Contribution of the G20 Economies to the Global Impact of the Paris Agreement Climate

Supplementary Information

Contribution of the G20 economies to the global impact of the Paris Agreement climate proposals

Michel den Elzen1)*, Annemiek Admiraal1), Mark Roelfsema1), Heleen van Soest1), Andries F. Hof1,2), Nicklas Forsell3)

1) PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, P.O. Box 303, 3720 AH Bilthoven, the Netherlands

2) Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University,P.O. Box 80.115, 3508 TC Utrecht, the Netherlands

3) International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria

*Corresponding

CONTENTS

Contribution of the G20 economies to the global impact of the Paris Agreement climate proposals 1

1. Supplementary text...... 3

1.1 Supplementary text 1: Overview of the mitigation contribution of submitted INDCs...... 3

PBL business-as-usual (BAU) and current policies projections...... 3

1.2 Supplementary text 2: Methodology for the calculation of the emission levels resulting from the implementation of the INDCs of China and India 4

1.3 Supplementary text 3: Methodology for the calculation of the emission levels resulting from the implementation of the INDCs of the non-G20 economies 6

1.4 Supplementary text 4: Implications for staying below 2˚C...... 6

Supplementary Table 1 | Overview of studies (all with global coverage and global estimate) and coverage of INDC analysis of individual G20 economies. 7

Supplementary Table 2 | Overview of the mitigation targets of the 160 INDCs submitted by 15 December 2015, including the share of each party in 2012 global greenhouse emissions (parties listed in alphabetical order). The Table also shows the INDCs that are included in the analysis (column three), with labels (A-E) explained in Supplementary text 1. 8

Supplementary Table 3 | Summary of the unconditional and conditional mitigation targets for 2025 and 2030, as stated in the INDCs of the G20 economies 14

Supplementary Table 4 | Greenhouse gas emissions (including LULUCF) in G20 economies and global emission levels, projected for 2030 for the PBL current policies scenario, the unconditional INDC scenario and the conditional INDC scenario (the effect of INDCs of non-G20 economies is covered in the category ‘other countries’) 15

Supplementary Table 5 | Overview of INDC studies for the G20 economies for the current policies scenario included in the UNEP Gap assessment by type of source (in alphabetical order), as used here. 17

Supplementary Table 6 | Global impact of INDCs on reducing the global 2˚C emission gap by 2030. 18

3. Supplementary Figures...... 19

Supplementary Figure 1 | Impact of the implementation of the INDCs and current policies on greenhouse gas emission projections. 19

4. Supplementary References...... 21

1. Supplementary text

1.1 Supplementary text 1: Overview of the mitigation contribution of submitted INDCs

Table S.1 presents an overview of the mitigation targets of all 160 INDCs submitted. Almost all parties committed to an unconditional reduction target. Among countries with emissions exceeding 100 MtCO2eq in 2012, India is the only country whose INDC targets are conditional, whereas targets set by Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Chile, Colombia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines and Thailand are partially conditional. Conditional means that the implementation of reduction measures is conditional on international support, economic and technological developments, or other factors. Most countries defined their INDC targets for the year 2030, except for some countries (for example Brazil and the United States), who defined targets for 2025.

In this analysis, we assess the mitigation components of the INDCs of 78of these countries (representing approximately 91% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2012), as indicated in the third column of Supplementary Table S.1.[1]For 22 of these countries, the INDCs are defined by a reduction from a historical base year targets, and can easily be translated into absolute levels. These countries are categorised as group ‘A’ in Table S.1. For about 34countries INDCs are defined relative to a hypothetical BAU (UNFCCC, 2015b). If available (about 28, categorised as group ‘B’ in Table S.1), these BAU emission levels are taken from the INDC of the submitting Party. If not available (only for sevencountries, 1% of emissions, categorised as group ‘C’ in Table S.1, mainly Saudi Arabia), the national emissions data of the downscaled PBL/IIASA BAU scenario is used (see paragraph below), or from national studies (Saudi Arabia), based on model calculations.For 6countries the INDC consists of an emission intensity target (group ‘D’), which are Chile, China, India, Malaysia, Singapore and Chili, and for 18 parties the INDC calculation only covers reduction in the LULUCF emissions (group ‘E’).

PBL business-as-usual (BAU) and current policies projections

Our assessment is based on PBL BAU projections for emissions of all Kyoto greenhouse gases except for CO2 emissions from land-use change. The latter emissions are based on IIASA’s global GLOBIOM/G4M model. The energy emission projections are an update of the BAU scenario in the OECD Environmental Outlook (OECD, 2012), and were calculated using the PBL energy model TIMER (Van Vuuren et al., 2014) and the PBL IMAGE model (Stehfest et al., 2014), based on GDP projections of the OECD (2012). The PBL/IIASA BAU aims to describe a plausible trajectory for emissions given medium population and income projections and assuming that no new climate policies are introduced after 2004.

