Economie de l`énergie Introduction

EAE22
Economie de l’énergie
Introduction
Christophe Cassen
Julie Rozenberg
1
cassen@centre‐cired.fr
Plan du cours
Aujourd’hui
Introduction à l’économie de l’énergie, aux grandes tendances et aux enjeux futurs (C.Cassen)
29 mars (9h‐12h15) Les enjeux énergétiques des pays en développement (M. Hamdi‐Chérif)
5 avril (9h‐12h15)
Politiques climatiques, échanges internationaux et enjeux de compétitivité (G le Treut)
12 avril (9h‐12h15
Usages des sols, biocarburants et enjeux alimentaires (T. Brunelle)
26 avril (9‐12h15)
Economie de l'efficacité énergétique dans le bâtiment (LG Giraudet)
29 avril (9h‐12h15)
Les marchés électriques (Marie Petitet)
INTRODUCTION À L’ÉCONOMIE DE L’ÉNERGIE
From primary energy to final energy uses
4
From primary energy to final energy uses
Primary energy:
Secondary energy:
Final uses:
‐ Coal
‐ Electricity
‐ Residential
‐ Crude oil
‐ Heat
‐ Transport
‐ Gas
‐ Liquid fuels
‐ Industry
‐ Nuclear
‐ Agriculture
‐ Hydro
‐ Services
‐ Geothermal
‐ Fishing
‐ Solar, wind, waves
‐ Non energy use
‐ Biomass and waste
5
The global energy system, 2010
Source: WEO 2012
Fossil fuels dominate the world primary energy consumption
Total primary energy supply (Mtoe)
14000
2014
13000
12000
10000
biomass
8000
Mtoe
heat (geothermal and solar)
primary electricity
6000
natural gas
oil
coal
4000
2000
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
0
Source: enerdata
Fossil fuels dominate the world primary energy consumption
Total primary energy supply (Mtoe)
14000
2014
13000
12000
Subprimes crisis
2nd oil shock
USSR collapse
10000
1st oil shock
biomass
8000
Mtoe
heat (geothermal and solar)
primary electricity
6000
natural gas
oil
coal
4000
2000
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
0
Source: enerdata
Repartition of final energy consumption by sector
World Total Final Consumption (Mtoe)
10000
9000
8000
7000
Non energy uses
6000
Residential, tertiary,
agriculture
5000
Transport
4000
Industry
3000
2000
1000
2011
2009
2007
2005
2003
2001
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
1989
1987
1985
1983
1981
1979
1977
1975
1973
9
1971
0
Source: enerdata
Energy consumption growth comes from developing
countries
Total primary consumption (included biomass) Mtoe 3000
2500
2000
Europe
1500
India
China
1000
United States
500
0
Source: enerdata
GDP energy intensity keeps decreasing
Energy intensity of GDP at purchasing power parities (koe/$05p)
1,6
1,4
1,2
1
European Union (15)
0,8
India
China
0,6
United States
0,4
0,2
0
Source: enerdata
Primary energy consumption (tep) per capita in 2014 is
still unequally distributed in the world
Source: BP statistical review 2015
Some sectors use a diversity of primary energy
sources…
Share of primary energies in world industry consumption (%)
40
35
30
coal and lignite
25
oil
20
gas
electricity
15
heat
biomass
10
5
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
0
Source: enerdata
… while others are captive
Share of primary energies in transport consumption (%)
120
100
80
coal and lignite
oil
60
gas
electricity
40
biomass
20
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
0
Source: enerdata
World repartition of proved oil reserves
Source: BP statistical review 2015
World repartition of proved gas reserves
Source: BP statistical review 2015
World repartition of proved coal reserves
17
Source: BP statistical review 2015
Reserves ≠ Resources
• Reserves are resources economically competitive to extract.
Concept of reserves depends on many
parameters e.g:
‐ Energy prices
‐ Extraction technologies
Different categories of reserves:
‐ Proved reserves
‐ Probable reserves
‐ Possible reserves
Proved  at least 90% probability that the quantities recovered will equal or exceed the estimate
Proved + Probable  at least 50% probability
Proved + Probable + Possible  at least 10% probability
Peak oil is the point when further expansion of oil production becomes impossible.
