Intended Nationally Determined Contributions under the UNFCCC

Dr. Niklas Höhne, n.hoehne@ecofys.com
Intended Nationally Determined
Contributions under the UNFCCC

© ECOFYS | |
Open questions around intended nationally determined
contributions
> Meaning of the contributions and rationale for countries to prepare them
> Technical requirements for the preparation of a contribution
> Options for the preparation and communication of a contribution
> Requirements regarding information content
> Expectations for the international process evaluating the contributions
10/06/2014 Dr. Niklas Höhne, n.hoehne@ecofys.com2
Intended Nationally
Determined Contributions
under the UNFCCC
Discussion paper
Niklas Höhne, Christian Ellermann
and Lina Li
Soon available on Ecofys.com

© ECOFYS | |
Content
> Global emission pathways towards 2°C
> Experiences from the past
> Example elements of contributions
> Conclusions
Dr. Niklas Höhne, n.hoehne@ecofys.com10/06/20143

© ECOFYS | |
Required reductions for 2°C
0
10
20
30
40
50
2000 2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
GlobalGHGemissionsinGtCO2e
CO2 from fossil fuels
and industry
CO2 from forestry
Non-CO2
Source: own figure, based on marker scenario RCP 2.6 of the IPCC, from RCP scenario database
http://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at:8787/RcpDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=download
More detail on ranges from the IPCC data base see Climate Action Tracker update:
http://climateactiontracker.org/assets/publications/briefing_papers/CAT_Bonn_policy_update__final.pdf

© ECOFYS | |
Content
> Conclusions

© ECOFYS | |
Experience from the past on mitigation commitments
> Diverse: Pledges are very diverse (economy wide targets to individual
projects)
> Ambiguous: Pledges often were ambiguous and had to be clarified
> 2°C: Some pledges are influenced by ranges needed for 2°C
– Japan -25%, Norway -40%, Mexico and South Korea 30% below BAU…
> National: Some pledges are also primarily driven by national discussions
– EU, USA, …
> Unchangeable: Pledges once made did not change
– No major economy has changed its pledge of 2009, although the gap is
widely accepted
– Even countries that will over-achieve their pledge (new circumstances or
more information) do not change it

© ECOFYS | |
What types of pledges were presented?
Type Examples
Economy wide
emission reduction
targets
To base year: USA, EU, Japan
To BAU: Brazil, Mexico, Chile, South
Korea
To GDP: China, India
Energy targets China, Peru
Policies Brazil, Argentina
Projects Ethiopia

© ECOFYS | |
What types of pledges were presented?
Type Examples Characteristics
Economy wide
emission
reduction targets
To base year: USA, EU,
Japan
Full flexibility where to reduce
emissions
To BAU: Brazil, Mexico,
Chile, South Korea
Full flexibility where to reduce
emissions
Can factor in economic growth
Creates a “moving target” if baseline
changes
To GDP: China, India Full flexibility where to reduce
emissions
Adaptive to changes in economic
development
Emission outcome uncertain
Energy targets China, Peru Closer to actual actions than emission
targets
Policies Brazil, Argentina Directly under control of the
government
Projects Ethiopia Very detailed in scope

© ECOFYS | |
Frist inspirational goal, then national implementation
Type
Economy
wide
emission
reduction
targets
Energy
targets
Policies
Projects
Examples:
• Norway (40%)
• Japan (25%)
• Costa Rica (carbon neutral)
• Maldives (carbon neutral)
• South Korea (30% below BAU)
Requirements
• Ambitious global goal (2°C or phase out)
• Strong national political leadership
• Continued strong national implementation

© ECOFYS | |
National implementation (then national goal)
Type
Economy
wide
emission
reduction
targets
Energy
targets
Policies
Projects
Examples:
• Development of specific NAMAs
Requirements
• Time for policy development
• Knowing the options

© ECOFYS | |
The concept of a policy menu
Source: Towards a policy menu to strengthen the ambition to mitigate greenhouse gases, March 2014, Niklas Höhne,
Nadine Braun, Christian Ellermann, Kornelis Blok
http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-2014-towards-a-policy-menu-to-mitigate-ghg.pdf

