What does the Paris climate agreement mean for Finland and the European Union?
Jun. 10, 2016•0 likes
2 likes
Be the first to like this
Show More
•5,256 views
views
Total views
0
On Slideshare
0
From embeds
0
Number of embeds
0
Download to read offline
Report
Environment
Presentation by Bill Hare (Climate Analytics) held at the publication event of the report "What does the Paris climate agreement mean for Finland and the European Union?" on June 9th 2016 in Helsinki
Approach to the Paris
Agreement 1.5oC limit
• The goal of this study is to scrutinize emissions
reductions in line with the Paris Agreement long-
term temperature goal in Finland and the EU28.
• Paris Agreement introduces a 1.5oC limit
• To determine 1.5oC compatible pathways, we
employ two approaches:
• Least-cost approach
• Equity approach
• By comparing these we estimate the mitigation
(emission reductions) that may need to done in
developing countries and associated investments
and/or financing
“Holding the increase in the global
average temperature to well below
2o
C above pre-industrial levels and
pursuing efforts to limit the
temperature increase to 1.5o
C above
pre-Industrial levels (..)”
What are the main
implications from the study
of Paris Agreement 1.5oC
limit for policy makers?
• Current pledges by Finland & the EU are
not sufficient to meet the temperature
goal agreed in Paris.
• Faster reductions of greenhouse gas
emissions in the EU and in Finland are
required
• Paris Agreement Facilitative Dialogue in
2018 key part of enhancing ambition
• Stocktake of all national ambition
levels against Paris Agreement goals
• The longer increase in ambition delayed,
the more difficult and costly it will be.
• Energy Efficiency is key
• Rapid introduction of renewables is
essential with substantial changes in the
energy system are needed to meet the
Paris agreement 1.5°C scenario.
• Coal to be completely phased out by
2030
• Provide a good proxy for likely domestic emission
reductions needed
• Finland would need to achieve about a 60% reduction
below 1990 levels by 2030.
• Present 2°C goal -40% by 2030
• By 2050, domestic emissions would need to become
negative in Finland with reductions of 135% below 1990
levels.
• Present 2°C goal -80% by 2050
• Taking into account equity considerations, larger
reductions in emission allowances are needed, reflecting
the need for mitigation abroad
Finland
key findings
Results from least-cost energy-economic
modeling approach
• For a fair share effort
reductions would be
at least 60% below
1990 levels by 2030
(as opposed to the
40% reduction
proposed in the INDC)
and at least 150%
below 1990 levels by
2050 (as opposed to a
80-95% long-term
target), to be in line
with the long-term
temperature goal in
the Paris Agreement.
• Neither the present
2030, nor the 2050
targets for Finland are
in line with levels
consistent with the
Paris Agreement.
Why we need negative
emissions….
• Warming levels by a certain
point in time are proportional
to cumulative emissions up to
that point
• In order to compensate for
already emitted emissions and
emissions over the next few
decades, negative emissions in
the second half of the century
are required to achieve
temperature goal
• The sooner we achieve fast
global emissions reductions
now, the less we need to
depend on negative emissions
later for achieving the long-
term temperature goal
• Energy efficiency is key over all time frames, especially within
sectors with limited near-term availability of low carbon
technologies: industry, buildings and the transport sector, but
needs to be accompanied by a fast decarbonisation.
• Renewable energy sources are expected to replace fossil fuel
based power plants in the short term. Biomass with CCS (BECCS)
will become crucial in the second half of the century, responsible
for a very large share of the necessary negative carbon emissions.
• Oil is phased out around the 2060s. Per assumption, coal is
phased out by 2030.
• Unabated gas remains in the primary energy mix at a lower level
than at present throughout 21st century. CCS technologies for gas
come online, at very low levels, in the 2020s and then at scale
until phase out of this technology for gas around 2080.
• Nuclear power remains at about the present level until the 2080s,
before phase-out around 2100.
Finland
key findings
Results from least-cost energy-economic
modeling approach
What are the implications for the energy
sector in Finland?
High reliance on biomass,
projected to endure
throughout the whole
century
Finland’s primary energy mix developments in line with Paris Agreement
BECCS starts at a low level
in 2020 and scaled up from
2030-2040
Nuclear is projected to
remain until begin to phase
out in 2080
Renewable energy
expected to replace fossil
fuels in the short term.
