Transcript Climate change: evidence from natural sciences and

Climate change:
the scientific
essentials
for a future
framework
Diana Ürge-Vorsatz
March 13, Budapest
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Outline
Introduction
Evidence of CC
Future scenarios and impacts
Costs of CC
Emission reduction needs and
Fundamentals of mitigation
 Sharing the burden (opportunity?) in
CEE





C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Introduction: the scientific
basics
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Greenhouse effect
 Greenhouse effect is a natural
mechanism, which maintains the
temperature of the Earth 33°C warmer
than if it had no GHG “layer”
 (global average temperature is 15 °C).
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Global-average radiative forcing
estimates and ranges:
Used to compare different drivers of climate change
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Global Warming Potential (GWP)
weighted global greenhouse gas
emissions 1970-2004
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
Source: IPCC AR4 2007
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
The Evidence - Direct Observations of
Recent Climate Change
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is
now evident from observations of increases in
global average air and ocean temperatures,
widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising
global mean sea level.
 The global average surface temperature
has increased at the 100-year trend (1906–
2005) of 0.74°C ± 0.18°C.
Source: Pachauri and Jallow, 2007.
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Projections of change and
impacts
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Projections of Future Changes in Climate
 For the next two decades a warming of about
0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of
SRES emission scenarios.
 Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse
gases and aerosols had been kept constant at
year 2000 levels, a further warming of about
0.1°C per decade would be expected.
 The commitments to climate change after
stabilisation of radiative forcing are expected to
be about 0.5 to 0.6°C, mostly within the
following century.
Source: Pachauri and Jallow, 2007.
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Projections of future
changes in climate (selection)
 Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise
would continue for centuries due to the
timescales associated with climate processes
and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas
concentrations were to be stabilized.
 Temperatures in excess of 1.9 to 4.6°C
warmer than pre-industrial sustained for
millennia…eventual melt of the Greenland ice
sheet. Would raise sea level by 7 m.
Source: IPCC, AR4, WG I. 2007
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
Source: Stern Review, 2007.
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Projections of Future Changes in Climate
Projected warming
in 21st century
expected to be
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
greatest over land
and at most high
northern latitudes
and least over the
Southern Ocean
and parts of the
North Atlantic
Ocean
Source: IPCC, AR4, WG I. 2007.
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Source: IPCC, AR4, WG I. 2007.
Projected change in precipitation
for the period 2080 to 2099 relative to 1980 to 1999, SRES
A1B
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Ecological vulnerability to future climate
change
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
Agro-economic vulnerability to future climate change (2061–2070) based on loss of agricultural productivity. Solar
radiation, atmospheric CO2 concentration, temperature, soil moisture, nutrient availability, and
farming practices are represented using nonlinear (process-based or empirical) functions, implemented through the
agricultural crops component in the LPJ model (Bondeau et al., 2007). Adaptation of farming practices is considered by
allowing shifts in planting dates, varieties, and irrigation (Rosenzweig and Iglesias, 2003). If a significant yield loss in
at least one important crop was identified in a country where the GDP share of agriculture is greater than 5%, then
vulnerability was ranked as “high.” In the case of low dependency on agriculture and a decrease in only one significant
crop yield (or no decrease at all), vulnerability was ranked as “low.” The remaining two combinations were ranked as
“medium.”
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Temperature
This map illustrates what can
be expected in Europe by the
end of the century, according
to the IPCC scenario (SRES
A2) whereby no action is
taken to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, so that the
global mean temperature
increases by about 3.4°C by
the 2080s compared to 1990
levels. Under this scenario,
nearly all European regions
are expected to be
negatively affected and up to
half of Europe’s plant species
could be vulnerable or
threatened by 2080.
Source: Commission
Adaptation Green Paper;
2007.
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Source: Johansson, 2006, CEU lecture.
European heat-wave 2003 - estimation
of return periods
Swiss Temperature Series 1864-2003 (mean of 4 stations)
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
10 y
10 y
100 y
1000 y
100 y
mean
extremely
rare
event
1000 y (Schär et al. 2004, Nature, 427, 332-336)
More elaborate analysis shows it likely that most of the risk of the event due
to increase in greenhouse gases - also that by 2050, likely to be average event
and by 2100 a cool event (Stott et al 2004, Nature 432 610-614).