© ECOFYS | |
Inspirational examples
> Comprehensive domestic process: South Africa - integrated research and
consultation process with high-level political leadership and cross-ministry
coordination, transferred to numerous Latin American countries
> High level of transparency: South Korea lowered its BAU projections,
while keeping the reduction rate of 30% below BAU: actually increased the
ambition of the 2020 pledge
> Comprehensive content: Brazil’s Copenhagen pledge contains an overall
GHG target, broken down to sectors and national policies to achieve it
> High level of ambition: Maldives and Costa Rica, have proposed for their
2020 pledges to become carbon neutral by around 2020
> Tracking sustainable development co-benefits: Chile’s self-supply
renewable energy NAMA has a MRV framework which includes a range of
impact indicators e.g. job creation, energy cost reduction, energy security
improvement, etc.

© ECOFYS | |
Content
> Conclusions

© ECOFYS | |
Elements of a national contribution
Type
Economy
wide
emission
reduction
targets
Energy
targets
Policies
Projects
• Inspirational national long term emissions goal
• National short term emissions target
• Energy targets
• Details on highlight policies and projects
on mitigation and adaptation
• Resource needs for their implementation
• Intended provision of support
• Explanations on ambition and equity

© ECOFYS | |
Examples on possible details of contributions
Element Advanced country Other country
Country with low
capability
Inspirational national
long term emissions goal
Year of intended phase out
of GHG emissions
Long-term peak and decline
pathway or range
-
National short term
emissions target
Precisely defined, economy
wide, multi-year target
until 2025 and/or 2030
Indication of mitigation
ambition until 2025 and/or
2030 (below BAU, intensity,
range)
-
Energy targets
National energy efficiency
or renewable targets
Targets related to land-use
and forestry
or renewable targets
Targets related to land-use
and forestry
or renewable targets, if
existing
Highlight policies and
projects
Governance structures
Highlight policies / projects
with intended impacts
Governance structures
Highlight policies / projects
with intended impacts
Selection of a few, yet
ambitious policies and/or
projects
International support
needs for mitigation and
adaptation
-
Precise purpose and value
of support needed
differentiated from actions
without support
Order of magnitude of
support needed
Intended provision of
support for mitigation
and adaptation
Source, use and value of
intended support
Intended south-south
provision of support
-
Explanations
Detailed explanation why
this contribution is an
ambitious and equitable
contribution to the global
goal
Explanation why this
contribution is an ambitious
and equitable contribution
to the global goal
-

© ECOFYS | |
Content
> Conclusions

© ECOFYS | |
Conclusions
> Intended nationally determined contributions could be based on the
same elements, but are filled to a varying degree
> Possible elements of national contributions
– Inspirational national long term emissions goal
– National short term emissions target
– Energy targets
– Highlight policies and projects
– International support needs for mitigation and adaptation
– Intended provision of support for mitigation and adaptation
– Explanations

© ECOFYS | |
Thank you for your attention!
Ecofys Germany GmbH
Dr. Niklas Höhne
Am Wassermann 36
50829 Cologne
Germany
T: +49 (0)221 27070-101
E: n.hoehne@ecofys.com
I: www.ecofys.com

© ECOFYS | |
Ecofys work related to national contributions
> Analysis of countries’ 2020 pledges
– Since 2009 with the Climate Action Tracker
– Authors of the UNEP emissions gap report (2010 to 2014)
> Analysis and development of NAMAs
– Development and maintenance of the NAMA database
– Development of specific NAMA proposals
> Analysis of national policies and actions
– Comparing policies by countries since 2007 (recent paper as input to the IPCC report)
– Database with 1200 energy and climate policies worldwide
– Analysis of emission trends from implemented polices
– Developing a standard menu of policies
> Research on national commitments and contributions under the UNFCCC regime
– First report in 2003
– Most recent report for LDCs
– Analysing options for a 2015 agreement: ACT 2015
– Paper on possible elements of a 2015 legal agreement on climate change
> Research and advice on global effort sharing
– Input to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (Box 13.7 and related papers)
– Input to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC (paper)
> Advice on future commitments under the UNFCCC for governments
– Canada
– South Korea
– New Zealand
– Finland
– Germany
– UK

© ECOFYS | |
Global emission pathways towards 2°C
Source: UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2013 App