 Flows and not quantities
PETITE HISTOIRE DES MARCHÉS PÉTROLIERS
Crude oil prices 1861‐2015
Source: BP statistical review, 2015
Few determinants of oil prices
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Depletion of oil resources
Availability of oil supply and exploitation costs
Capacity utilization and exportations Oil demand level growth
Speculation on oil markets
Exchange rate Political tensions Environmental regulations
Etc…
Crude oil prices 1861‐2015
Source: BP statistical review
From Colonel Drake to the « 7 sisters »
August 27 1859: first discovery
1860’s ‐ 1911 : John Rockefeller builds its empire « The Standard Oil »
The « 7 sisters » •Standard oil of New Jersey (Exxon)
• Shell
• Anglo Persian Oil Co (BP)
• Standard oil of New York (Mobil)
• Standard oil of California (Chevron)
• Texaco
• Gulf Oil
1901: D’Arcy gets a concession in Iran for 60 years
1912: Turkish Petroleum Co (TPC)
1928: The Red Line Agreement and the Achnacarry Agreement
Oil grows on as a fuel.
Churchill chooses oil for the English Marine
Source: BP statistical review
Crude oil prices 1861‐2013
Source: BP statistical review
The OPEC creation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
26
1960: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela
1961: Qatar
1962: Indonesia, Libya
1967: United Arab Emirates
1969: Algeria
1971: Nigeria
1973: Equator (left the OPEC in 1992)
1975: Gabon (left the OPEC in 1996)
Crude oil prices 1861‐2009
Source: BP statistical review
From the first shock to the counter
shock
1973: 1st oil shock
The Arab exporting countries proclaim an oil embargo on the countries supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur war.
The OPEC unilaterally declares an increase of oil prices (from 3$/bl in September to 11$/bl in December).
1979: 2nd oil shock
Because of the Iranian Revolution, many countries build precautionary stocks.
The OPEC decides a new increase of oil prices, to 35$/bl in 1981.
1986: Counter shock
Source: BP statistical review
Crude oil prices 1861‐2015
Source: BP statistical review
Crude oil prices 1861‐2015
Source: BP statistical review
From 1986 on: financial markets
Source : Platts/IFP
Oil market
• Physical exchanges on the spot market or by forwards (long term contracts). Transactions are done by traders from companies or independent brokers  transactions OTC (or face to face). Spot price published by Platt’s (paid).
• The only one regulated market (with clearing house) for futures and options. The oil price made public is the one from the nearest future
32
Who impacts who ?
• Increase in the spot price (physical) 
speculators follow on futures and amplify the price increase.
• Futures increase  protective purchases and storage  increase on the spot market
33
Economists’ approach : Hotelling
• Hotelling (1931) : theory of non renewable
resources
– Marginal profit of the owner’s resource should follow
the interest rate trend • Let Rt be the scarcity rent Rt=Pt‐Mt (price –
marginal cost of the production)
‐ If the owner produces he can invest Rt and will
obtain the year after Rt(1+i)
‐ Therefore, the optimum is Rt+1 = Rt(1+i)
34
Does it correspond to reality?
• On current currency, increase rate of oil price
prix was around 4%/yr over 1970‐2008.
– BUT : equalizing market price/rent ceased to be
justified today
– Increase of price not linear
– Hotelling’s theory assumes that the total amount
of reserves is known
– Taking into account technical progress argues in favor of U price curb
35
Engineers’ vision : Hubbert and the theory of peak oil
Marion King Hubbert and the theory of peak oil
The probability of success of an oil
exploration campaign depends on the
results of an information effect favouring
new discoveries and a depletion effect
lowering the chances of new discoveries.