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Precipitatio
n
This map illustrates what
can be expected in Europe
by the end of the century,
according to the IPCC
scenario (SRES A2) whereby
no action is taken to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions,
so that the global mean
temperature increases by
about 3.4°C by the 2080s
compared to 1990 levels.
Under this scenario, nearly
all European regions are
expected to be negatively
affected and up to half of
Europe’s plant species could
be vulnerable or threatened
by 2080.
Source: Commission
Adaptation Green Paper;
Marr, SUN presentation,
2007.
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Scenarios for future emissions
and stabilisation targets
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Stabilisation and
commitment to warming
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Source: Stern Review, 2007.
Projected CO2 emissions leading to
stabilisation at different levels
 The lower the stabilisation level the earlier global CO2
emissions have to peak
IPCC AR4 (2007), WGI. The first figure shows the assumed trajectories of CO2
concentration (SP scenarios); the second shows the implied CO2 emissions, as projected
with the Bern2.5CC EMIC. The upper and lower bounds are indicated by the top and
bottom of the shaded areas. Alternatively, the lower bound (where hidden) is indicated by
a dashed line.
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
Source: IPPC, AR4, WG III, 2007.
Long term mitigation (after 2030)
Mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will
E
have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lower
U
R
stabilization levels
O
P
E
A
N
[1] The best estimate of climate sensitivity is 3ºC [WG 1 SPM].
[2] Note that global mean temperature at equilibrium is different from expected global mean temperature at the time of stabilization of GHG concentrations due to the inertia of the climate
system. For the majority of scenarios assessed, stabilisation of GHG concentrations occurs between 2100 and 2150.
[3] Ranges correspond to the 15th to 85th percentile of the post-TAR scenario distribution. CO2 emissions are shown so multi-gas scenarios can be compared with CO2-only scenarios.
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Stabilisation targets
 Current evidence suggests a stabilisation
need of 450 – 550ppm CO2-eq
 Anything higher has very harmful impacts
 Anything lower raises costs significantly and may
not even be feasible any more
 However, little can now be done to change
the likely adverse effects that some
developing countries will face in the next few
decades, and so some adaptation will be
essential.
 Strong and early mitigation is the only
way to avoid some of the more severe
impacts that could occur in the second
half of this century.
Source: Stern Review, 2007. www.sternreview.org.uk
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Key challenge for appropriate
response to climate change
 Exceeding 2-2.5° C above 1750 levels
would entail sharply increasing risk of
intolerable impacts
 Avoiding this will require prompt
action
 Two-pronged strategy: avoid the
unmanageable (mitigation) and
manage the unavoidable (adaptation)
 Mitigation and adaptation measures
should be integrated and reinforcing
Source: Urge-Vorsatz. 2007. Presentation of the UN SEG Report
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
Costs of climate change
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Total cost of CC
 The total cost of BAU CC is app. a 20%
reduction in consumption per head,
“now and into the future” (Stern Review,
Executive summary, p. x)
Source: The Stern Review, 2007. www.sternreview.org.uk
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
Illustration of costs numbers for
stringent mitigation
GDP
GDP without
mitigation
80%
77%
GDP with
stringent
mitigation
current
Source: IPPC, AR4, WG III, 2007.
~1 year
Time
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
Mitigation strategies
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
The Three Key Pillars
of Mitigation Strategies
1. Lowering the energy intensity of economic
activity through increases in the efficiency of
vehicles, buildings, appliances, and industrial
processes
2. Lowering the carbon-emissions intensity of
energy supply through additions of renewable
and nuclear energy supply and through
modifications to fossil fuel technologies that
enable the capture and sequestration of CO2
3. Reducing the carbon emissions from land-use
change by means of reforestation,
afforestation, avoided deforestation, and
improved soil-management practices in
agriculture
Source: Urge-Vorsatz. 2007. Presentation of the UN SEG Report
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Sectoral economic potential for global mitigation for
different regions as a function of carbon price, 2030
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Estimated potential for GHG mitigation at a
sectoral level in 2030 in different cost
categories , transition economies
Gton CO2eq.