© ECOFYS | |
Negative
emissions
High
reduction
rates

© ECOFYS | |
Impacts of delay
Source: IPCC AR5 WGIII Technical summary

© ECOFYS | |
Impact of pledges on global emissions

© ECOFYS | |
Delay only with negative emissions

© ECOFYS | |
National climate policy
Countries
responsible for 67%
of global emissions
have national
climate legislation or
strategy
Source:
Dubash et al. 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1
080/14693062.2013.
845409
Climate legislation
Climate strategy and
coordinating body
None of the above
Analysis incomplete
Size of country
proportional to
2010 GHG
emissions

© ECOFYS | |
Changing
activity
Energy
efficiency
Renewable
energy
Low carbon
Other / non
energy
General Strategies + targets 70%
Electricity
Carbon pricing schemes 28%
Performance
Standards
22%
Support schemes
(e.g. feed-in)
49%
Tax exemptions
6%
Industry
Carbon pricing schemes 30%
Stategies
6%
Voluntary
agreements
25%
Quota
36%
…%
Regulatory
…%
Buildings
Energy taxes …%
Programs
8%
Product
standards &
building codes
55%
Tax exemptions
31%
…%
Transport
Fuel taxes …%
Modal shift
programs
14%
Vehicle
standards
23%
Direct subsidies &
fuel quota
50%
E-mobility
programs
14%
AFOLU
Strategies
28%
Regulation /
planning
39%
Global coverage of energy and climate policies
Source: Ecofys, unpublished draft

© ECOFYS | |
Pledges and recent trends
Source: Climate Action Tracker trends report
http://climateactiontracker.org/assets/publications/publications/CAT_Trend_Report.pdf

© ECOFYS | |
Negative global emissions?

© ECOFYS | |
Copenhagen pledges
Source: UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2013

© ECOFYS | |
The emissions gap
www.climateactiontracker.org

© ECOFYS | |
EU
> Unconditional 20% (conditional 30%) below 1990 in 2020
> New proposal for 2030: 40% below 1990
> Comprehensive policy package: emissions trading, support for renewables,
efficiency standards, …

© ECOFYS | |
USA
> Pledge: 17% below 2005 in 2020
> New climate plan: if implemented sufficient to meet pledge
> Policies: Car standards, power plant standards, state level renewable
support, …

© ECOFYS | |
China
> Pledge: CO2/GDP 40-45% below 2005 by 2020, share of non-fossil fuels of
15% by 2020, forest cover
> Policies: top 10 000 company programme, support for renewables, low
carbon zones, emission trading systems, efficiency standards for cars and
trucks, regional ban of new coal-fired power plants, …

© ECOFYS | |
Content
> Status of the UNFCCC negotiations and
pledges
> Progress in implementing energy and
climate policies
> Cooperative initiatives
> Implications for the 2015 agreement

© ECOFYS | |
Simple view Complex view
UNFCCC
climate treaty
National government
action
Source: Draft
of IPCC Fifth
Assessment Report

© ECOFYS | |
Wedging the gap: the Green Growth approach to global
action on climate change
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
Top-1000companiesemissionreduction
Supplychainemissionreductions
Greenfinancialinstitutions
Voluntaryoffsetcompanies
Voluntaryoffsetconsumers
Majorcitiesinitiative
Sub-nationalgovernments
Buildingheatingandcooling
Banofincandescentlamps
Electricappliances
Cars&trucksemissionreduction
Boostsolarphotovoltaicenergy
Boostwindenergy
Accesstoenergythroughlow-emissionoptions
Phasingoutsubsidiesforfossilfuels
Internationalaviationandmaritimetransport
Fluorinatedgasesinitiative
Reducedeforestation
Agriculture
Shortlivedclimateforcers
Efficientcookstoves
GlobalGHGemissions(GtCO2e/a)
Included in low ambition pledge
Included only in high ambition pledge
Additional to pledges
2° C range
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
2010 2015 2020
GlobalGHGemissions(GtCO2e/a)
Ambitious end of
national reduction
proposals 50 GtCO2e
Confirmed
national reduction
proposals 55 GtCO2e
Business as usual
56 GtCO2e
Blok et al 2012: Bridging the greenhouse gas gap,
Nature Climate Change
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full
/nclimate1602.html
2°C pathway