36
Hubbert and the theory of peak oil
The information effect : I(t) = information and D(t) = cumulative discoveries
I ( t )  D (t )
D
 I (t )
t
The two equations together represent a
classical learning process:
experience in exploring for oil is nourished
by discoveries and at the same time it
facilitates discoveries.
The depletion effect : Q∞ = ultimately recoverable resources
D
 Q  D(t )
t
37
The rate of discovery is a growing function
of the amount of oil remaining in the
ground.
Hubbert and the theory of peak oil
When we solve the equations we obtain:
dD(t )
e  b (t t0 )
 Q .b.
2

b
(
t

t
)
0
dt
1  e

This equation gives the temporal profile of oil discoveries:
the “bell” curve characteristic of “Hubbert” style modelling.
38
The Hubbert theory applies very well to the US production
Oil discoveries shifted 35 years and United States production (without Alaska)
39
Source: Laherrere, 2003
Should we worry about future fossil
energy supply?
Fossil fuel reserves‐to‐production (R/P) ratios at end 2014
40
Source: BP statistical review 2015
Should we worry about future fossil energy supply?
Remaining unconventional gas resource
(2012‐tcm)
Source: WEO, 2013
World oil and gas reserves and resources
Source:IEA, 2013
Main challenges for the future of energy in the world
• Increase of energy demand
– Depletion of ressources
– Equitable access to energy in developing countries
• Energy security and energy geopolitics
– Tensions on gas (Russia vs Europe) znd oil (US vs OPEP), Devpg countries needs…
– Tensions within OPEC (managing the rent): ME vs Algeria, Iran, Vénézuela
• Economic development
– Dutch disease vs Green and inclusive Growth? – Market regulation: what role for the State ? • Technological
– Integration of RES in energy systems
– Development of smart grids systems (managing Supply and Demand )
• Environnemental – Pressure on water ressources – Pollution
– Transition toward a low carbon society (2°C objective)
LES NEGOCIATIONS CLIMATIQUES DE RIO A DOHA
Main steps
• Agenda setting of climate change and first initiatives (1985‐
1990)
• Institutionnalization of climate regime (1992‐1997): from the Convention‐Framework of Rio to the Kyoto Protocol
• The implementation of the Kyoto Protocol (1997‐2005)
• Negotiations on a Post Kyoto climate regime (2005‐2015?)
Agenda setting of climate change and first initiatives du (1985‐1990)
• 1979 : First World Climate Conference (WMO)
• 1985 : UNEP/WMO Villach Conference
• 1988 : G7 conférence (Toronto)
– Establishment of the IPCC
• 1989: La Hague summit
• 1990: Second World Climate Conference
Dominated by researchers
Intergovernmental
response
First, an energy security challenge • Proactive position of Georges Bush sr and Thatcher à Toronto (1988)
– Limiting the US dependency to the Middle East • …side effects of the Gulf war : – « The American way of life is not negotiable » (G. Bush Sr.)
• A long term structuring issue
Institutionnalization of the climate regime (1990‐1997)
Challenges before Rio
• Which emission reduction objectives?
• What burden sharing?
• What type of instruments of coordination?
– Price? Quantities? Policies and measures (PAM) ?
• Which rules of compliance?
– Which ‘concession’ of national sovereignty ?
– What is a « legally binding commitment»?
• Which explicit Issue Linkages ? – Energy
– International trade (OMC)
– Global Governance
Rio (1992): Framework‐Convention on climate change
•
No quantified objectives –
Article 2: “The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. “
• Principle of Common but differentiatied responsibilities
–
Article 3: “ The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof”.
