European climate scenarios

From Opasnet
Jump to: navigation, search



Scope

What are potential climate scenarios in Europe (EU-30) during the period 2010-2050?

Definition

Data

Summary from the Mega Case Study page for the Intarese/Heimtsa Common Case Study:

Two European and two global scenarios are considered. The bases for our calculations are the European scenarios:

  • Business as usual: BAU
  • Policy: 2°C aim (-> Climate and Energy Package).

In the BAU adaptation measures need to be considered (e.g. more air conditioning due to a higher temperature). Direct health effects like excessive heat and UV radiation are also considered. The policy scenario assumes that the temperature rise can be limited to 2°C. This requires the implementation of mitigation measures. The EU plans to reach the 2°C aim by implementing the climate and energy package (at least 20% reduction of green house gases by 2020 compared to 1990, increasing energy efficiency to save 20% of energy consumption by 2020, 20% use of renewable energy, including 10% bio fuels in petrol and diesel). Thus, the aims of the package have been translated into measures. We made use of several sources for this: NEEDS project (TIMES model) for energy, transport, industry and waste and IIASA GAINS for agriculture, waste and product use, e.g. solvent use.

In addition to these European scenarios two global scenarios were selected that we defined as fitting to the European scenarios, namely the

  • IPCC SRES A1B (no further attempt to mitigate GHG, temperature rise ca. 4-5°C)
  • IPCC SRES B1 (world as a whole: 2°C temperature increase)

scenarios. They deliver boundary conditions, e.g. precipitation and temperature rise. It was suggested that for scenarios in the near future (in this case 2020 and 2030), we should be more cautious with assumptions on mitigation/adaptation efficiencies. Scenarios in the far future (in this case 2050), on the other hand, can be more speculative with their assumptions (“bold” and “what-if” scenarios).

BAU and policy scenario are compared to each other and the difference in health impacts attributed to the total bundle of measures in the policy scenario. However, the influence of single measures will also be modelled to understand their contribution to the whole bundle. If needed, sub-bundles can be analysed – being e.g. the case if measures are dependent on each other.

The scenarios are defined in such a way that feedback loops and adaptive processes (e.g. behaviour) have been dynamically modelled in advance and the scenarios have been selected as possible equilibrium states of the respective modelled part. They feed into the actual assessment as assumptions and input parameters.

Detailed scenario description

Potential Scenarios

  • 2020 reference: e.g. 20% GHG emission reduction compared to 1990[1], NEC targets[2], other policies in place or agreed on
  • 2020 policy scenarios: e.g. GHG emission reduction to limit increase in world average temperature to max. 2°C, additional policies beyond business as usual
  • 2030 reference: e.g. trend of measures started in 2020, no extended activity[3]
  • 2030 policy scenarios: e.g. trend of measures started in 2020 to limit increase in world average temperature to max. 2°C, additional policies beyond business as usual
  • 2050 reference: e.g. trend of GHG reduction measures started in 2030[3]
  • 2050 policy scenarios: e.g. trend of measures started in 2030 to limit increase in world average temperature to max. 2°C, additional policies beyond business as usual

3: . What are these policies actually? They should be explicated. --Jouni 09:45, 7 September 2009 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)


  • Globally: IPCC scenarios A1B (business as usual) versus B1 (close to the scenario that will lead to max 2 °C increase)
  • In Europe: Business as usual versus 20/20/20 target accepted (20 % reduction of CO2 emissions and 20% biofuel increase by 2020) 4: . These were discussed in the April meeting in NILU. Are these in line with the newer plans (see the paragraph Potential scenarios. --Jouni 09:45, 7 September 2009 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
  • Several decision options for different sectors (see details in each sub-assessment page). The idea is to have all policies or none at all as a comparison, and then as a sensitivity analysis drop out one policy at a time to see its own impact.

Dependencies

Unit

Several, depending on the actual indicator.

Formula

Result

House type

  • type a (before_1980)
  • type b (1980_2010)
  • type c (2010-2030)
  • type d (2030-2050)

House parameters

  • P
  • A
  • K
  • V
  • indoor source emissions

Time and scenarios

Time Policy scenario
BAU 2°C
2010
2020
2030
2050

Policy measures for energy

  • Insulation in buildings 1980-2010
  • Insulation in buildings before 1980
  • Mechanical ventilation in buildings 1980-2010
  • Change in air conditioning
  • Increase in biomass as renewable energy

Specific measures for policy scenarios

Contents moved to Climate change mitigation in housing.

Traffic factors

  • Enhanced use of bicycles in the cities

#: . Are these specified somewhere? --Jouni 08:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)

Indoor emission sources

  • Unspecific
  • ETS
  • Wood burning (direct emission to indoor air)


See also

References

  1. COM(2009) 39 final (Towards a comprehensive climate change agreement in Copenhagen)
  2. National Emission Ceilings [1]
  3. 3.0 3.1 Interpolation by USTUTT between 2020 and 2050 reference targets regarding GHGs