© ECOFYS | |
Wedging the gap: the Green Growth approach to global
action on climate change
Top-1000 companies
emission reduction
Supply chain emission
reductions
Green financial
institutions
Voluntary offset
companies
Companies’ emissions
Voluntary offsets
consumers
Major cities initiative
Sub-national
governments
Other actors
Buildings heating and
cooling
Ban of incandescent
lamps
Electric appliances
Cars and trucks
emission reductions
Energy efficiency
Intl. aviation and
maritime transport
Fluorinated gases
initiative
Reduce deforestation
Agriculture
Special sectors
Methane and other air
pollutants
Efficient cook stoves
Methane and other air
pollutants
Boost solar
photovoltaic energy
Boost wind energy
Access energy through
low emission options
Energy supply
Phasing out subsidies
for fossil fuels
Blok et al 2012: Bridging the greenhouse gas gap,
Nature Climate Change
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full
/nclimate1602.html

© ECOFYS | |
Cooperative initiatives
> Energy efficiency with significant potential, up to 2 GtCO2e by 2020. It is
already covered by a substantial number of initiatives. Focus and coherency
is needed.
> Fossil-fuel subsidy reform with varying estimates of the reduction
potential: 0.4–2 GtCO2e by 2020. The number of initiatives and clear
commitments in this area is limited.
> Methane and other short-lived climate pollutants as a mix of several
sources. Reducing methane emissions from fossil-fuel production has
received particular attention in the literature. This area is covered by several
specific initiatives and one that is overarching.
> Renewable energy with particularly large potential: 1–3 GtCO2e by 2020.
Several initiatives have been started in this area. Focus and coherency is
needed.
Quelle: UNEP emissions gap report
http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgapreport2013/

© ECOFYS | |
Content
> Status of the UNFCCC negotiations and
pledges
> Progress in implementing energy and
climate policies
> Cooperative initiatives
> Implications for the 2015
agreement

© ECOFYS | |
Implications for the 2015 agreement
> Enable strong pledges: Self-determined pledges alone unlikely to be
sufficient for 2°C
> Incentivise national policies to implement and overachieve pledges
> Support cooperative initiatives: help actors other than national
governments to intensify their efforts

© ECOFYS | |
Experience from the past on mitigation commitments
> Diverse: Pledges are very diverse (economy wide targets to individual
projects)
> Ambiguous: Pledges often were ambiguous and had to be clarified
> 2°C: Some pledges are influenced ranges needed for 2°C
– Norway -40%, Mexico and South Korea 30% below BAU, Japan -25%, …
> National: Some pledges are also primarily driven by national discussions
– EU, USA, …
> Unchangeable: Pledges once made did not change
– No major economy has changed its pledge of 2009, although the gap is
widely accepted
– Even countries that will over-achieve their pledge (new circumstances or
more information) do not change it

© ECOFYS | |
Possible Elements of a 2015 Legal Agreement
Possible Elements of a 2015 Legal
Agreement on Climate Change
Erik Haites; Farhana Yamin; Niklas Höhne
Working Papers N°16/2013. Iddri, 2013. 24 p.
Ambition
Joint goal of all Parties to phase
out anthropogenic greenhouse
gas emissions by 2050
Nationally proposed 2020-23
commitments
- Consistent with the phase-out
goal
- Based on self-selected equity
principle
- Technical review
See also: Höhne et al. 2013, Feasibility of GHG emissions phase-out
by mid-century, http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-2013-
feasibility-ghg-phase-out-2050.pdf

© ECOFYS | |
Feasibility of a global GHG phase out goal
Source: Höhne et al. 2013, Feasibility of GHG emissions phase-out by mid-century,
http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-2013-feasibility-ghg-phase-out-2050.pdf
Source: Höhne et al. 2013, Feasibility of GHG emissions phase-out by mid-century,

© ECOFYS | |
Implications for the 2015 agreement
> Enable strong pledges: Self-determined pledges alone unlikely to be
sufficient for 2°C
– Strong global goal, e.g. phase out of GHG emissions by 2050
– Regular technical and equity review of pledges and commitments
– Accept offers as floor of ambition and increase ambition afterwards
> Incentivise national policies to implement and overachieve pledges
> Support cooperative initiatives: help actors other than national
governments to intensify their efforts

© ECOFYS | |
www.ClimateActionTracker.org
52 10/06/2014 Dr. Niklas Höhne, n.hoehne@ecofys.com