• Distinction btw Annex 1 (OECD, East‐European countries and ex‐USSR) and non Annex 1 countries • Ratified by 194 countries, entered in force in 1994 The principle of Common but differentiated
responsibilities
A contrasted map of past emissions : 80% vs 20%
Kyoto Protocol: compromises North‐North
Double confrontation:
– Level of commitment : without distinction industrialized
countries /non industrialized (USA) vs against all reduction
emission commitments (developing countries)
– Types of commitments : quantified objectives of emissions
reduction for Annex I countries + PAM (Europe) vs quantified
objectives and flexibility mechanisms (USA)
• Compromise btw Europe and USA: – Legally binding emission reduction commitments for Annex I counties 2008‐2012 ( ‐5%/ 1990, EU 15 ‐8%/1990, USA ‐6%, Canada ‐7%, Germany ‐21%, Spain +15%) European
Approach
– Flexibility mechanisms: time, space, implementation of emission
trading, JI US approach
•
Flexibility mechanisms of the Protocol
• Art 17: trade of emissions rights btw Annex 1 countries with
quantified commitments
–
Should be complementary to national mitigation measures
• Art 6: Joint implementation among Annex I countries –
Acquisition of emission reduction units (ERU) should be
complementary to national mitigation measures
• Art 12: Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
–
Public or private Investments of North countries in low carbon projects
in South countries. North countries can obtain Certified Emission Reduction Unit (CERU), which can be added to the quotas already
allocated.
• Art 4: possibility for a group of parties…to link their
commitments ‘bubble’ (cf EU)
A complex implementation process of the Kyoto Protocol • Marrakech (2001, COP7): agreement on the modalities
of implementation
• US withdrawal from the Kyoto négociations 2001
– 1997, Byrd Hagel resolution
“The United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to…at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would‐ mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period”
• 2005: the Kyoto Protocol is adopted after intense negotiations with Russia:
– 50% of parties, 55% of emissions
The 4 pilars of climate negotiations
(since the Bali roadmap, 2007) • Mitigation (Atténuation)
– Phase II of the Kyoto Protocol
– Broader legally binding agreement with the US, emerging
and developing countries
• Adaptation – Financing adaptation measures and compensations for damages? • Financing
– Funding the Green Climate Fund (GCF)
• Technological Transfer – Btw North and South countries pays, transfers of licences A chaotic process since Bali (2007) • Semi‐failure of Copenhagen in 2009: highlights
the fault lines btw North and South countries
• The process is saved in Cancun (2010)
• The Durban Platform 2011: in view of a global agreement in Paris (2015) • Warsaw 2013 and Lima 2014: agenda and format of the Intended Nationally Determined
Contributions (INDCs)
New dynamics
• Geopolitical changes
– Rebalancing of Nord/South relationship: increasing role of the BASICS
– Distinction Annex I/non Annex I waning
• Rising of development issues
– Adaptation – Finance
•
Top down (cap and trade) approaches of the Kyoto Protocol quiestionned by non legally binding bottom up approaches:
– PAMs : Policies and measures
– NAMAs: Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions
– INDCs: Intended Nationally Determined Contributions Increasing role of developing countries in negotiation groups Countries of the Ombrella
(USA, Canada,
Australie, Japon,
Nouvelle‐Zélande, Russie,
Ukraine et Norvège)
BASICS
Brésil, AFS, Chine, Inde
CLIMATE
Negotiations
EU28
G77+China
Developing countries et PMA ALBA
AOSIS
small Islands
Bolivie, Cuba, Venezuela, Equateur….
