download the mexico energy revolution scenario

The charts in Figure 2.5 show for the US, EU, India and China, the
relationship between domestic emissions reductions under the Energy
[R]evolution scenarios and the allocation of responsibility through
the GDR framework. For the EU and the US, the allocations (solid
blue and green lines) are well below the estimated emissions (dotted
blue and green lines), with the difference resulting from an
international obligation to fund reductions in other countries. In India
and China, by contrast, the allocation of permits is greater than the
estimated emissions, indicating that other countries will need to
support a reduction from the level indicated by the allocation (solid
lines) and projected emissions (dashed lines).
Because the forward calculation of the Responsibility and Capacity
Indicator (RCI) depends on the budget that is allocated, the
percentage reductions of different countries and regions are slightly
different under the Energy [R]evolution and advanced Energy
[R]evolution pathways. Nevertheless, because neither capacity nor
responsibility from 1990-2010 vary in the two scenarios, the RCIs
figure 2.5: annual ghg emissions and reduction pathways allocated
under the GDR system for the USA, Europe, China and India
image WIND TURBINES AT THE NAN
WIND FARM IN NAN’AO. GUANGDONG
PROVINCE HAS ONE OF THE BEST WIND
RESOURCES IN CHINA AND IS ALREADY
HOME TO SEVERAL INDUSTRIAL SCALE
WIND FARMS.
for specific countries are still quite similar, and thus the actual
allocations going forward differ between the two scenarios primarily
because of the stricter targets in the advanced scenario.
It is also important to note that because GDRs allocate obligations
as a percentage of the global commitment, measured in MtCO2 in this
example, a country with lower per capita emissions will appear to
have a more stringent reduction target, when their target is stated in
terms of a percentage of 1990 emissions by 2020 or 2030. However,
it should be borne in mind that the GDR calculation does not specify
the split between domestic and internationally supported reductions.
Since we assume that emissions trading or a similar mechanism will
lead to a rough equalisation of the marginal cost of reductions, it is
in essence the “per capita tonnes of reductions”, and thus per capita
costs, which are made comparable (not equal) through the
calculation of the RCI. With this in mind, we can see under the
Energy [R]evolution scenario that the OECD nations have a global
responsibility equal to a reduction to 45% below 1990 levels in
2020 and 2% of 1990 levels in 2030.
© GP/XUAN CANXIONG
2
implementing the energy [r]evolution | GREENHOUSE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
5,000
European Union
6,000
United States
annual CO2 emissions (Mt CO2)
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
percent of CO2 emissions
annual CO2 emissions (Mt CO2)
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
percent of CO2 emissions
0
-500
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
12,000
China
4,000
India
annual CO2 emissions (Mt CO2)
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
percent of CO2 emissions
annual CO2 emissions (MtCO2)
3,000
2,000
1,000
percent of CO2 emissions
0
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
BUSINESS AS USUAL
ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION PATHWAY
GDRS ALLOCATION UNDER ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION
ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION PATHWAY
GDRS ALLOCATION UNDER ADVANCED ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION
27