© ECOFYS | |
www.ClimateActionTracker.org

© ECOFYS | |
Paper
Possible Elements of a 2015 Legal
Agreement on Climate Change
Erik Haites; Farhana Yamin; Niklas
Höhne
Working Papers N°16/2013. Iddri,
2013. 24 p.
> Proposal on a package of possible
elements of a 2015 legal agreement
> Tried to find an effective new
landing ground that is “hybrid” -
avoiding sterile debate between
“top-down” and “bottom-up”
approaches
> Proposal is entirely the authors
responsibility

© ECOFYS | |
Mitigation
> Legal gap in UNFCCC: fundamental weakness is lack of clear binding
commitment for any Party to reduce GHGs
Ambition
Joint goal of all Parties
to phase out
anthropogenic
greenhouse gas
emissions by 2050
Register of
mitigation
actions by
non-state
entities
Nationally proposed
2020-23 commitments
consistent with the phase
out goal based on self
selected equity principle

© ECOFYS | |
Mitigation – phase out goal
> “All parties to the 2015 Agreement commit, jointly and individually, to a
goal of phasing out anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, with a
target of net zero emissions by no later than 2050, and to take additional
action until this goal is achieved.” This addresses fundamental legal gap
relating to mitigation for long term.
> Very low levels of greenhouse gas emissions are required to stabilize
atmospheric concentrations at any level
> Scenarios show that 2050 phase out date is ambitious but technically
and economically feasible
See also:
Höhne et al. 2013, Feasibility of GHG emissions phase-out by mid-century,

© ECOFYS | |
Phase out goal and self chosen commitments
Proposal:
Commitment and
equity principle
Technical review
and questions
Final 2020-23
Commitment
More
ambitious
2024-27
commitment
Sufficient?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Parties propose national commitments
• For 2020-2023
• Consistent with net zero phase out goal
• Free on nature of its national commitment, but expressed
as a change to observed emissions or policies
• With equity principle(s) used to determine the fair
contribution to the global effort
A party may raise the
ambition level of its
commitment at any
time
Not in the proposal
• Commonly agreed equity reference
framework
• Categories of parties
Source: Possible Elements of a 2015 Legal Agreement on Climate
Change, Erik Haites; Farhana Yamin; Niklas Höhne, Working Papers
N°16/2013. Iddri, 2013. 24 p. www.iddri.org

© ECOFYS | |
Options
Experience from the past
> Pledges are very diverse, templates are nice to have but not strictly necessary
> Once offers are made public they hardly change
> Global goal influences pledges
> Offers may be outside of what would be necessary for 2°C (Höhne et al. 2013)
Ways to ensure ambitious national offers
> Early pledges and strong review process
> Accept offers as floor of ambition and ratchet up afterwards
> Agree on an equity reference framework before pledges are made
> Strong global goal (phase out of GHG emissions by 2050) and national offers with technical review
(Haites et al. 2013)
> Two proposals (Müller et al. 2013)
– First: type of commitment and equity principle
– Analysis
– Second: level of commitment
Höhne et al 2013: Regional GHG reduction targets based on effort sharing: a comparison of studies, climate policy,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.849452
Haites et al. 2013: Possible Elements of a 2015 Legal Agreement on Climate Change, Working Papers N°16/2013. Iddri, 2013. 24 p.
www.iddri.org
Müller et al. 2013: A Staged Approach: The sequencing of mitigation commitments in the post-2020 ADP negotiations
http://jusharma.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/a-staged-approach-the-sequencing-of-mitigation-commitments-in-the-post-2020-adp-
negotiations-2/

© ECOFYS | |
Possible process to determine commitments II
> Separate proposal on type and proposal on
level
> Allows to indicate order of magnitude
commitment without determining a fixed
number
See Benito Müller and Niklas Höhne: A Staged Approach: The
sequencing of mitigation commitments in the post-2020 ADP
negotiations http://jusharma.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/a-staged-
approach-the-sequencing-of-mitigation-commitments-in-the-post-2020-
adp-negotiations-2/
Proposals on
type of
commitment and
equity principle
Negotiations
Fixing in
agreement
Informal
assessment of
commitment
levels
Proposals on
level of
commitment