A rebalancing in terms of absolute emissions toward
developing countries
Pledges: be careful to the targets! The Cancun paradigm shift
Call for “a paradigm shift towards building a
low-carbon society that offers substantial
opportunities and ensures continued high
growth and sustainable development’’
(paragraph 10)
Implications of the Cancun « paradigm shift »
• From a “fair burden sharing” to an “equitable access to development” (EASD)
• What consistency btw “ Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action ” (NAMAs) and development objectives (Bali) ‐> INDCs
• To ensure consistency
− The Green Climate Fund
• An answer to the tension btw a pure environmental
approach/approach more centered on the development
isues
Finance issues: some order of magnitude
• Global cumulated Investissement in the energy sector by 2035 ‐ BAU: btw 47,44 and 54,7 trillions US$ (monde) (Source: IMACLIM, CIRED)
‐
‐
Europe: btw 4,94 and 5,25 trillions US$ USA: btw 5,5 and 6,05 trillions US$ ‐ 450 ppm: btw 39,68 and 43,17 trillion US$ (world)
‐
‐
‐
Europe: btw 5,29 and 6,61 trillion US$
USA: btw 5,83 and 6,39 trillion US$
AIE, WEIO, 2014: 53 trillion US$ (world) by 2035 (450ppm)
• Leveraged inv costs < upfront inv costs < induced inv costs
• Redirected investment = 8 to 9% of the Gross Capital Formation
Paris Agreement: a momentum (COP21) • A global agreement that gather North and South countries
• Legal form: a treaty or not a treaty? • A long term objective: 2°C and call for 1,5°C
• End of the differentiation between Developed and Developing
countries • Means of implementation
• INDCs and NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions)
• Review mechanism: every 5 yr (next one in 2018)
• Finance: 100 billions$/yr by 2020 confirmed : a floor by 2025 Intended Nationally Determined Contributions
• 134 INDCs (161 countries): 91% of total GHG emissions
• Mitigation and adaptation objectives Variety of forms: Economy wide emission reduction targets (US, EU)
Absolute emission reduction targets (LDC, developing countries)
Relative emission reduction target relative to a Baseline
Intensity targets (GHG/GDP): (China, India, Chile, Tunisia..)
Policies and actions • 5 or 10 years (2025, 2030), reference year (1990,2005…), GHG considered (all GHG, CO2 only), economic sectors (industry, transport, forest…)
• Not enough to comply the 2°C (+2,7°C to 3,5°C)
The underlying challenges for energy
• Reorienting development styles and oil rent: risk of lock in in case of non action
• Current complexity of the energy landscape : shale gas (new aboundance?)
• Climate policy and energy security: what co‐benefits ?
PROSPECTIVES DE LONG TERME DES SYSTEMES ENERGERGETIQUES: ENJEUX, TRANSFORMATION…
Long term prospective of energy systems : what are the key questions? • How to deal with the future energy needs of population? • What will be the future prices of fossil energies? What economic impacts? • What type of climate policies have to be implemented? Which countries? Which sectors? Which cost? • Are our consumption styles sustainable? Can we conciliate development and environment? 70
Which uncertainties? – Evolution of technologies
– Energy policies
– Geopolitics
– Natural catastrophies, wars, nuclear accidents n
– Availability of funding
– Consequences of climate change Origins of the scenarios • Military : scenarios used to simulate games wars
• Economic: anticipation of tensions on oil energy
market (Royal Dutch Shell)
• Two key places of the production of scenarios in the world (50’s, 60’s): – US (Rand Corporation)
– France (Plan, Gaston Bergé, Pierre Massé)
Management of uncertainties : the role of scenarios
• Describe the role of key variables according to a related decision
• Do not predict the future but enable to better
understand where are the uncertainties
• Ensure to take robust decisions in a context of a high set of possible futures
Managment of uncertainties : approach with scenarios
• «Scenarios are attempts to describe in some details a hypothetical sequence of events that could lead plausibly to the situation envisaged».
Herman Kahn.
• «Scenarios are stories about the way the world might turn out tomorrow, stories that can help us recognize and adapt to changing aspects of our present environment».
Peter Schwartz.
• «Scenario is a tool for ordering one’s perceptions about alternative future environments in which one’s decisions might be played out».
Peter Schwartz.
2 complementary approaches
• Exploratory approach with scenarios « What if… »
 Explore a range of possible future states of the economy‐
energy‐environment system : projection of alternative scenarios , on the basis of the elaboration of qualitative visions of the future, and their quantitative translation in numerical models .
