download the mexico energy revolution scenario

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION
A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK
2
implementing the energy [r]evolution | GREENHOUSE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Based on the Energy [R]evolution pathway for the three OECD
regions the total domestic emissions would add up to 9.9 GtCO2
by 2020 and 7.2 GtCO2 by 2030
Under the GDR scheme the OECD regions would have an emissions
budget of 8.14 GtCO2 by 2020 and 2.9 GtCO2 by 2030. Therefore the
richer nations have to finance the saving of 1.7 GtCO2 by 2020 and
4.3 GtCO2 by 2030 in non-OECD countries.
The non-OECD countries would in aggregate see their emissions
allocation rise from 195% of 1990 levels in 2020 to 200% in 2030.
In MtCO2, China’s emissions allocation would rise from about 8,200
in 2015 to about 8,500 in 2020 and grow only slightly more by
2030. India by contrast would see its allocation rise from 1,600
MtCO2 today to about 2,000 by 2020 and 2,800 MtCO2 in 2030.
Within the OECD, the US allocation would fall to 52% of 1990
levels by 2020 and 2% by 2030, while the EU’s allocation would fall
from 84% today to 33% of 1990 levels in 2020 and -3% of 1990
levels by 2030. (A negative emissions allocation is simply a
requirement to buy a larger quantity of emission permits/support a
larger amount of mitigation internationally.)
Under the advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario, which has global
emissions falling to 25 GtCO2 in 2020, instead of 27 GtCO2 in the
basic version, and then to 18 GtCO2 instead of 22 GtCO2 in 2030,
reductions are correspondingly steeper. The OECD countries’
allocation of emissions falls to 19% of 1990 levels in 2020 and -
22% in 2030, with the US share being 20% and -24% respectively
and the EU’s share 12% and -22%. China’s emissions allocation
peaks at 8,300 MtCO2 (instead of 8,500 under the basic scenario)
and falls to 7,300 MtCO2 by 2030; India, however, changes little
from its allowances under the less stringent global pathway.
For an interesting comparison in terms of relatively wealthy
“developing” countries, which are currently completely excluded from
binding targets under the Kyoto protocol, consider Brazil and Mexico;
both see their allocation falling immediately below their 2010 levels.
In the Energy [R]evolution scenario, the drop is about a 15%
reduction below 2010 levels by 2020; in the advanced scenario,
the drop is about a 30% reduction below 2010 levels.
Table 2.7 presents an overview of the CO2 emission allocations by
country and/or region based on the global Energy [R]evolution
pathway towards a level of 27 GtCO2 in 2020 and 21.9 GtCO2 in
2030. The advanced version shown in Table 2.8 has a stricter
reduction pathway, falling to 18.3 GtCO2 by 2030, a bit more than
ten years ahead of the basic scenario. The GDR system allocates the
same emission allocations for each country under the advanced
Energy [R]evolution pathway, but this scenario also results in a faster
uptake of renewable energy, enabling developing countries to leapfrog
from conventional to renewables faster. This pathway might also
reduce stranded investments resulting from closed fossil fuel power
stations, as developing countries will be able to build up the energy
infrastructure with new technologies from the very beginning.
In total, all the OECD countries will have cumulative emissions
allocations between 1990 and 2030 of 8.14 GtCO2 and 7.35 GtCO2
under the advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario. The scenarios
show that 21% (basic version) or 27% (advanced) of those
emission reductions will have to come from international actions, as
domestic emissions are still too high. In summary, the OECD
countries will have to finance a saving of 45 GtCO2 for non-OECD
countries. A possible mechanism to support the introduction of
renewable power generation in those countries - crucial to the
Energy [R]evolution scenarios - would be the feed-in tariff support
system described below.
applying GDR to the energy [r]evolution
It is obvious that, given the huge responsibility and large capacity
of industrialised countries, they have a high RCI. Their
responsibility for implementing emission reductions should therefore
go well beyond the domestic reductions they can achieve by
implementing the Energy [R]evolution. Tables 2.7 and 2.8 show the
difference between their emissions under the two ER scenarios and
the emission reductions they would be responsible for if the RCI is
used to distribute their global obligations more equitably.
The difference between their domestic emissions in the ER scenarios
and the levels under the RCI system defines the responsibility that
these countries will have to fund the implementation of the Energy
[R]evolution scenario in developing countries
28