Key findings – Climate ChangePresented by Edward S Ayensuon 4th – 5th September, 2009@ the UNESCO International Conference on Broadcast Media & Climate Change: A Public Service RemitParis, France

2

Key messages

2

• The impacts of climate change are already being felt, and limiting warming by 2 degrees is a minimum

• Limiting warming by 2 degrees will require 17Gt of abatement by 2020

• This will require action from developed and developing countries

• Substantial funding to the developing world (€65-100bn pa) is required over the next ten years

• “Low carbon growth plans” are required to enable both the private and public funding flows to developing countries

3

About Project Catalyst

• Initiative of the ClimateWorks Foundation, a global, non-profit philanthropic foundation headquartered in San Francisco, California with a network of affiliated foundations in China, India, the U.S., and the European Union

• Launched in May 2008 to provide analytical and policy support for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations on a post-Kyoto international climate agreement

• Provide a forum where key participants in the global discussions can informally interact, conduct analyses, jointly problem solve, and contribute ideas and proposals to the formal UNFCCC process

• Organized in working groups: mitigation, adaptation, technology, forestry, climate-compatible growth plans, and finance with a total of about 150 climate negotiators, senior government officials, representatives of multilateral institutions, business executives, and leading experts from over 30 countries. Analytical support from the international consulting firm, McKinsey & Company

4

East Africa• Expansion

of vector-borne disease transmission zone

West and Central Africa• Fast-urbanising

cities at risk from coastal flooding

Southern Africa• Heightened water stress

Climate zone shifts

Droughts Costal flooding

1 Including emissions from land-use and forestry

SOURCE: UNFCCC; UN ESA; IEA;

Water Scarcity

Current development issues may be worsened by climate change

Climate change is likely to disproportionately affect the countries least responsible

Per capita GHG emission comparison1

MtCO2e per capital

7.5

16.0

3.3

2005

8.4

17.8

2.9

2030

World

Dev’d world

Africa

North Africa• Increased

desertification

5

The response to climate change must be rooted in development, but aligned with mitigation and adaptation objectives

Development

Mitigation Adaptation‘Climate-proofed

abatement’

‘Climate-resilient

development’

‘Low-carbon development’

‘Climate-compatible

development’

6

Scientific evidence suggests that a 450ppm CO2e pathway with over-shoot gives a 40–60% probability to limit global warming to 2 degrees

Source:IPCC WG3 AR4,, den Elzen, van Vuuren; Meinshausen; Global GHG Abatement Cost Curve v2.0, Catalyst analysis

Global GHG emissions and pathways for GHG stability

GtCO2e per year

205045403530252015102005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Expected temperature increase

3.0˚C

2.0˚C

1.8˚C

Probability of temperature increase under 2˚C

15-30%

40-60%

70-85%

• 450ppm is not safe – it has a 40–60% pro-bability of warming exceeding 2oC

• Even 2oC will require signifi-cant investment in adaptation

Peak at 550 ppm, long-term stabilization 550 ppm

Peak at 510 ppm, long-term stabilization 450 ppm

Peak at 480 ppm, long-term stabilization 400 ppm

7

17 Gt of reductions below “Business as Usual” in 2020 are required for a 450ppm, 2°pathway

Global GHG emissions, Gt CO2e per year

50

55

60

65

70

75

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

0

40

45

52

61

70

50

55

60

65

70

75

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

0

40

4544

35

-35

Reference pathway‘Business as Usual’

450ppm pathway

(with overshoot)

Change relative to 1990Percent

17 -7

Current proposals*8-11 Gt abatement in 2020

-17

*US – 17-28% below 2005 level by 2020; EU – 20-30% from 1990 level by 2020 (2.3 Gt); China - Reduce energy consumption per national income by 20% between 2005–10 (0.8Gt), and again between 2010-2015; Russia - stabilise emissions at ~30% below 1990 (0.7 Gt); Brazil - Reduce deforestation rates by 70% by 2017, equivalent to 4.8b tons less CO2 emitted cumulatively (0.7 Gt); Japan - Reduce 80% by 2050 from current levels (0.7 Gt); Canada - 20% reduction from 2006 level by 2020 (0.3 Gt); Mexico - Reduce emissions from 2002 levels by 50% by 2050 (0.3Gt), plus proposals from 12 smaller Annex 1 countries and South Korea. Assumptions have been made on timeline and pathway to calculate abatement in 2020

Source:McKinsey Global GHG Abatement Cost Curve v2.0; Houghton; IEA; US EPA; den Elzen, van Vuuren; Project Catalyst analysis7

8

Sufficient opportunities exist to achieve the 17 Gt required to reach a 450ppm pathway

McKinsey global GHG abatement cost curve, 2020* (up to costs of €60/t, excluding transaction costs, 4% discount rate)

-90

Lighting – switch incandescentsto LED (residential)

Retrofit building envelope (commercial)

-100

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

-70

-80

Solar PV

0

10

20

30

40

10

Cars ICE improvement

New waste recyclingElectricity from landfill gas

Shift coal new build to gasRice management

Reduced deforestation fromslash-and-burn agriculture conversion

Reduced deforestationfrom pastureland conversion

Wind (low penetration)Grassland management Biomass

Wind (high penetration)Solar conc.