• Normative approach to propose alternative pour proposer des visions alternatives souhaitables
 Search for optimal strategies
75
Development of integrated models
• Club de Rome (Meadows, 1972) – Criticism of a positive vision of development
– Global approach: first attempt of numerical models and effects of long term at the global level (WORLD model)
• Development of integrated models to analyze long term dynamics
– Answers to the club de Rome, to oil crisis and climate change – Integrate climate science, economy and environmental
dynamics
– Ex: IMAGE, MESSAGE
• Computer revolution and the exponential
development of scenarios in the 1990’s
Two families of models
• Models Bottom‐Up or « models of ingeneers »
• Top‐Down Models or « models of economists »
77
Bottom‐up modeling: a vision of ingeneers
• Principle :
– Detailed representation of the du panier de technologies de production et transformation de l’énergie
• Variants:
– Intertemporal optimization (planing)
– Simulations based on behaviroral routines of some actors or main economic and energetic variables
• Advantages :
– Detailed representation of detailed technologies – Taking into consideration of sectoral specificities (electricity)
• Limits :
– Exogenous demande or simplistic (elasticity, agregated macro module) – No analysis of macro‐economic feedbacks
78
One exemple: MARKAL‐TIMES
Système Énergétique de Référence
CONVERSIONS
PRODUCTION
D’ÉLECTRICITÉ ET
DE CHALEUR
Émissions
Transformation du
Charbon
Raffinage
Recyclage
Enrichissement
Réseaux de Gaz
Industrie
Agriculture
Résidentiel
Commercial et
Institutionnel
Transport
Non Énergétique
Flux
d’énergie
RESERVES
PROCESS
Énergies Finales
Exports
Énergies Primaires
Prix de l’énergie
Locales
Centralisé
Décentralisé
Réseaux de
chaleur
SECTEUR DE
DEMANDE
Demande
RESSOURCES
Imports
STOCKAGE
79
Top‐Down modeling :
multisectors general equilibrium models
•
Principle:
– Representation of the whole set of markets and their interdependencies, and the set of budget équations of repesentative agents •
Variants :
– Intertemporal optimisation model
– Recursive models of simulation
•
Advantages :
–
–
–
–
•
General equilibrium effect
Constraints of financing
Fiscal structures International trade, balance of payments
Limits :
– Standard and agregatedProduction and consumption function
– Simplifying assumptions (optimality, rational anticipations…)
– Calibration on one year (99,99% of models)
80
Top‐Down modeling:
multisector general equilibrium model
Ménages
Maximisation d’utilité.
Impôts, taxes
Prix
Transferts
Demandes
finales
Salaires
Exportations
Secteurs productifs
Marchés mondiaux
Équilibres des marchés
– biens et capitaux –
Optimisation de la production
Importations
Charges sociales
Taxes
État
Politiques de redistribution.
81
Persistence of « modeling tribes » OPTIMISATION
Bottom Up
(detailed sectors and technologies models)
Sectorial Optimization (e.g. MARKAL)
Top Down (global models , systemic effect)
Optimal Growth
(e.g. RICE)
SIMULATION
Partial equilibrium (e.g. POLES, TIMER, G‐CAM)
General equlibrium
multisectorial
(e.g. SGM, EPPA)
Emergence of a community of modelers
• Pioneers: Koopmans (Cowles Foundation), Dantzig (Stanford), Manne and Nordhaus (IIASA)
• Interactions btw communities
– Mathematicians
– Economists
– Energeticians
• Key forum of expertise:
– AIE, IIASA, EMF (Energy Modeling Forum), IPCC…
Interactions science‐decision making in the building of the climate issue: impact of IPCC • 1st and 2nd IPCC report (1990, 1995): key elements of the framing of the climate change issue
‒
‒
‒
‒
•
Distinction mitigation/adaptation
Short term and long term action Sectoral Potentials
Emission Scenarios
3rd report (2001): SRES scenarios (Special Report on Emission Scenarios, 2000)