© ECOFYS | |
Mitigation – phase out goal
Several scenarios available
(more soon available for the in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report)
Source Höhne et al. 2013, Feasibility of GHG emissions phase-out by mid-century,

© ECOFYS | |
Energy related CO2 emissions in phase out scenarios
> Option 1: Very high energy efficiency and near 100% renewables, no CCS
(bottom up scenarios)
> Option 2: Less efficiency, significant bio CCS (Integrated Assessment
Models)

© ECOFYS | |
Inclusiveness
> The national commitment of a country that is not a party to the agreement
can be “recognized” subject to criteria such as equivalent stringency of both
mitigation and financial commitments and acceptance of the reporting and
international review arrangements that apply to parties
> “Recognition” is a COP decision based on advice from the Compliance
Committee
> Possible internationally agreed border adjustments on imports of emissions-
intensive goods from non-parties with no recognized national commitment
> Border adjustment is a COP decision based on advice from the Compliance
Committee. Experience shows these would rarely, if ever, be used

© ECOFYS | |
The challenges of 2°C with current pledges
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
GlobalGHGemissions(GtCO2e)
Year
Historical
emissions
1996 - EU agrees on 2°C limit, which meant
- Ambitious but realistic reduction rates
- Delayed participation of developing countries possible
- Choice of technology possible
- Opportunities for innovation and energy security
2012 - Today: 2°C limit means
- Last chance, action before 2020 necessary
- Instantaneous change by all actors
- Opportunities for innovation and energy security
- Unprecedented reduction rates necessary
Future
emissions
given pledges
2020 – planned entry into force of new climate
agreement: 2°C limit means
- High probability that 2°C limit is missed
- Instantaneous change by all actors
- Unprecedented reduction rates necessary
- All technologies necessary
- Shutdown of equipment before its end of life

© ECOFYS | |
Possible processes to determine commitments
Equity Reference
Framework
(optional)
Proposals
Negotiations
Review
of aggregated
proposals
Individual review
Fixing in
agreement
Ratchet up
(optional)
Sufficient?
YesNo
Sufficient?
Yes No
Agreed?
Yes
No
10/06/201467

© ECOFYS | |
Chile self-supply renewable energy NAMA
Source: Development of a NAMA proposal for Self-supply renewable energy (SSRE) in Chile
http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-fch-corfo-2013-nama-proposal-ssre-in-chile.pdf
10/06/201468

© ECOFYS | |
Japan
> Copenhagen pledge: 25% below 1990 in 2020 – New: 3.8% below 2005
> Only a third of the change can be explained by nuclear phase-out

© ECOFYS | |
Emissions gap
Pledge leave a gap of 8 to 12 GtCO2e in
2020
Source:
UNEP emissions gap report
http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emi
ssionsgapreport2013/

© ECOFYS | |
Wegding the gap – complementary initiatives
> Starting point: Starting point from which a significant up-scaling until the year 2020 is
possible
> Leader(s): An organization (or a combination of organizations) exist that can lead the
global initiative
> Self interest: Actors are driven by self interest or internal motivation, not by external
pressure
> Co-benefits: There are significant additional benefits next to a reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions (e.g. health, jobs, resilience)
> Large: Each initiative has the potential to reach an emission reduction of a the order of
0.5 GtCO2e by 2020

© ECOFYS | |
Categories of effort sharing approaches
10/06/2014 Dr. Niklas Höhne, n.hoehne@ecofys.com
Responsibility
Equality
Cost effectiveness
Staged
approaches Capability
Need
Responsibility
capability
need
Equal cumulative
per capita
emissions
73

© ECOFYS | |
Results in 2030 for 450 ppmCO2e
Allowances in 2030 based on categories of effort sharing categories (450 ppmCO2e)
74

© ECOFYS | |
Results in 2050
Allowances in 2050 for different stabilization levels (all effort sharing categories,
except cost effectiveness)
76

© ECOFYS | |
Results in 2050
Allowances in 2050 for different stabilization levels (all effort sharing categories,
except cost effectiveness)
78

Intended Nationally Determined Contributions under the UNFCCC

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Intended Nationally Determined Contributions under the UNFCCC

Similar to Intended Nationally Determined Contributions under the UNFCCC (20)

More from CIFOR-ICRAF

More from CIFOR-ICRAF (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Intended Nationally Determined Contributions under the UNFCCC