Australia’s emissions target: what is an adequate ... · Australia’s emissions target: what is...
-
Upload
truongdieu -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Australia’s emissions target: what is an adequate ... · Australia’s emissions target: what is...
Australia’s emissions target: what is an adequate commitment,
and how to achieve it?
Frank JotzoPeter J Wood
Centre for Climate Economics & PolicyCrawford School of Economics & Government, ANU
Copenhagen: non-binding commitments to actions and targets
Country Type of emissions target 2020 emissions target Base year / nature of target
United States Absolute reduction -17% 2005
EU Absolute reduction -20% to -30% 1990
Japan Absolute reduction -25% 1990
Russia Absolute reduction -15% to -25% 1990
Canada Absolute reduction -17% 2005
Australia Absolute reduction -5% to -25% 2000
China Intensity reduction -40% to -45% Emissions intensity change 2005-2020
India Intensity reduction -20% to -25% Emissions intensity change 2005-2020
Indonesia Reduction below BAU -26% Reduction below BAU at 2020
Brazil Reduction below BAU -36% to -39% Reduction below BAU at 2020
Mexico Reduction below BAU -30% Reduction below BAU at 2020
Korea Reduction below BAU -30% Reduction below BAU at 2020
South Africa Reduction below BAU -34% Reduction below BAU at 2020
>100 countries, >80% of global emissions
How do the pledges compare?
Putting targets on a common footing, and comparing them across different metrics
1. Absolute emissions 2. Per capita emissions3. Emissions intensity4. Relative to business-as-usual
Absolute emissionsTargeted change, % from 2005 to 2020
For mid-point of target ranges where applicable. Central scenario assumptions.
‐60%‐40%‐20%0%20%40%60%80%100%120%
Unite
d Stat
esEU
‐27Jap
anRu
ssia
Cana
daAu
strali
aCh
ina India
Indon
esia
Brazi
lMe
xico
South
Korea
South
Afric
aAn
nex I
Non‐A
nnex
I
Framing: the base year mattersTargeted absolute emissions change,
from year x to 2020
‐40%0%40%80%120%160%200%240%
US EU Australia China India
2005 base
2000 base1990 base
For mid-point of target ranges where applicable. Central scenario assumptions.
What about a 2010 base year?!
Per-capita changes differ greatly from absolute changes
Targeted change, from 2005 to 2020
‐40%‐20%0%20%40%60%80%100%120%
Unite
d Stat
esEU
‐27Jap
anRu
ssia
Cana
daAu
strali
aCh
ina India
Indon
esia
Brazi
lMe
xico
Korea
South
Afric
a
Absolute emissions
Per capita emissions
For mid-point of target ranges where applicable. Central scenario assumptions.
Convergence? Per capita targets versus per capita emissions levels
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Per capita emissions level, 2005
Chan
ge in
em
issi
ons
per c
apita
, 20
05-2
020
India China
AustraliaCanadaUSA
Brazil
Russia
Japan
Mexico EU S.Korea
S.Africa, Indo
Logarithmic regression line
Emissions intensityTargeted change, % from 2005 to 2020
For mid-point of target ranges where applicable. Central scenario assumptions.
‐70%
‐60%
‐50%
‐40%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
Unite
d Stat
esEU
‐27Jap
anRu
ssia
Cana
daAu
strali
aCh
ina India
Indon
esia
Brazi
lMe
xico
Korea
South
Afric
aAn
nex I
avg
Non‐A
nnex
I avg
Targeted change rel to business-as-usual% difference at 2020
‐40%‐35%‐30%‐25%‐20%‐15%‐10%‐5%0%
Unite
d Stat
es EUJap
anRu
ssia
Cana
daAu
strali
aCh
ina India
Indon
esia
Brazi
lMe
xico
Korea
South
Afric
aAn
nex I
avg
Non‐A
nnex
I avg
BAU assumptions contestable
For mid-point of target ranges where applicable. Central scenario assumptions.
