1. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 1 Dealing with Uncertainty in GHG Inventories in an Emissions Constrained World M. JONAS 1, V. KREY 1, F. WAGNER 1, G. MARLAND 2 and Z. NAHORSKI 3 1 International Institute for Systems Analysis, Austria; jonas@iiasa.ac.at 2 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, CDIAC, USA; marlandgh@ornl.gov 3 Systems Research Institute, PAS, Poland; zbigniew.nahorski@ibspan.waw.pl Lviv, Ukraine; 22–24 September 2010

2. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 2 1. Contents 2. Background and motivation 3. Train of thought 4. Global emissions constraints 5. Reality and pledges 6. Per-cap LU versus LULUCF 7. Conclusions

3. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 3 2. Background: Planetary boundaries Rockström et al. (2009: Tab. 1); modified … applying the Precautionary Principle

4. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 4 2. Background: Equity and burden-sharing Miketa and Schrattenholzer (2004)

5. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 5 2. Motivation of our exercise 1. To put uncertainties that are associated with accounting emission for compliance purposes into a wider quantitative context  Legacy of the 2 nd Uncertainty WS 2. To bring a long-term emissions-temperature- uncertainty issue (here: 2 o C) to the here and now  to emission targets on the near-term time scale  to emission targets on the national scale

6. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 6 3. Train of thought 1) Bottom-up/top-down consistency preserved 2) Technosphere and terrestrial biosphere separated 3) No unaccounted emissions

7. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 7 4. Global emissions constraints and per-cap equity Meinshausen et al. (2009: Fig. 2)

8. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 8 4. Global emissions constraints and per-cap equity Meinshausen et al. (2009: Fig. 3) 10 42 234 25

9. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 9 4. Global emissions constraints and per-cap equity Probability of exceeding 2 o C: Meinshausen et al. (2009: Tab. 1)

10. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 10 4. Global emissions constraints and per-cap equity GEE: Linear Trajectory 1990–2050 POP’s Pop in 2050: 7.5 – 10.2 10 9 (95% CI) 37.5 31.4 25.2 Cum [1990/50]; exceeding 2 o C: 2.9 [2.5 ; 3.4]: 10-43% 2.9

11. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 11 GEE: Linear Trajectories 1990–2050 for FF and LU 4. Global emissions constraints and per-cap equity 37.5 25.2 31.5 Cum [1990/50]; exceeding 2 o C: 2.9 [2.5 ; 3.4]: 10-43% 6.0 1990–2050: FF + LU 1990–2050: FF 1990–2050: LU 2.9 0.0

12. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 12 4. Interim summary This temperature target/constrained emissions approach to achieve emissions equity by a given time requires determining four parameters that are politically negotiable: 1. Start year (here 1990) 2. End year (here 2050) 3. Emissions constraint for meeting temperature target or, equivalently, probability of exceeding temperature target (here 10–43%) 4. Demographic reference year (here 2050) Make this a monitored parameter that is constantly updated!

13. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 13 5. Reality and pledges, including uncertainty 24.0 23.1 Cum [1990/50]; exceeding 2 o C: 2.9 [2.5 ; 3.4]: 10-43% 2.9 [1.5 ; 5.3]: ~26% 2.9 16.5 1: 16.5 - 15.8 2: 16.5 - 15.3 24.0 23.1 2.9

14. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 14 5. Reality and pledges, including uncertainty Net GHG Emissions Time Base Year Commitment Year/Period Jonas and Nilsson (2007: Fig. 10); modified Time Base Year Commitment Year/Period Net GHG Emissions Uncertainty matters … it can be priced!

15. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 15 Jonas and Nilsson (2007: Tab. 1); modified 5. Reality and pledges, including uncertainty Unc: 7.5% Corr: 0.75

16. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 16 24.0 23.1 2.9 16.5 2005 – 2020: Con: 17% Red; Opt: 17% Red Relative to 1990: Em: 3.9% Red; Per-cap: 30.1% Red 20.6 5. Reality and pledges, includ. uncertainty + costs 1: 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

17. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 17 5. Reality and pledges, includ. uncertainty + costs 24.0 26.2 [360ppmv] 2.9 25.8 [410ppmv] 23.0 [410ppmv] Rao et al. (2005: Slide. 6)

18. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 18 5. Reality and pledges, includ. uncertainty + costs 2.9 1990 – 2020: Con: 20% Red; Opt: 20% Red Relative to 1990: Per-cap: 3.3% Red

19. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 19 5. Interim summary 1. Countries will only succeed in complying with a universal per-cap emissions target if emissions above and below their target paths are balanced. 2. Reaching the 2 o C target requires huge per-cap emissions reductions between 1990–2050, eg: AU, RU and US: 89% to 90% EU-27: 79% 3. Reaching the 2.9 t CO 2 -eq/cap target by 2050 appears unrealistic for most Annex I countries, also not under aggressive reduction scenarios that assume efficient carbon-market conditions.

20. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 20 Make a difference between LU: IPCC WG I (2007: Tab. 7.1) Atm. Inc. + FF – Ocean Uptake = Net Terr. Uptake (in Gt C yr -1 ) 6. Per-cap LU versus LULUCF … and LULUCF: Afforestation, reforestation, deforestation Forest management, cropland management, grazing land management, revegetation

21. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 21 6. LULUCF vs LU production vs LU consumption:

22. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 22 6. Interim summary 1. The LULUCF concept is arbitrary! 2. The KP is a production, not a consumption, based accounting approach. “Correction” possible for the technosphere (  “weight of nations” concept as in MFA), but not so easily for the biosphere! 3. To put global LU emissions on a per-cap basis requires the knowledge of the countries’ draw on the terrestrial biosphere, ie, their human-impacted ecological footprints (  goes beyond FGA of the terr. biosphere and is more difficult to establish). Challenge: Find workable surrogate approach!

23. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 23 7. Conclusions I 1. The concept of cumulative emissions constraints adds complexity and makes international negotiations more difficult: (i) no country can escape; and (ii) the cumulative emissions above and below a country's emissions equity target path must balance. 2. We rely on our future already today: we hope (i) that alternative, market-based approaches render it possible to reach the 2 o C target; (ii) that deforestation will cease and other LU will become sustainable until 2050; and (iii) that bottom-up and top-down uncertainty will decrease.

24. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 24 7. Conclusions II 3. In a nutshell: We provided a template that allows evaluating the short-term mitigation efforts and costs of an individual country in a broader and long-term emissions-temperature-uncertainty context.

25. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 25 References

26. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 26 24.0 23.1 2.9 16.5 20.6 3.3 5.6 Comparison: USA and China

27. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 27 4. Global emissions constraints and per-cap equity 25.0 30.0 15.0 0.0 WBGU (2009: Chap. 5) WBGU: 1990–2050 (Option I) 2000–2050 Constraint : 1000 Gt CO 2 2000–2009 FF + LU: 350 Gt CO 2 2010–2050 LU: 50 Gt CO 2 2010–2050 FF: 600 Gt CO 2 1990–2009 FF: 500 Gt CO 2 1990–2050 FF: 1100 Gt CO 2 With 1990 Pop: 5.3 10 9 : 2.8 t CO 2 /cap (10–42%)

28. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 28 WBGU: 2010–2050 (Option II) WBGU (2009: Chap. 5) 25.0 15.0 30.0 18.8 7.5 4. Global emissions constraints and per-cap equity 2000–2050 Constraint : 1160 Gt CO 2 2000–2009 FF + LU: 350 Gt CO 2 2010–2050 LU: 60 Gt CO 2 2010–2050 FF: 750 Gt CO 2 With 2010 Pop: 6.8 10 9 : 2.7 t CO 2 /cap (16–51%)

29. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 29 Available uncertainty analysis techniques

30. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 30 Committed Level Base Year Level x1x1 Time t1t1 Emissions t2t2 x2x2 ~ Risk  Undershooting U Jonas and Nilsson (2007: Fig. 11); modified Uncertainty analysis technique: Und concept Unc: 7.5% Corr: 0.75

31. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 31 Uncertainty analysis technique: Und&VT concept Jonas et al. (2004: Fig. 4)

32. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 32 Giving up bottom-up/top-down verification Globe or Group of Countries or individual Country Net Storage in the Atmosphere FF Industry Kyoto Biosphere Non-Kyoto Biosphere Impacting? Sphere of Activity under the KP Jonas and Nilsson (2007: Fig. 4); modified

33. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 33 Total uncertainty first Atmosphere t2t2  const Time F net t1t1  Jonas and Nilsson (2007: Fig. 6); modified

34. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 34 Time FF Signal  FF VT a) PCA(FF) Time FF+LUCF Signal FF Signal  FF+LUCF VT b) PCA(FF+LUCF) Time FF Signal  FF VT c) PCA(FF) Time FF+LUCF Signal  FF+LUCF VT d) PCA(FF+LUCF) Need of splitting GHG sources and sinks Jonas and Nilsson (2007: Fig. 9); modified

35. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 35 Haberl et al. (2008: http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/socec/inhalt/1088.htm) Global HANPP in 2000: 23.8%  LU-induced productivity: 9.6% Biomass harvest: 12.5% Human-induced fires: 1.7% Human appropriation of net primary production

36. M. Jonas et al. 22 September 2010 – 36 Significance of CO 2 mitigation options UNESCO (2006); modified