1
Cost categories* (US$/tCO2eq)
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
0.9
<20
<0
0-20
20-100
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Buidlings
Industry
Agriculture
Energy supply
Forestry
Waste
Transport
* For the buildings, forestry, waste and transport sectors, the potential is split into three cost categories: at net negative costs, at 0-20
US$/tCO2, and 20-100 US$/tCO2. For the industrial, forestry, and energy suppy sectors, the potential is split into two categories: at costs
below 20 US$/tCO2 and at 20-100 US$/tCO2.
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Mitigation portfolio for electricity,
2030
Source: IPPC, AR4, WG III, 2007.
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
Improved energy-efficiency in buildings can supply the largest
mitigation reduction, comparable to all renewable energy generation,
and to other measures combined
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Sharing the burden – or the
opportunity?
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Per Capita and Total Emissions of
Greenhouse Gases in Year 2000
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
Source: UN SEG 2007, www.confrontingclimatechange.org
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
CO2 emissions per capita
CO2/cap
US
Canada
Czech Republic
Japan
Israel
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
Greece
EU-25
South Africa
Slovakia
Serbia & Montegro
Belarus
Bulgaria
Hungary
Romania
Macedonia
China
Azerbaijan
Thailand
Iraq
Kyrgystan
Source:
IEA Key
Statistics, 2007
India
Kenya
Bangladesh
Nepal
0
5
10
tonnes per cap.
15
20
25
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
CO2/TPES
t/toe
CO2 per
TPES
Greece
Serbia & Montegro
Macedonia
Israel
China
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
Iraq
South Africa
Czech Republic
US
Bulgaria
Romania
Japan
Belarus
Azerbaijan
EU-25
Hungary
Thailand
Canada
Slovakia
Source:
IEA Key
Statistics,
2007
Kyrgystan
India
Bangladesh
Kenya
Nepal
0
0.5
1
1.5
t CO2/ toe
2
2.5
3
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
3.5
Emission reductions for Eastern
Europe under different regimes
in comparison to baseline
%
2025
0
-10
-20
-30
Preference
Score
Brazilian
Proposal
MultiStage
Jacoby
Rule
Per Capita
Convergence
E
U
%
2050
R
0
Brazilian
Per Capita
JacobyO
-20 Proposal
Convergence
Rule P
E
Preference
Multi
-40
Score
A
Stage
N
-60
-40
-80
-50
-60
-70
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
-100
-120
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Fossil CO2 emissions in Eastern
Europe and FSU: different regimes
The purple
line is the
baseline
Source: Den Elzen et al 2003.
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Conclusion
 The evidence of anthropogenic climate change is now
unequivocal
 All countries in CEE are and will be badly affected,
although severity and type of impacts vary
 Avoiding dangerous impacts requires urgent and strong
action today
 Emission reduction needs for CEE in 2025 are 30 –
50%, while for above 80% for 2050
 However, the AR4 concludes that this is feasible, and
The costs of even the more ambitious stabilisation
targets are not substantial if action starts today
 Many mitigation options are associated with economic
and social benefits. For instance, capturing the costeffective potential in buildings can supply 38% of
mitigation needs in 2030 for a 3C target. CEE has
especially high potential.
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ATTENTION!
For more questions:
[email protected]
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
References










Publications:
UN SEG. (2007). Confronting climate change challenge: Avoiding the
unmanageable, managing the unavoidable. Scientific Expert Group report on
Climate Change and Sustainable Development. URL:
http://www.unfoundation.org/files/pdf/2007/SEG_Report.pdf
Presentations:
Johannson, T. B. (2006). Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change.
Lecture at the CEU, October 30, 2006.
Pachauri, R. K. and Jallow, B. (2007). Climate change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Working group I contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the IPCC. Nairobi, 6 February, 2007. URL:
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/presentations.htm Accessed on September 8,
2007.
Manning, M. (2007) Climate Change 2007: Observations and Drivers of
Climate Change.
Graphics:
Planets and atmospheres. (2000). In UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics
Library. Retrieved 02:48, September 9, 2007 from
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/planets_and_atmospheres.
Greenhouse effect. (2002). In UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library.
Retrieved 15:16, September 8, 2007 from
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/greenhouse_effect.
Cooling factors. (2000). In UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library.
Retrieved 23:29, September 10, 2007 from
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/cooling_factors.
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y