The Interaction of
Climate Mitigation and
Universal Energy
Access Policies
Narasimha D. Rao
(with Shonali Pachauri & Keywa...
Global Energy Assessment, IIASA
1.3 billion
itimes.com
Energy Poverty in South Asia
Analytical Challenges
• Economic (income) and spatial
(urban/rural) heterogeneities
–Differential impacts
• Addressed with...
Scenarios (Part 1): Climate Policies
Carbon Policies
Name 2020 Carbon Price
NNP: $0/T CO2 eq
C10 $10/T CO2 eq
C20 $20/T CO...
Results: Solid Fuel Use and a carbon
tax
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
SolidFuelsUsers(Billions)
C4...
• No effect of the
carbon tax on the
poorest group
Results: Distributional Effects of Climate Policy
2040 2050203020202010...
Scenarios (Part 2): Access Policies
• Two policy mechanisms for increasing LPG
affordability:
– Stove subsidy (0% - 100%)
...
Results: No carbon tax, 2030
s100f0
s100f25
s100f50
No Access Policy
Results: with carbon tax (C30), 2030
s100f65
2° climate policy
decreases access
achievement of
s100f0 by 18%
Cost to achie...
Results: Distributional effects, 2030
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
NNP C30 NNP C30 NNP C30 NNP C30
PopulationUs...
Key Conclusions
• Stringent GHG mitigation can (significantly)
reduce the uptake of modern cooking fuels –
• Impact can be...
Thank you!
nrao@iiasa.ac.at
Prochain SlideShare
Chargement dans…5
×

Pachauri s 20150709_1430_unesco_fontenoy_-_room_ii

469 vues

Publié le

cfcc15

Publié dans : Sciences
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Pachauri s 20150709_1430_unesco_fontenoy_-_room_ii

  1. 1. The Interaction of Climate Mitigation and Universal Energy Access Policies Narasimha D. Rao (with Shonali Pachauri & Keywan Riahi)
  2. 2. Global Energy Assessment, IIASA 1.3 billion itimes.com Energy Poverty in South Asia
  3. 3. Analytical Challenges • Economic (income) and spatial (urban/rural) heterogeneities –Differential impacts • Addressed with a household fuel choice model, calibrated to household surveys
  4. 4. Scenarios (Part 1): Climate Policies Carbon Policies Name 2020 Carbon Price NNP: $0/T CO2 eq C10 $10/T CO2 eq C20 $20/T CO2 eq C30 $30/T CO2 eq C40 $40/T CO2 eq 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 GlobalTemperatureIncrease(°C) NNP C10 C20 C30 C40
  5. 5. Results: Solid Fuel Use and a carbon tax 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 SolidFuelsUsers(Billions) C40 C30 C20 C10 NNP • 433 Million Additional Solid Fuel Users • Equivalent to no change from 2010 • C40 scenario has larger impact in 2050 than C10 • 336 Million Additional Solid Fuel Users • Equivalent to access uptake from 15 years of GDP growth
  6. 6. • No effect of the carbon tax on the poorest group Results: Distributional Effects of Climate Policy 2040 2050203020202010R2 most effected group: • 56% of “additional” solid fuel users in 2030 • 67% of additional solid fuel users in 2050 2° carbon tax causes 10% of U2 to remain reliant on solid fuels through 2050
  7. 7. Scenarios (Part 2): Access Policies • Two policy mechanisms for increasing LPG affordability: – Stove subsidy (0% - 100%) – Fuel subsidy (0% - 75%) • 1,680 policy scenarios – 334 combinations of stove and fuel subsidy for each carbon tax scenario
  8. 8. Results: No carbon tax, 2030 s100f0 s100f25 s100f50 No Access Policy
  9. 9. Results: with carbon tax (C30), 2030 s100f65 2° climate policy decreases access achievement of s100f0 by 18% Cost to achieve 95% access increases: $11.5 billion per year Cost to achieve 100% access increases: $14.9 billion per year
  10. 10. Results: Distributional effects, 2030 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 NNP C30 NNP C30 NNP C30 NNP C30 PopulationUsingModernFuels(Bill) s100f50 s100f25 s100f0 s50f0 s0f0 R2 U1 U2R1 R1 requires substantial stove and fuel subsidy regardless of climate policy Fuel subsidies not needed by R2 in NNP, but needed in C30 U2 needs partial stove subsidy to achieve complete access in C30
  11. 11. Key Conclusions • Stringent GHG mitigation can (significantly) reduce the uptake of modern cooking fuels – • Impact can be mediated (substantially) by ‘pro- poor’ policies • Policy costs to improve access vary more with access policy mechanism choice than with the stringency of climate mitigation
  12. 12. Thank you! nrao@iiasa.ac.at

×