‒ Definition of four main ‘storylines’ along two axes ‒ For each storyline, the weight of each driver of emission evaluated : technical
change, globalization, demography…
‒ Reference for the next modeling exercises
• 4th report (2007): frame the assessment on the 2°C objective ‒
‒
Limited window of opportunity to comply with the 2°C target
Moderate cost of the 2°C 5ème rapport d’évaluation du GIEC Groupe III
85
Photo : Mairie Paris
IPCC • IPCC is an intergovernmental body which
provides scientific and technico‐economic
advices to the international community, in particular to the 170 parties of the UNFCCC
• 3 groups (climate science, impact/adaptation, mitigation)
• 1 president, 3 vice presidents
• Small secretariat in Geneva
86
IPCC reports are the product from the world research
community
1 summary for policy maker
1 technical summary
16 chapters
235 authors
900 reviewers
More than 2000 pages
Almost 10,000 references
More than 38,000 comments
87
Writing covers 5 years
88
Without increased mitigation efforts, temperature could rise beyond
4.8°C
>4,8°C
≈ 2°C
Global GHG emissions trajectories from 2000 to 2100 (GtCO2eq/year) (Source: IPCC, AR5, WG1, SPM, 2013)
89
…but GHG emissions continued to rise
Increase emissions made essentially of CO2 emited by the combustion of fossil fuel energies and industrial process
90
Energy efficiency has limited the rise of emissions linked to GDP growth and population
Breakdown of CO2 emissions by decade according to 4 factors : population, GDP per head, GDP energy intensity and carbon intensity of GDP (Source: IPCC,AR5, WG3, SPM, 2014)
91
But the historical trend of decarbonization of energy has been reversed
since 2001
Breakdown of CO2 emissions by decade according to 4 factors : population, GDP per head, GDP energy intensity and carbon intensity of GDP (Source: IPCC,AR5, WG3, SPM, 2014)
92
Significant mitigation efforts are necessary
40 à 70% of reduction
Global emission trajectory from 2000 to 2100 (GtCO2eq/an) in RCP scenarios (Source: IPCC, AR5, SPM, WG1, 2013)
93
Deep changes in the economy are required
Emissions directes (GtCO2eq/an
Baseline Scenario
Land use Electricity
Transport Source: Skea, 2014 and IPCC, AR5, WG3, 2014
Residential
Industry
Non CO2 94
Deep changes in the economy are required
Direct emissions (GtCO2eq/yr
Scenario 2°C (450ppm with CCS)
Land use Electricity
(decarbonized
by 2050)
Transport Residential
(not yet decarbonized
by 2050, inertias)
Industry
Non CO2 Source: Skea based on IPCC, AR5, WG3, 2014
95
Major technical and institutional changes + a strong penetration of low carbon or zero carbon emissions (Biomass + CCS)
(Source: IPCC, AR5, WG3, SPM, 2014)
96
Deployment of low carbon technologies
97
Final energy demand compared to the baseline (%°)
Reducing energy demand is key
Transport Residential
Source: Skea, 2014 and IPCC, AR5, WG3, 2014
Industry
98
Delaying mitigation until 2030 increases the difficulty and
narrows the options for limiting warming to 2°C
Before 2030
Emission trajectory
(GtCO2/yr
After 2030 Variation of émissions (%/yr)
Share of low carbon
energies (%/yr)
Impact of different levels of GHG emissions in 2030 on low carbon energy needs for GHG concentration trajectories 430‐530 ppm CO2eq by 2100 (Source: IPCC, AR5, WG3, SPM,2014)
99
Some limits on the feasibility…
• Obstacles at the demand level
– Inertia of behaviors, asymmetric information
– Issue social acceptability of low carbon technologies (wind, nuclear) • Obstacles at the supply level
– Industrial maturity of sectors (solar panel, building insulation…)
– Subsidies and deadweight effects
– Availability of technologies (biomass, CCS, EV…)
• Inertia of infrastructures (transport, urban forms)
– Risk of lock in high carbon pathways
• Contrary signals
– Shale gas: mirage or real alternative?
