The Story So far…
29
Myth: The climate change negotiations are about
“saving the only planet we have!”
Working paradigm of (all) negotiators: Climate
Change negotiations are primarily economic
negotiations, to determine future global
economic patterns and strategic potentials.
30
Historical Responsibility for Climate Change
of Selected Developing and Developed
Countries, 1850-2005
India
China
Indonesia
Bangladesh
Nigeria
Brazil
Uganda
Peru
Cuba
Sout h Af rica
Uruguay
Saudi Arabia
Qat ar
Norway
Sweden
Denmark
It aly
Aust ralia
Japan
France
Canada
Unit ed Kingdom
Germany
Unit ed St at es of America
-0.5000
-0.4000
-0.3000
-0.2000
-0.1000
0.0000
0.1000
0.2000
0.3000
0.4000
31
Recap: Bali Road Map
• Negotiations under Art 3.9 of Kyoto Protocol for
second commitment period after 2012 + some
proposed amendments (AWG-KP)
• Negotiations under the UNFCCC for a comprehensive
“Long-term cooperative action” (AWG-LCA)
• 9 Negotiation sessions held between Bali (Dec 2007
and Copenhagen (Dec 2009)
32
Bali Road Map…
 Slow progress was made in the negotiations in both tracks due
to deep differences in objectives of countries (and mistrust
about their intentions).
 Before Copenhagen it became clear that closure was not
feasible a Copenhagen, and that negotiations would have to
continue
 The idea was mooted by several developed countries that
Copenhagen should yield a “Political Declaration”, and give a
mandate for negotiations under both tracks to continue
 After an extremely convoluted process, the Copenhagen
accord was negotiated at the level of Heads of
State/Governments
33
Copenhagen Accord
• Status: Not a multilateral outcome under the UNFCCC, a best
a Plurilateral Accord between acceding States. Legally binding
nature of accord is in doubt, but clearly, in political terms
acceding Parties commit themselves to its provisions.
• Will require extensive further negotiations before it can be
operationalized (if at all). However, since Accord is not
endorsed by the UNFCCC, the question is in which forum will
it be operationalized?
34
• Copenhagen: Overall Political Assessment
• India and BASIC: Significantly protected their development space;
emerged as strong collective political bloc with common interests;
significance beyond climate change
• US: Obtained its pre-conditons for passage of “cap and trade” Bill in US
Congress, i.e. Internationazed action by China & India, transparency wrt
their actions, Financing architecture to invlve WB, existing MFIs).
However, actual passage of Bill remains in doubt.
• EU: Clear loser: None of its key objectives were met: apportionment of
carbon space distorted in favour of developed countries; comparability
of mitigation actions with US; legally binding commitments of all
developed countries and emerging economies. Hold over SIDS and LDCs
is fragile
• G-77: Copenhagen revealed significant divergences within group!
35
Prospects:
• Copenhagen Accord has received only tepid endorsement
from several major Parties (and no explicit endorsement by
China, India). Unlikely to be operationalized w/o closure on
AWG-LCA and AWG-KP
• Announced goals are extremely modest in relation to scale of
problem
• Fate of US energy and climate Bill is key! Passage (and
prospects of negotiations are impacted by controversy over
IPCC findings, economic downturn, upcoming Congressional
elections).
36
37