Organic soil restoration

Cars aerodynamics improvement

Nuclear

Reduced intensive agriculture conversion50

60

70

15 20

Abatement potential Gt CO2e

-10

Pastureland afforestation

Source:McKinsey Global GHG Abatement Cost Curve v2.0

19 Gt

Breakdown by abatement type:

• 9 Gt for terrestrial carbon

• 6 Gt for energy efficiency

• 4 Gt for low carbon energy supply

Breakdown by geographic location:

• 5 Gt in developed country geographies

• 14 Gt in developing country geographies

9

Resulting responsibilities for developed countries

Caps

Support on mitigation/ adaptation

Leadership on technology

10

The costs of adaptation are uncertain but are likely to be in the tens of billions per year

19

27

89UNDP(2007)

041 41Oxfam(2007)

9936 135UNFCCCGlobal estimate(2007)

8 34World Bank(2006)

Upper bound

Lower bound

70

Adaptation cost estimates, € bn pa, (2008 prices)

Source: Agrawala & Fankhauser (2008); Project Catalyst

11

Developing countries require different types of support for mitigation activities

Developing country abatement cost curve, 2020 (up to costs of €60/t)

Best practice info, capacity building,

loans

Offset market or grants

Grants and international cooperation

Cost of abatement € / ton

8 10 12 142 4 6*0

20

40

60

-20

-40 Abatement potential Gt CO2e

12

Including elements of adaptation, the total financing need would be €65-100 bn per year 2010-2020

Source:McKinsey Global GHG Abatement Cost Curve v2.0; ‘Bosetti; Carraro; Massetti; Tavoni’; UNFCCC; Project Catalyst analysis

35

5–30

Transaction costs

5

Incremental costs

Technology deployment

Total financing for developing countries

Total financing for abatement

55–80

Higher financing costs

~65–100

~10–20

Adaptation estimate

10

Annual financing flows requirement for developing countries€b on average p.a. 2010–20

13

Under a 25% target for developed countries, carbon markets could contribute significantly to developing country low carbon investment

Required abatement in 2020, Gt

Required abatement for developed country target of 25%

Source:McKinsey Global GHG Abatement Cost Curve v2.0, team analysis

Potential abatement in developing countries

3

Abatement feasiblewithin developed countries <60 €/t CO2e

3

17

6

5

Required abatementfor 450ppm pathway

Remaining abatement feasible in developing countries (NPV positive) – may be supported by developed countries

Support for incremental costs needed, e.g., concessional loans, grants, payments

Support needed for capacity building and loans

for capital investment where required

Remaining abatement feasible in developing countries (NPV negative) – may be financed by developed countries

Carbon credit purchases to meet 25% target

Abatement feasible in developing countries – may be financed by developed to meet target commitments(e.g., via CDM)

Incremental costs paid for by developed countries

14

Climate Compatible Growth Plans (CCGPs) are a way to identify and support developing country mitigation and adaptation actions

Differentiation: Both developing + developed

Process: Support, best practices, review, MRV

Content: Priorities, policies/measures and international support•

Focus: Development, mitigation + adaptation

CCGP (=climate compatible

growth plans)

Time horizon: Long term and short/medium term

15

The elements of an LCGP

• National circumstances and current development plans

• Assessment of vulnerability to climate change and how future climate change will affect it

• Most recent GHG inventory

• Long-term vision for an economy with low GHG emissions and low vulnerability to climate change

• Plan for specific investments in making the economy and the infrastructure less vulnerable and measures to adapt existing infrastructure to the changing climate

• GHG mitigation plan containing:

– Projection of GHG emissions under BAU scenario for the most important economic sectors

– Scenario the country can achieve without assistance

– Scenario for which it would require international support.

• NAMAs and NAPA’s the country wishes to undertake

• Incremental cost of the individual NAMAs and NAPAs and all technology, financing and capacity building support needed to implement the plan.

Strategic plan to assist the country in shifting its development path to a low carbon and climate resilient economy and achieve sustainable development

Based on the socio-economic and development priorities of the country

Includes a strategic vision (long-term component) as well as that specific actions to be undertaken to get on a low carbon, climate resilient pathway (short and medium term component)

1

2

3

Topics covered by a LCGP

16

Solar technology provides advantages for Africa A Global Deal could . . .

Opportunities for leap-frogging exist which provide multiple advantages to support African development

•Low levels of electrification in Sub-Saharan Africa

•Off-grid solar technology is commercially available:

–Cost-effective in remote areas

–Faster deployment in remote areas

–More reliable

–Environmental and security benefit

•Provide funding

•Widen access to loans

•Provide technology access

•Support research

•Overcome IP barriers

•Develop institutions and processes