– Economic crisis and green investments
Global costs rise with the ambition of the mitigation goal
Cost are however limited : ‐ Average annual reduction of consumption growth of 0,06 % by 2100
Estimates exclude:
‐ Impacts of climate change;
‐ Co‐benefits of mitigation policies (par ex, better local air quality )
Estimates are limited to understand : ‐ Cost by sectors and on households
‐
Estimates depend largely on the availability of low carbon technologies
Source: Skea based on IPCC, AR5, WG3, 2014
101
Significant needs of investissement Annual investments variations in mitigation scenarios (2010‐2029) for concentrations between 430 et 530ppm CO2eq by 2100 compared to respective reference trajectories
(Source: author based on IPCC, AR5, WG3, SPM, 2014 )
102
Climate policies can produce important co‐benefits
• Since the 4th IPCC report, the litterature has made progres in analyzing multi‐objective policies which have substantial cobenefits and reduce potential adverse effets of climate
policies. – jobs, energy security, health
• Climate policies are no longer isolated from
other development issues • But assessment methodologies not stabilized
103
One example: cities, infrastructures an urban planning • Cities represent more than half of primary energy
consumption and related CO2 emissions
• Majority of infrastructures and cities in the world has to be built
– Most opportunities probably in developing countries – In developed countries, focus on refurbishing of buildings
• Urban integrated policies required linking: density, land use mix, accessibility, connectivity, green areas manegement etc…
• Impacts of climate plans on GHG reductions are not clear
104
Co‐benefits of climate policies at the urban level
Potential co‐benefits (green arrows) and adverse effects (orange arrows) of main mitigation measures
at the urban level (Source: IPCC, AR5, TS, WG3, 2014 )
105
Climate policies have been growing since 2007…
Source: IPCC, AR5, WG3, 2014
106
Main characteristics
• Policies mainly sectoral
• Reglementary and informational policies prevail
• Since the 4th report, dissemination of carbon markets
in many countries and regions
• In some countries, fiscal policies aimed specifically to reduce carbon emissions, combined with tehnological
policies and other policies have contributed to weakentthe link btw GDP and GHG
• Reducing subsidies to carbon intensive activities in many sectors can reduce emissions, in function of the economic and social context. 107
What about Europe? •
•
2020 package energy climate and Roadmap 2050
– EUETS (2005): first carbon market in the world
– 3*20 (2008): ‐20% of GHG emissions in 2020, +20% of energy
efficiency, ‐20% of carbon intensity
– ‐40% of GHG emissions in 2030 (2014)
– /4 of GHG emissions in 2050 (2011)
France
– Factor 4 (2005) and « Grenelle de l’environnement » (2008, 2009)
• ‐20% of GHG emissions in 2020/1990
• 23% of REN in final energy consumption by 2020
• Project of carbon tax (2009): failure…
– Law on the energy transition (2014) • Share of REN up to 23% of final energy consumption
• Nuclear down to 50% of electricity production • Significant increase of energy efficiency efforts •
Policies dependent on national contexts
– French nuclear /German Energiwiende /Polish « green » coal
– A complex coordination at the European scale
108
Conclusion (part III)
• Increasing use of long term quantitative models: – Support to climate negotiations and implementation of climate
policies
– Multiplication of scenarios • Main messages: – Transformation of technico‐energetic systems necessary (supply side
and develoment styles) – Short window of opportunity for reaching the 2°C
• Limits and challlenges: – Range of uncertainties of results
– Political and technico‐économic uncertainties
– New frontiers of modeling : changes in behaviors, articulating different
scales, assessing the co‐benefits of climate policies
Some references
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aykut, S., Dahan, A., 2015. Gouverner le Climat ? Vingt ans de négociations internationales, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.
BP statistical review 2015
Chevalier J‐M., 2004. Les batailles de l'énergie: petit traité d’une économie violente, Folio Gallimard IEA, 2015. WE0 special report for Climate Change
IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., Pichs‐
Madruga, R. Sokona, Y. Farahani, E.Kadner, S. Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J., Schlömer, S., von
Stechow, C., Zwickel, T., Minx, J.C. (Eds)], Cambridge (UK) and New York, Cambridge University Press.
Maljean Dubois, S., Wermaere, M., 2015. La diplomatie climatique
Les enjeux d’un régime international du climat, Perone
Percebois, J., Hansen, J‐P, 2010. Energie : Economie et Politiques, Editions De Boeck, 780p