Australia’s Copenhagen commitment(reduction in national emissions
at 2020 relative to 2000)
25% “if the world agrees to an ambitious global deal capable of stabilising [...] at 450 ppm CO2‐eq or lower”
(but post‐2020 ramp‐up not impossible?)
up to 15%
“if there is a global agreement which falls short of [450] and under which major developing countries commit to substantially restrain emissions and advanced economies take on commitments comparable to Australia’s”
5% Unconditional n/a
The carbon pricing debate, 2010-11
Emitters want predictability (and freebies) Gov’t sees c-pricing as necessary, but has been stung Greens want c-price, but want to leave target open
A fixed price permit scheme• Govt sells unlimited amount of permits at fixed price• Price rises by x% pa• Can convert to market-based system at any time
Price floors and price ceilings under cap-and-trade
Price floor Minimum price, emissions < cap
• All permits are auctioned at a minimum reserve price; or• Emitters required to pay an extra fee/tax
Price ceiling Maximum price, emissions > cap
• govt issues unlimited extra permits at threshold price;• a limited amount of extra permits are auctioned at a higher
reserve price (‘allowance reserve’)
15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
price ceiling
price floorfixed price
market price
$/tCO2
Methodology for converting targets
Form of country target:
Metric for comparison:
Absolute emissions target
Emissions intensity target
Target relative to BAU
Absolute change in emissions
(no assumptions needed, as target framed in this
metric – only conversion to common base year
necessary)
Assume GDP growth rate
Assume BAU emissions trajectory
Change in per-capita emissions
Assume population growth rate, apply to absolute change in emissions
Change in emissions intensity
Assume GDP growth rate
(no assumptions needed, as target
framed in this metric)
Assume BAU emissions trajectory
and GDP growth rate Reduction in emissions relative to BAU
Assume BAU emissions trajectory
Assume BAU emissions trajectory
and GDP growth rate
(no assumptions needed, as target
framed in this metric)
Absolute emissions - developedTargeted change, % from 2005 to 2020
‐40%
‐20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
US EU Japan Russia Canada Australia Weightedaverage
Central scenario assumptions.
Emissions intensity targets vs level of emissions intensity
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Emissions intensity level, 2005 (kgCO2-eq/$ppp)
Chan
ge in
em
issi
ons
inte
nsity
, 20
05-2
020
India
ChinaAustralia
CanadaUSA
Brazil
Russia
JapanMexico
S.KoreaS.Africa
Indonesia
EU
Emissions intensity targets vs GDP growth rate
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0%
Projected annual average GDP growth rate, 2005-2020
Targ
eted
cha
nge
in e
mis
sion
s in
tens
ity,
2005
-202
0
India
China
Australia
CanadaUSA
Brazil
Russia
Japan Mexico
S.KoreaS.Africa
Indonesia
EU
Uncertain estimates
Comparability of effort
Complexity and uncertainty of estimates
Absolute targets
Per capita(need population projections)
Emissions intensity(need GDP projections)
Relative to BAU(need assumptions on BAU emissions intensity and GDP projections)
Economic costs(need BAU plus assumptions on abatement options and costs, in CGE modelling framework)
Targeted change relative to BAU% difference at 2020
For mid-point of target ranges where applicable.
‐60%
‐50%
‐40%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
US EU Japan Australia China India
This study
McKibbin, Morris & Wilcoxen 2010
Targeted change relative to BAUQuantity difference at 2020
US17%
EU11%
other developed9%
China43%
Brazil10%
Indonesia5%
other developing
5%
For mid-point of target ranges where applicable. BAU assumptions contestable
China: can the big gains in emissions intensity be repeated?
Annual change in emissions intensity
‐7%‐6%‐5%‐4%‐3%‐2%‐1%0%1%2%
1987
‐1992
1992
‐1997
1997
‐2002
2002
‐2007
China
's targ
et 20
05‐20
20BA
U this
stud
y
BAU M
cKibb
in ea
Stern&
Jotzo
IEA re
f sce
nario
EIA re
f case
Definition of BAU critical
Australia’s commitment: the fine print
Press release Minister Wong, 27 Jan 2010:
“The Government will not increase Australia’s emissions reduction target above 5 per cent until:
• the level of global ambition becomes sufficiently clear, including both the specific targets of advanced economies and the verifiable emissions reduction actions of China and India;
• the credibility of those commitments and actions is established, for example, by way of a robust global agreement at the next United Nations Climate Change Conference in Mexico, or commitment to verifiable domestic action on the part of major emitters including the United States, India and China; and
• there is clarity on the assumptions for emissions accounting and access to markets”