Filling the gap between least cost and equity
pathways through financial transfers…
• Quantifying the
amount of external
mitigation effort
needed is crucial to
policy assessments of
an equitable
contribution to
mitigating climate
change.
!
Annual investment range for
mitigation abroad
2030 2050
Finland (Billion €2005) 0.1 (0-1.5) 1.36 (0-4.4)
Finland (% of 2030 and 2050 GDP) 0.1% (0% - 1.0%) 0.7% (0%-2.22%)
EU28
key findings
• Provide a good proxy for likely domestic
emission reductions needed
• According to least-cost energy-economic
modelling approaches, the EU as a whole
would need to achieve a 50% reduction below
1990 levels by 2030.
• Present 2°C goal -40% by 2030
• By 2050, the EU would need to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by about 90%,
which is within the 80-95% reduction range
already adopted.
• Present 2°C goal -80-95% by 2050
• Taking into account equity considerations,
larger reductions in emission allowances are
needed, reflecting the need for mitigation
abroad
Results from least-
cost energy-economic
modeling approach
• The EU target to
reduce greenhouse
gas emissions by at
least 40% below 1990
levels by 2030 is not
yet sufficient to be in
line with the Paris
Agreement long-term
temperature goal.
• For a fair share effort
reductions should be
at least 75% below
1990 levels by 2030
(as opposed to 40%
reduction proposed in
the INDC) and at least
164% below 1990
levels by 2050 (almost
twice as much as the
80-95% emissions
reduction goal
adopted by the EU).
EU28
key findings
• Energy efficiency is key over all time frames, especially
within sectors with limited near-term availability of low
carbon technologies: industry, buildings and the transport
sector.
• Renewable energy sources are expected to replace fossil
fuel based power plants in the short term.
• Unabated coal is phased by 2030. While coal with Carbon
Capture and Storage (CCS) could remain in a transition
phase, this is phased out completely by 2070.
• Oil is phased out by around the 2060s.
• Unabated gas remains in the primary energy mix at a
lower level than present throughout the 21st century. CCS
technologies for gas come online, at very low levels, in
the 2020s and then at scale until phase out of this
technology for gas around 2080. Deployment of
Bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) starts at a low level in the
2020s and is scaled up most rapidly from 2030 until 2040,
with slower growth thereafter.
• Nuclear power remains at about the present level until
the 2080s, before phase-out around 2100.
Results from least-
cost energy-economic
modeling approach
What are the implications for the energy
sector in the EU?
The EU’s primary energy mix developments in line with Paris Agreement
Renewable energy
expected to replace fossil
fuels in the short term.
Oil to be phased out at
around 2060.
CCS technologies
projected to come online
at full-scale by 2030.
Coal without CCS phased
out in 2030.
Filling the gap between least cost and equity
pathways through financial transfers…
• Quantifying the
amount of external
mitigation effort
needed is crucial to
policy assessments of
an equitable
contribution to
mitigating climate
change.
!
Annual investment range for
mitigation abroad
2030 2050
Europe (Billion €2005) 92 (0-212) 421 (0-708)
Europe (% of 2030 and 2050 GDP) 0.6% (0% - 1.3%) 2% (0%-3.3%)
Caveats and scenario limitations
• Scenarios used here are high efficiency and with full technology availability (including
nuclear, fossil fuel CCS and Bioenergy with CCS): sustainability and other constraints
associated with these are not addressed in this analysis, but remain important in any real
world deployment.
• Our results are based on the results of the energy-economic model MESSAGE alone.
Other models might provide different results for the EU and therefore Finland, but main
messages presented here are considered least sensitive to model structure.
• For Finland we do not take into account the the trade offs between biomass consumption
and land-use
• We do not model explicitly trade of energy fuels within European countries (e.g. trade of
oil between Finland and Rest of Europe)
So what are the
implications of 1.5oC for
policy makers?
• The current pledges by Finland & the EU
are not sufficient to meet the temperature
goal agreed in Paris.
• Instead faster reductions of greenhouse
gas emissions in the EU and in Finland are
required Facilitative Dialogue in 2018
key part of enhancing ambition!
• The longer an increase in ambition is
delayed, the more difficult and costly it will
be to reach the long-term temperature
goal.
• Energy Efficiency is key Substantial
changes in the energy system are needed
to meet the Paris agreement 1.5°C
scenario.
• Coal to be completely phased out by 2030