1. USAEE Conference 2016, October 26, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
Socio-economic implications of climate stabilization scenarios from MIROC Earth System Model
Diego SILVA HERRAN, Kaoru TACHIIRI
Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC)
Project Team for Risk Information on Climate Change (SOUSEI)
This research was supported by the Program for Risk Information on Climate Change (Theme B) of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan.

2. D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 – 2016.10.26
Contents
Introduction
Method:
Integrated assessment model (IAM)
Earth system model (ESM)
Scenarios
Results
Energy, land use, emissions, costs
Summary
D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 –

3. D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 – 2016.10.26
SOUSEI
Theme B: Climate change projection contributing to stabilization target setting
Theme (Task) (i):
Long-term global change projection based on diverse scenarios
(i) a:
Development of an earth system model dealing with variations of greenhouse gasses, land use change etc.
Theme (Task) (ii):
Obtaining scientific perceptions on large-scale variations and modifications of climate
(i) b:
Information gathering and examination on socio-economic scenarios toward stabilization target setting
D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 –

4. Introduction: Setting targets for climate change mitigation and stabilization
Climate uncertainties
Climate models spread
Source: IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers, Fig SPM.10
D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 –

5. Representative concentration pathways (RCPs)
Introduction:
Mitigation target
Emissions scenario
Socio-economic impact Mitigation costs
Energy
Land use
Climate system uncertainties
Socio-economic uncertainties
GHG concentration
Representative concentration pathways (RCPs)
Compatible fossil fuel emissions simulated by the CMIP5 models for the four RCP scenarios. Time series of annual emission (PgC yr–1).
(Figure TS.19 in IPCC AR5, 2014)
D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 –

6. GHG concentration (RCPs)
Introduction:
Mitigation target
Emissions scenario
Socio-economic impact Mitigation costs
Energy
Land use
Climate system uncertainties
Socio-economic uncertainties
Climate model
(MIROC-ESM)
IAM
(GCAM-SOUSEI)
GHG concentration (RCPs)
Assess the implications on global energy, land use, and mitigation costs of climate stabilization scenarios derived from the earth system model (ESM) Model for Interdisciplinary Research on Climate ESM (MIROC-ESM).
These emission scenarios are consistent with stabilization of global temperatures modeled with an ESM coupling climate and carbon cycle processes in the atmosphere, land, and ocean.
D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 –

7. D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 – 2016.10.26
Method: Outline
ESM
(MIROC-ESM)
IAM
(GCAM-SOUSEI)
Energy
Land use
Cost
CO2 emissions
Mitigation target
(RCP2.6/4.5)
CO2 concentration
D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 –

8. D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 – 2016.10.26
Method: MIROC-ESM
Model for Interdisciplinary Research on Climate ESM (MIROC-ESM).
Atmosphere, land and ocean components.
includes biogeochemical processes in the land and the ocean.
Applied to develop projections of climate change with high spatial and temporal resolutions
Contributed to Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) analyses.
High climate sensitivity and strong feedback between climate and the carbon cycle.
Source: Watanabe et al., 2011, Geosci Mod Dev, 4.
D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 –

9. Method: GCAM-SOUSEI
Direct descendant of GCAM (Global Change Assessment Model)
Integrated assessment model (IAM), partial equilibrium, energy, agriculture and land use sectors
Detailed description of technologies and demand/supply of energy/agriculture goods.
32 world regions, scenario analysis up to 2100, 5 year time step.
GHG mitigation by means of carbon price.
GCAM model
Energy
Agriculture and
land use
Climate
Emissions
Simplified image of GCAM model
Socio-economic scenario
Population
GDP
Policy scenarios
Mitigation technologies
Tax/Cap on emissions
Mitigation target (temp.)
Markets
(prices)
Input database
Energy resources/
technologies
Land use shares
Base year demand/
supply (energy,
agric.commodities)
Demand = Supply
Economy
Inputs
Outputs
Land use
Mitigation cost
Concentration
Radiative forcing
Temperature
(MAGICCv5.3)
D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 –

10. D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 – 2016.10.26
Method: Scenarios
Scenario
Description
Reference
No mitigation.
RCP4.5-MIROC
CO2 emissions from MIROC-ESM compatible with RCP4.5.
RCP4.5-Std
CO2 emissions from RCP database compatible with RCP4.5.
RCP2.6-MIROC
CO2 emissions from MIROC-ESM compatible with RCP2.6.
RCP2.6-Std
CO2 emissions from RCP database compatible with RCP2.6.
Mitigation target: radiative forcing by 2100 (4.5 / 2.6 W/m2).
Carbon price on CO2 emissions from fossil fuel and industry (FFI) in all regions from year 2020.
Baseline socio-economic scenario (population, income)
SSP2: Shared Socio-economic Pathway (SSP), intermediate challenges for mitigation and adaptation (O’Neill et al., 2014, Climatic Change).
D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 –

11. D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 – 2016.10.26
Method: Scenarios
Source: Hajima et al., 2012, J Meteor Soc Japan, 90 (3).
D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 –

12. D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 – 2016.10.26
Results: Energy
Energy intensity smaller, and electricity more important than liquids and solid fuels.
Dependence on fossil fuels fell to half or less of total primary energy supply (TPES).
Increased penetration of CCS technologies allowed fossil fuels to remain in energy supply.
D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 –

13. D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 – 2016.10.26
Results: Energy mix
Primary energy
Electricity supply
D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 –

14. D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 – 2016.10.26
Results: Land use
RCP4.5
RCP2.6
MIROC
Std
Land use changes converged to the same levels in both scenarios, but occurred earlier in the stringent scenario (RCP2.6).
Bioenergy crops expanded considerably over unmanaged land and natural forests, without compromising cropland for food.
D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 –

15. D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 – 2016.10.26
Results: Land use
D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 –

16. Results: Mitigation costs
The need for early emissions reductions in the stringent scenario (RCP2.6) increased mitigation costs sharply.
Compared to standard scenarios, carbon prices were in average 60% and 30% larger in the intermediate (RCP4.5) and stringent (RCP2.6) stabilization scenarios, respectively.
D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 –

17. D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 – 2016.10.26
Summary:
Stabilization scenarios indicated that society can still rely on fossil fuels to a large extent, provided that CCS and low-carbon technologies are largely deployed.
Energy supply: lower energy intensity and increased energy efficiency (from higher penetration of electricity), decreasing share of fossil fuels.
Land use changes: expansion of land for bioenergy over unmanaged lands and natural forests.
Ambitious stabilization target required larger costs and sharper changes in energy and land use in the first half of the century.
Compared to the standard RCPs, MIROC-ESM scenarios showed changes in energy and land systems more drastic, and higher mitigation costs.
These differences were clear in the second half of the century for the intermediate stabilization target, and occurred earlier for the ambitious stabilization target.
D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 –

18. Thank you very much!

19. Appendix: Structure of GCAM model
Source: slide from Calvin, GCAM Community Meeting, 2012.
D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 –

20. D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 – 2016.10.26
Appendix
Sequential approach
Parallel process
Source: Moss et al., 2010, Nature 463 (11).
D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 –

21. D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 – 2016.10.26
Appendix: SSPs
Source: O’Neill et al., 2016, Global Env Change, In press.
D. SILVA and K. TACIHIRI – USAEE 2016 –