M. Jonas 22 Nov – 1 OeAD – Scientific and Technological Cooperation: Austria – Ukraine Matthias JONAS International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria; LPNU, Lviv, Ukraine; 22 November 2012 Towards Constraining Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Future Systems analytical challenges ahead

M. Jonas 22 Nov – 2 The purpose of my talk is to acquaint you with A. the challenge of constraining GHG emissions, notably the challenge of achieving sustainable land use / land-use change, to meet agreed global warming targets in the future. B. emerging scientific challenges of ASA C. an idea of how to increase your educational impact by collaborating internationally (IIASA perspective)

M. Jonas 22 Nov – 3 1. Contents 2. Background 3. Motivation 4. The challenge of constraining GHG emissions 5. ASA challenges #1 and #2 4. The challenge of constraining GHG emissions 5. ASA challenge #3 6. Increasing educational impact 7. Conclusions

M. Jonas 22 Nov – 4 2. Background International Workshops on Uncertainty in GHG Inventories: (Warsaw, PL) 2010 (Lviv, UA) SJI / Book (2013 / 14) 2007 (Laxenburg, AT)

M. Jonas 22 Nov – 5 3. Motivation 2. To put uncertainties that are associated with accounting emissions for compliance purposes into a wider quantitative context 1. To bring a global long-term emissions-temperature- uncertainty issue (2 º C-by-2050) to the here and now  to emission targets on the near-term scale  to emission targets on the national scale

M. Jonas 22 Nov – ere ? 4. The challenge of constraining GHG emissions:

M. Jonas 22 Nov – 7 4. The challenge of constraining GHG emissions: Meinshausen et al. (2009: Fig. 2)

M. Jonas 22 Nov – 8 4. The challenge of constraining GHG emissions: Meinshausen et al. (2009: Fig. 3)

M. Jonas 22 Nov – 9 4. The challenge of constraining GHG emissions: Probability of exceeding 2 o C: Meinshausen et al. (2009: Tab. 1)

M. Jonas 22 Nov – The challenge of constraining GHG emissions: Pop in 2050: [7.5 – 10.2] (95% CI) Cum [1990/50]; exceeding 2 o C: 3.0 [2.5 ; 3.5]: 10-43% 3.0 [1.5 ; 5.4]: 26-31% Sharp cum emissions Unsharp risk Unsharp cum emissions Sharp risk

M. Jonas 22 Nov – The challenge of constraining GHG emissions: Gt CO 2 -eq; exceeding 2 o C: 3.0 [2.5 ; 3.5]: 10-43% 3.0 [1.5 ; 5.4]: 26-31% : :

M. Jonas 22 Nov – The challenge of constraining GHG emissions: 1500 Gt CO 2 -eq; exceeding 2 o C: 3.0 [2.5 ; 3.5]: 10-43% 3.0 [1.5 ; 5.4]: 26-31% Gt CO 2 -eq; exceeding 4 o C: 6.4 [5.5 ; 7.4]: 8-36% 6.4 [4.5 ; 9.5]: 17-21%

M. Jonas 22 Nov – The challenge of constraining GHG emissions: – 2020: Con: 17% Red; Opt: 17% Red Relative to 1990: Em: 3.9% Red; Per-cap: 30.1% Red : 17.2 – 16.5: -10 – -1 €/cap/yr 2: 17.2 – 16.0: -9 – 10 €/cap/yr 1: 17.2 – 16.5: 0 – 5 €/cap/yr 2: 17.2 – 16.0: 0 – 18 €/cap/yr

M. Jonas 22 Nov – The challenge of constraining GHG emissions: – 2020: Con: 20% Red; Opt: 20% Red Relative to 1990: Em: 20.0% Red; Per-cap: 3.3% Red

M. Jonas 22 Nov – ASA challenge #1: Net emissions (even negative)  results in too low a risk! Meinshausen et al. (2009: Fig. 2)

M. Jonas 22 Nov – ASA challenge #1:

M. Jonas 22 Nov – 17 Time Diagnostic Prognostic Additional undershooting ASA challenge #1: Combined

M. Jonas 22 Nov – ASA challenge #2: Meinshausen et al. (2009: Fig. 3)

M. Jonas 22 Nov – ASA challenge #2:

M. Jonas 22 Nov – ASA challenge #2:

M. Jonas 22 Nov – ASA challenge #2: Learning from the past:

M. Jonas 22 Nov – 22 McCarthy (2011) modified 5. ASA challenge #2:

M. Jonas 22 Nov – The challenge of constraining GHG emissions:

M. Jonas 22 Nov – The challenge of constraining GHG emissions:

M. Jonas 22 Nov – ASA challenge #3: The LUC science community cannot provide information on how it wants to address the challenge of sustainable land use / land-use change in meeting emission constraints to prevent a global warming in the future. Two problems stick out: 1. ‘sustainability’ is best understood at both the local and the planetary scale – but less in between; 2. ‘LUC is more than FF’.

M. Jonas 22 Nov – ASA challenge #3: LC Change LU Change

M. Jonas 22 Nov – ASA challenge #3: A need exists for a generic type of ASA for the support of the highly detailed, bottom-up driver-policy response models that already exist (and are being increasingly developed) with the focus on LUC from sub-global to global scales. This new type of ASA would have to look into the multitude of constraints, including planetary boundaries, that a warmer world might face in the future, their interdependencies and uncertainties; and it would also have to anticipate thresholds and ‘surprises’, with the latter hidden in the inter- dependencies and the dynamics of these constraints.

M. Jonas 22 Nov – Increasing educational impact: Two observations: 1. On the whole, East European NMOs to IIASA have faded away. 2. Compared to new emerging economies (BIC), tertiary education in East European countries is 1 st class – but these countries do not take advantage to become globally relevant.

M. Jonas 22 Nov – Increasing educational impact: A solution (IIASA perspective): EE Academies of Sciences (UA, PL, RU, SK, CZ, …) pool (a fraction of their) resources to educate future generations of young scientists / systems analysts in an appropriate scientific setting which allows them to unfold their talents in tackling global change problems … w/o re-inventing the wheel (IIASA’s YSSP, Postdoc Program, …)

M. Jonas 22 Nov – Conclusions: 1. I don’t see a 2 º C-by-2050 target in reach, at best a 4 º C only. 2. I see a multitude of ASA challenges ahead in meeting sustainability at the planetary scale which require well-trained future generations of systems analysts. 3. I see that IIASA had benefitted considerably from its EE NMOs, notably from their advanced scientific contributions in ASA. 4. I see a need for smaller EE NMOs / countries to pool their resources to carve out their sustainability targets under a future global warming.

M. Jonas 22 Nov – 31 References: