Prof. Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer

Our Common FutureHannover, 4th November 2010

Volkswagen Stiftung

Mitigation and Adaptation

2

Tipping Points in the Earth System

T. M. Lenton & H. J. Schellnhuber (Nature Reports Climate Change, 2007)

Potential policy-relevant tipping elements that could be triggered by global warming this century, with shadingindicating their uncertain thresholds. For each threshold, the transition from white to yellow indicates a lower bound on its proximity, and the transition from yellow to red, an upper bound. The degree of uncertainty isrepresented by the spread of the colour transition.

Burning Embers

T. M. Lenton & H. J. Schellnhuber (Nature Reports Climate Change, 2007)

Year 2100range

(IPCC 2007)

4

World Map of Wealth

Capital stock per personvery low

lowmedium

highvery high

Source: Füssel (2007)

5

Source: Füssel (2007)

World Map of Carbon Debt

Carbon emissions per person from fossil fuel burning (1950-2003)very low

lowmedium

highvery high

6

Carbon Debt and Wealth

103

104

105

101

102

103

104

Brazil

Mexico

Ethiopia

Russia

Egypt

France

Germany United States

India

Bangladesh

China

Japan South Africa

K: Capital stock (US$2000 per person)

P: F

ossi

l CO 2 e

mis

sion

s (k

g C

per

per

son

and

year

)

Fitting line: ln P=0.987 ln K+c

Source: Füssel (2007)

7

The Economics of Atmospheric Stabilisation

3 stabilisation targets with different probabilities to reach the 2° target: 550ppm-eq, 450ppm-eq, 400ppm-eq

550ppm-eq 450ppm-eq 400ppm-eqBaseline

Negative emissions

~75% prob.~50% prob.~15% prob.

Energy-related CO2 emissions

Knopf, Edenhofer et al. (2009)Year

8

The Great Transformation

Prim

ary

Ene

rgy

Con

sum

ptio

n[E

J]

CO2emissions

Negative CO2emissions

Based on IEA Data (1971-2005) and REMIND-R resultsfor 450ppm-eq (ADAM); Graphic by Steckel/Knopf (PIK)

REMIND-R, ADAM 450ppm-eq, 4/6/2009, Steckel/Knopf

9

Technology Options for Low Stabilisation

xx xx

high biomass potentialwith all optionsno nuclear beyond baselinelow biomass potentialno CCS no renewables beyond baseline

550ppm-eq 400ppm-eq

xxx

400 ppm neither achievable without CCS nor without an extension of renewables

Biomass potential dominates the mitigation costs of low stabilisation Nuclear is not important beyond its (high) use in the baseline

Knopf, Edenhofer et al. (2009)

10Rogelj, Meinshausen et al. 2010

Copenhagen Pledges – Not Enough for 2°C

11Source: IMF International Commodities Database

12

Renaissance of Coal

13

Dev

elop

men

t Pol

icy

Avo

ided

Def

ores

tatio

n

Clim

ate-

frie

ndly

Te

chno

logi

es

Lim

iting

and

Tr

adin

g of

CO

2

Global Deal

Effectiveness – Efficiency – Equity

Ada

ptat

ion

14

Dev

elop

men

t Pol

icy

Avo

ided

Def

ores

tatio

n

Clim

ate-

frie

ndly

Te

chno

logi

es

Lim

iting

and

Tr

adin

g of

CO

2

Global Deal

Effectiveness – Efficiency – Equity

Ada

ptat

ion

Lim

iting

and

Tr

adin

g of

CO

2

15

The Supply-side of Global Warming

Cumulative historic carbon consumption (1750-2004), estimated carbon stocks in the ground, and estimated future consumption (2005-2100) for business-as-usual (BAU) and ambitious 400-ppm-CO2-eq. scenario

Source: Kalkuhl, Edenhofer and Lessmann, 2009

13210655377139

2581581

154111154198

107

210

230

558

5616

2000

0

2000

Car

bon

stoc

ks (G

tC)

Conventional reserves Unconventional reserves Conventional resourcesUnconventional resources Cumulative historic use Projected use (400ppm)Coal+CCS (400ppm) Biomass+CCS (400ppm) Additional projected use (BAU)

I n

t h e

g

r o

u n

d I n

t h

e

a t

m o

s p

h e

r e

11372

Gas Oil Coal Biomass + CCS

16

Atmosphere as a Global Common

• Atmosphere is a scarce resource – fossil carbon is not• Economic approach to deal with scarcity in an efficient way:

– Establish prices on scarcities

• How to determine scarcity price on carbon?– Assigning property rights according to the scarcity of the atmosphere– Distributing the emission rights according to principles of fairness and justice

Resource Extraction

> 12.000 GtC

Atmosphere as a limited resource

~ 230 GtC

17

Allocation of Emission Rights

Knopf et al. 2010Consumption losses [%]

USAJapan

EuropeRussia

Middle EastLatin AmericaAsia (Others)

ChinaIndia

Sub-Sahara AfricaRest of the World

World

Per capitaPer GDPC&C: Contraction & ConvergenceC&C with histor. ResponsibilityCDC: Common but Differentiated

Convergence

lossesgains

18

Dev

elop

men

t Pol

icy

Avo

ided

Def

ores

tatio

n

Clim

ate-

frie

ndly

Te

chno

logi

es

Lim

iting

and

Tr

adin

g of

CO

2

Global Deal

Effectiveness – Efficiency – Equity

Ada

ptat

ion

Clim

ate-

frie

ndly

Te

chno

logi

es

19

R&D-Investment in Energy Technologies

Source: Updated version of IPCC (2007), AR4

20

New Storage Technologies

Andasol I, Spain

Andasol I, Spain

21

Dev

elop

men

t Pol

icy

Avo

ided

Def

ores

tatio

n

Clim

ate-

frie

ndly

Te

chno

logi

es

Lim

iting

and

Tr

adin

g of

CO

2

Global Deal

Effectiveness – Efficiency – Equity

Ada

ptat

ion

Avo

ided

Def

ores

tatio

n

22

Reducing Deforestation: Fossil vs. LUCF CO2 Emissions

CO2 emissions per person and year, 1950 - 2003

CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production,and including land use change (kg C per person and year from 1950 - 2003)

-1000 - 00 - 100100 - 1000

1000 - 20002000 - 50005000 - 15000 Emissions per year from land use change

Emissions per year from fossil fuel combustion and cement productionRatio

23

Cancun - Better REDD than dead?

24

Agriculture versus Forest Protection

DemandFood, Bioenergy

DemandForests

$ $

Available Land

Agricultural land Forests

• Agriculture and forest protectioncompete forscarce land

• Optimal allocationof available land

25

DemandFood, Bioenergy

DemandForests

$ $

Available Land Agricultural land Forests

REDD

• REDD protectsforests

Agriculture versus Forest Protection

26

Source: IMF; FAO International Commodity Prices

Source: BP Statistical Energy Review; WRI

28

$ $

Agri-cultureprices

• Rising agriculturalprices (oil price, food, bioenergy) counter the effectof REDD programs

• Higher prices forforest protection!

Agriculture versus Forest Protection

DemandFood, Bioenergy

DemandForests

Available Land

Agricultural land Forests

29

Supposed Effects

• Costs of REDD are underestimated

• Proposed fund solutions would have to stabilize the price on a high level to compensate the effects of rising oil prices. This is politically unlikely

• Including forests into fragmented emission trading systemscan thus lead to higher deforestation rates than a comprehensive fund approach

30

Dev

elop

men

t Pol

icy

Avo

ided

Def

ores

tatio

n

Clim

ate-

frie

ndly

Te

chno

logi

es

Lim

iting

and

Tr

adin

g of

CO

2

Global Deal

Effectiveness – Efficiency – Equity

Ada

ptat

ion

Ada

ptat

ion

31

Change of agricultural production (all crops) in percent due to yield changes as a result of climate change between 1990 and 2050

Source: Müller et al. 2010

- 40

- 20

+ 20

+ 40

0

Agricultural Productivity

32

Dev

elop

men

t Pol

icy

Avo

ided

Def

ores

tatio

n

Clim

ate-

frie

ndly

Te

chno

logi

es

Lim

iting

and

Tr

adin

g of

CO

2

Global Deal

Effectiveness – Efficiency – Equity

Ada

ptat

ion

Dev

elop

men

t Pol

icy

33

Allocation of Emission Rights

Knopf et al. 2010Consumption losses [%]

USAJapan

EuropeRussia

Middle EastLatin AmericaAsia (Others)

ChinaIndia

Sub-Sahara AfricaRest of the World

World

Per capitaPer GDPC&C: Contraction & ConvergenceC&C with histor. ResponsibilityCDC: Common but Differentiated

Convergence

lossesgains

34

Dev

elop

men

t Pol

icy

Avo

ided

Def

ores

tatio

n

Clim

ate-

frie

ndly

Te

chno

logi

es

Lim

iting

and

Tr

adin

g of

CO

2

Global Deal

Effectiveness – Efficiency – Equity

Ada

ptat

ion

35

Book Cover

http://www.klima-und-gerechtigkeit.de/