TFIAM May 2004 Amiens EEA scenario 2005 project : sustainable emission pathways Hans Eerens RIVM

ETC/ACC partners and others involved: RIVM: IMAGE/TIMER/FAIR/EUROMOVE models, global scenarios, climate effects, coordination NTUA: PRIMES/GEM-E3/PROMETHEUS models, European energy system IIASA: RAINS model, European air quality AEAT: non-CO 2 GHGs and non-energy CO 2 emissions IPTS: POLES model, technology variants AUTH: OFIS model, transport & urban Air Quality NILU: Air Pollution State & policies CCE: Air pollution effects on ecosystems/critical loads EEA: project guidance, links with issues other than air and climate change

ETC/ACC SCENARIOS IN SUPPORT OF EEA SOEOR2005 Objectives: Explore air pollution and climate change implications of CAFE baseline and policy scenarios –Long-Range Energy Modelling (LREM) –Clean Air For Europe Kyoto ratified (CAFE-KR) Explore alternative scenarios which meet sustainability goals also beyond CAFE –Sustainable Emissions Pathways (SEP)

DRIVING FORCES, PRESSURE, STATE, IMPACTS AND RESPONSES IN SOEOR2005

TOOLS USED FOR SOEOR2005 MODEL ANALYSIS OFIS AQ Impacts GEM-E3PROMETHEUS SEP

CAFE LREM Driving forces: population, economic growth CAFE ETC/ACC for EEA/SoEOR2005 OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING SUSTAINABLE EMISSIONS PATHWAYS SCENARIO FOR EEA’S SOEOR2005 REPORT CAFE LREM-E Add Add non CO 2 GHGs NEC targets? Yes Kyoto targets? No LREM-E/LE SEP-LE Low Economic growth Sustainable Emissions Pathways scenario (SEP ) Energy system details and variants NEC targets? Yes Kyoto targets? Yes* long-term targets? Yes CAFE KR NEC targets? Yes Kyoto targets? Yes* long-term targets? No

THREE TIMEFRAMES FOR SOEOR2005 ANALYSIS

ECONOMIC GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOEOR2005 European economic growth assumptions for LREM-E, CAFE-KR and SEP well in range of other projections, ranking moderate optimistic

POPULATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOEOR2005

PRIMARY ENERGY DEMAND IN EU-15 AND EU10 FOR LREM-E, CAFE-KR AND SEP

LONG-TERM OBJECTIVE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE Objective adopted by EU The EU long-term climate objective of 2 o C is roughly consistent with stabilisation of CO2equivalent concentrations at 550 ppm for low to medium estimates of the climate sensitivity

IMPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENT GLOBAL BURDEN SHARING OBJECTIVES FOR EUROPEAN EMISSIONS ALLOWANCES For SoEOR2005, without prejudging negotiations outcomes, assume: -20% by 2020 and, -40 % by 2030 as a sustainability benchmark when evaluating scenarios

AIR QUALITY TARGETS

EU SD AND ADOPTED (2010) ASSUMED ( ) ENERGY TARGETS EU Sustainable Development Strategy: 1%/yr GHG emission reductions from ; extended for SoEOR to 2030 EU25(domestic): % % % EU Directive on renewables: electricity generation: 22.1% in 2010 (not met) extended for SoEOR to 27% (35) by 2020 and 35% (40) by 2030 ; EU Directive on biofuels in transport: 2% by 2005, 5.75% by 2010; extended for SoEOR2005 to 7.5% by 2020 and 10% by 2030 EU Directive on renewables: share of total energy use: 12% by 2010 (not met), at least 20% (15%, SEP 10%) by 2020; extended for SoEOR2005 to 20% (30, SEP 13%) by 2030

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS LREM SEP-Domestic SEP CO2 CO2eq CO2 SEP LREM SEP-Domestic In SEP GHGs domestic reduction % (2030), supplemented with flexible mechanism to meet proposed targets SEP As energy intensity improvements become more difficult and non-CO2 abatement options get exhausted, shift to fuel mix changes

In LREM-E, Kyoto targets are not met. In CAFE-KR (carbon prices €12/tCO 2eq in 2010, €20 in 2020/2030), Kyoto targets are assumed to be met by domestic measures plus significant usage of Kyoto mechanisms; emissions increase after 2010 In SEP (carbon prices €12/tCO 2eq in 2010, €30 in 2020 and €65 in 2030) emission allowances are in line with EU longer-term climate target, but use of the Kyoto mechanisms is still needed IN SEP, EU’s SD target (1% GHG reduction in ) and renewable energy targets are not met -> technology variants (to be developed) GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS 2010 targets for NEC pollutants are assumed to be reached regardless of costs in CAFE Beyond 2010 emissions remain roughly stable in the scenarios

Costs PRIMES uses behavioural costs (discount rates): 8%Large Utilities 12%Large industrial & commercial entities 17.5%Households spending Recalculation to social costs (as in RAINS), 4% discount rate, assuming decisions have been taken) (Billion Euro) Behavioural costs Social costs Declining energy costs results in less capital investments, counted more heavily in behavioural costs

GLOBAL CLIMATE IMPLICATIONS OF SCENARIOS In LREM-E, the EU climate goal is exceeded around 2050 In SEP, the global mean temperature increase remains below the EU objective in this century In SEP, also the rate of change is lowered to facilitate adaptation of social and ecological systems

EXAMPLE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AT EUROPEAN LEVEL LREM-ESEP Climate Change induced Species disappearance Database 1400 species, per country

UNCERTAINTY TREATMENT IN SOEOR2005 Measuring and monitoring: are statistics/measurement data precise? –Noted, not addressed in report Representativess indicators: Are impacts avoided if climate/air quality goals are met? Is GDP an adequate measure for welfare? –Noted, not addressed in report Model dynamics: do models adequately represent real world? –Differences models (PRIMES, POLES, TIMER) discussed in report Assumptions about the future: how uncertain is the future? –No probabilities analysed –Results compared with other studies –Low economic growth variant; low/high carbon price sensitivities –Technology variants

SCENARIOS FOR SOEOR2005: PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 1

SCENARIOS FOR SOEOR2005: PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 2

SoEOR2005 variants 2003: Low economic growth Renewables Considered for 2004: Hydrogen economy/C-capture-storage CAP reform Nuclear –Phase-out –increased External/internal burden sharing regimes

LREM-E LOW ECONOMIC GROWTH VARIANT LREM-E assumes moderately optimistic GDP growth -> a similarly pessimistic variant has been explored In the low economic growth variant, the effect of lower activity levels outweighs the effect of slower technological development Hence, GHG emissions are significant lower than in the base case, making it easier to meet NEC and Kyoto targets The emissions in the energy-intensive industry, the power and transport sectors are particularly sensitive to economic growth assumptions??

SEP: NEC assumptions Variant 1: –Continue with NEC 2010 Variant 2: –NEC 2010, followed by: –Proposed EU- wide target for 2020 (cost- effective) –MFR scenario for 2030