Presentation on the theoretical framework underpinning the concept of national transition pathways. By: Juergen Kropp

1. National transition pathways – theoretical
framework
Berlin
Cochin
PotsdamHyderabad
Mumbai
kropp@pik-potsdam.de
Jürgen P. Kropp
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
Climate Change & Development
www.pik-potsdam.de/nsp
Amazon drought
2005
Soil Erosion Morocco 2006
Cyclon Nargis/Myanmar
2008
Sea Level Fiji 2008
Machu Picchu 2011
New Delhi
Infrastructure 2008
Hyderabad 2010
Sahel Zone/Africa
European drought 2003

2. Definition: What are transition pathways?
• Hypothetical pathways for a national economy that
considers climate protection and other near future
sustainability targets
• If the assessment done properly trade-off analysis and the
examination of synergies for certain kind of action should be
feasible
• How to? Quantitatively, Qualitatively, mixed-approach
• Purpose: to underpin policy with a more scientifically sound
basis – solution screening

3. Example: The Global Calculator: www.globalcalculator.org
www.globalcalculator.org

4. IEA 6DS and lever controls
Lever 4
„Ambitious, but feasible“
Lever 1 „BAU“

5. IEA 6DS and lever controls
Freight dist. increase: 146% → 53%; calories: 2520 → 2100 cal/cap d; meat: 281 → 14 cal/cap d;
meat type: red meat: 28% → 10%, population: 10.9 → 8.3bn

6. What can be done in Colombia and Peru?
• Similar economic
structure
• Different spatial size of
agriculture
• Similar Size, welfare
indicators
What‘s about climate
and sustainability?

7. Colombia
• Climate Change: +1.4-2.5 °C/2050, rainfall variation ±6%, more heavy rain, decrease
in North increase in South
• Agriculture: loss of coffee crop niches, migration towards higher altitudes
• Forestry: deforestation rate 0.5% per year (due to cattle ranching, agriculture, mining
timber logging
• Disaster losses: 0.5% GDP per year
• Hydropower: 73% of total
• Diversification: low, less specialised, 79% of exports depend on 10 products
• Poverty line: 33% (2012) and further declining
• Food security: 10% (2012) undernourishment
• GHG emissions: increasing, but per cap. constant or even decreasing (~220 Mt in
2011, 0.45% of global, more than 50% from agriculture, forestry)
• CDM portfolio: reduction potential 17.4 Mt CO2
Mitigation capacities: unexploited potential of hydropower, biofuel use
Energy: Hydropower: 77% in 2020, 20% biofuels
INDC: BAU 2030: 335 Mt CO2; 20% reduction: 270 MtCO2
CDM: 54.8 Mt CO2 in 2020
Compatibility?

8. 1,63
0,00
0,20
0,40
0,60
0,80
1,00
1,20
1,40
1,60
1,80
2,00
0
50
100
150
200
250
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
tCO2/capMtCO2e
Bunker Fuels (MtCO₂‍)
LUCF (MtCO₂‍)
Waste (MtCO₂e‍)
Agriculture (MtCO₂e‍)
Industrial Processes (MtCO₂e‍)
Energy (MtCO₂e‍)
tCO2 per capita
Emission targets per capita (tCO2)
to keep below 2°C by 2050
Colombia

9. Colombia

10. Peru
• Climate Change: +1-4 °C/2050, Andes glaciers rapidly shrinking, 44mm precipitation
decrease/decade central Andes (1970-2005), southern Andes -11-2mm/decade
• Agriculture: strong impact on S. Tuberosum, S juzepczuki
• Forestry: deforestation rate is low (0.15%/yr), but increasing (fostered by weak land
tenure rights, illegal logging), Amazon carbon source, due to droughts
• Disaster losses: sometimes very high due to ENSO
• Diversification: low, less specialised, 80% of exports depend on 22 commodities
• Poverty line: 26% (2012) and further declining
• Food security: 12% (2012) undernourishment
• GHG emissions: increasing, (~150Mt in 2011, 0.3% of global, more than 60% from
agriculture, forestry)
INDC: BAU 2030 300 MtCO2: 30% reduction, 20% through investments, 10%
international aid
CDM: reduction of 47% CO2 in 2021/2000, deforestation = zero in 2021

11. 1,97
0,00
0,20
0,40
0,60
0,80
1,00
1,20
1,40
1,60
1,80
2,00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
tCO2/capMtCO2e
LUCF (MtCO₂‍)
Waste (MtCO₂e‍)
Agriculture (MtCO₂e‍)
Industrial Processes (MtCO₂e‍)
Energy (MtCO₂e‍)
tCO2 per capita (excluding forestry and
agriculture)
Emissiontargets per capita (tCO2) to keep
below 2°C by 2050
Peru

12. Peru

13. So far the framing and now?
Analysing relationship
between HDI and CO2
emissions show Kuznets
Behaviour
Classical KuznetsRevised Kuznets
New toxics Pollution haven
Kornhuber et al. (2016)
PNAS under review

14. We know the country dynamics.......
Kornhuber et al. (2016)
PNAS under review

15. HDI
We can estimate compatibility of INDCs with the
actual Kuznets dynamics (empirical & bootstrapping)
Kornhuber et al. (2016)
PNAS under review
INDC as proposed by the US
in Paris
INDC more ambitious as
Kuznets dynamics

16. Global gross effect of Kuznets.....
Kornhuber et al. (2016)
PNAS under review

17. What we need to know in order to check
country trajectories whether are compatible
with emission reduction targets.....
• Agricultural perspectives, planning
• Energy planning
• Demographic growth
• Lifestyle changes, consumption changes
• Human development perspective
• Industry policy
• Transport & infrastructure development
• Economic perpectives
NB! There is still an emission gap of approx. ~ 50 %

18. Contact
Potsdam Institute
for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
Telegraphenberg A 31
14473 Potsdam - Germany
Prof. Dr. Jürgen P. Kropp
Deputy Chair Research Domain II: Climate Impacts & Vulnerabilities
Head: Climate Change & Development
E-Mail: nsp@pik-potsdam.de
www.pik-potsdam.de/nsp
Questions?