The resulting projections were harmonised to historical 1990–2010 emission data from the UNFCCC National Inventory Submissions (Common Reporting Format Tables) for those countries for which this information is available; for other countries, data were derived from the EDGAR database (JRC/PBL, 2012) and the National Communications. Modelling was done on the scale of 26 IMAGE world regions[2](Stehfest et al., 2014).For countries not covered by a single IMAGE region, a downscaled baseline was used (van Vuuren et al., 2007).For this purpose, tools have been developed to downscaleinformation on population, income, and emissions to a country level. In this study this applies to the G20 economiesAustralia, Argentina, South Korea and Turkey, and the 10 countries labelled under “B” in Supplementary Table 1. The PBL BAU scenario serves as a baseline, aiming to describe a plausible trajectory for emissions given medium population and income projections and assuming that no new climate policies are introduced after 2004.

The current policies scenario is also calculated using the same models, and takes into account the impact of the most effective current and planned policies on greenhouse gas emissions (den Elzen et al., 2015; Roelfsema et al., 2014).Den Elzen et al. (2015) presents an overview of projected greenhouse gas emissions in 13 major emitting countries/regions (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, European Union, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, the Russian Federation, South Korea, Turkey, and the United States) up to 2030, taking into account the emission trajectories based on current and planned policies. Roelfsema et al (2013, 2014) gives emission projections for the implementation of current policies for six additional countries (Argentina, Egypt, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Ukraine) up to 2020, These projections were extended to 2030, based on PBL BAU emissions scenario.

1.2 Supplementary text 2: Methodology for the calculation of the emission levels resulting from the implementation of the INDCs of China and India

China –We also estimated the emission level resulting from full implementation of China’s INDC, which includes the following four main elements(den Elzen et al., 2016): (i) the target to peak CO2 emissions no later than 2030, (ii) to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in the total primary energy supply to around 20% by 2030 (non-fossil energy target), (iii) to lower the carbon intensity of GDP by 60% to 65% below 2005 levels by 2030, and (iv) to increase the forest stock volume by around 4.5 billion m3, compared to 2005 levels. China does not provide an absolute emissions level connected to these targets.

The CO2 intensity target (iii) leads to a projected GHG emission level of 12.6–16.6 GtCO2e in 2030, including land use, which is above the emission level resulting from the current policies scenario.The range for this projection reflects a range in GDP growth of 4.3% to 6.3% (IEA, 2014; 2021–2030 GDP assumption with +1% and -1%).

The TIMER energymodel calculations for the emissions peaking and non-fossil target use (the first two components of the INDC) as starting point the GHG emission projections resulting from the current policies scenario, in which the share of 20% non-fossil fuels (excluding biomass) is also met, but the energy-related CO2 emissions show an increasing trend. To achieve the peaking of energy-related CO2 emissions before 2030, two carbon tax scenarios are developed that assume a linear increasing carbon tax starting in 2020, similar as in the IEA New Policies scenario. The resulting CO2 emission projections as calculated with the TIMER energy model peak by 2025 and 2030 in the two scenarios, a similar pattern for the GHG emission projections. As the emission levels resulting from the carbon intensity target are higher, the projected GHG emission level of the INDC are dominated by the projected emission level resulting from the non-fossil target.

The impact of increasing the Chinese forest stock volume by around 4.5 billion m3, as stated in the Chinese INDC, is estimated to only lead to minor reductions compared to the LULUCF CO2 emissions of the current policies scenario (as assumed in the estimates presented above). Current national policies is estimated with the IIASA G4M model to lead to an increase in the national forest carbon stock by roughly 1.2 billion m3 by 2020, and 4.3 billion m3 by 2030, both relative to the 2005 level. The majority of this increase is related to the carbon accumulation in afforested land, and a carbon storage in existing forests due to that the projected harvest level for material and energy purposes is lower than the forest increment. However, the uncertainty of this estimate is high, and mainly related to the projection of the future harvest level and to how the target should be measured (above or below ground biomass, biomass expansion functions, and carbon content).

Based on these calculations, greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 (including LULUCF) are projected at 13,8 – 14,0 GtCO2eq for the INDC of China.

India –We also estimated the emission level resulting from full implementation of the conditional INDC of India, which includes the following four main elements: (i) 33% to 35% emission intensity improvement; (ii) renewable energy to increase to 40% of total power capacity and (iii) an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 MtCO2eq through additional forest and tree cover.

The CO2 intensity target (iii) is assumed to apply to total GHG emissions excluding agricultural and land use emissions, and if adding non-mitigated agricultural and land use emissions, this could lead to projected GHG emission levels of 5.8–6.7 GtCO2e in 2030, which is above the emission level resulting from the current policies scenario.Although the INDC did not specify to what GHG emission categories the intensity target applies, agricultural and land use emissions were excluded conform India’s reduction proposal for 2020. If the intensity target is assumed to apply to total GHG emissions excluding land use emissions only, the range would increase to 7.0-8.2 GtCO2e. The range in INDC projections is based on the different GDP growth rates taken from WEO (IEA, 2014) and SSPdatabase (2015) of respectively 6.8% and 7.4% annual growth between 2005 and 2030. The Planning Commission of India(2014)assumes the same growth as WEO 2014.

The intensity target is already met in the current policy scenario, and implementation of the renewable target in the TIMER model projects 340 MtCO2eq additional reductions by 2030 for the renewable target and 300 MtCO2eq for the afforestation target (INDC), leading to 4.2 GtCO2eq by 2030 (including LULUCF).for India.

1.3 Supplementary text 3: Methodology for the calculation of the emission levels resulting from the implementation of the INDCs of the non-G20 economies

Non-G20 economies–A total of 62[3]non-G20 economies are covered in the INDC analysis (17% of emissions by 2012). For 15 countries(3% of emissions) the INDCs are defined by a reduction from a historical base year targets, and can easily be translated into absolute levels (see Supplementary Table 1). For about 30 countries INDCs (8%) are defined relative to a hypothetical BAU (UNFCCC, 2015b). If available, these BAU emission levels are taken from the INDC. If not available (only for ten countries, 1% of emissions), the BAU emissions data of the downscaled PBL/IIASA BAU scenario is used, see Supplementary Text 2. Only three countries have intensity targets[4], and the remaining 15 countries have INDCs defined as reduction actions for land use-emissions. The emission levels of countries that are not included in the analysis follow the downscaled PBL/IIASA BAU scenario (Supplementary Text 2).

Global –For both the INDC scenarios and current policy scenario, total global emissions were calculated by adding international aviationemissions (ICAO, 2013) and international shipping emissions (IMO, 2014), together about 1.8 GtCO2eq by 2030, and LULUCF emissions based on various sources (including FAOSTAT, national communications and model projections)[5] for those countries whose INDC did not address LULUCF. The resulting global emission level in 2010 is estimated to be 45.9 GtCO2eq, which is about 2 GtCO2eq lower than the 47.8 GtCO2eq estimated from the total sum of global greenhouse gas emissions (excluding LULUCF CO2) from the EDGAR database (JRC/PBL, 2012) and the global LULUCF CO2 emissions from FAOSTAT. Both sources were used for calculating historical greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, global emission projections were harmonised to the 2010 emission level of 47.8 Gt CO2eq, using a constant harmonization factor over time from 2010 onwards.

1.4 Supplementary text 4: Implications for staying below 2˚C

Global emission levels consistent with a likely chance of staying below 2°C are projected to be 42 (30-44) GtCO2eq for the year 2030 (median and 20th-80th percentile range), as presented in UNEP (2015). The underlying scenarios assume emission levels that are consistent with the Cancun pledges until 2020, after which least-cost emission reduction pathways are determined. As the implementation of the unconditional INDCs results in global emission levels of approximately 56 (54-60) GtCO2eq in 2030, the remaining gap with cost-optimal pathways with a likely chance of staying below 2°C is 14 (12-18) GtCO2eq in 2030 (Supplementary Figure 1, Supplementary Table 6). According to our projections, this gap will be 3 GtCO2eq lower if the conditional INDCs are implemented, and a further 1 GtCO2eq lower if surpluses would be eliminated.
2. Supplementary Tables

Supplementary Table 1 | Overview of studies (all with global coverage and global estimate) and coverage of INDC analysis of individual G20 economies.

*: X: Available; –: Not available

Supplementary Table 2| Overview of the mitigation targets of the 160 INDCs submitted by 15 December 2015, including the share of each party in 2012 global greenhouse emissions (parties listed in alphabetical order). The Table also shows the INDCs that are included in the analysis (column three), with labels (A-E) explained in Supplementary text 1.

1)Including emissions from international transport. Source: EC-JRC EDGAR (JRC/PBL, 2012).