1 / 14

Department of the Environment and Heritage Australian Greenhouse Office

Department of the Environment and Heritage Australian Greenhouse Office. Neil Ferry Manager, Emissions Projections. Mitigation analysis in Aus. Why mitigation analysis is done International reporting Projections context Commitment to meet Australia’s 108% Kyoto target

dean
Download Presentation

Department of the Environment and Heritage Australian Greenhouse Office

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Department of the Environment and HeritageAustralian Greenhouse Office Neil Ferry Manager, Emissions Projections

  2. Mitigation analysis in Aus • Why mitigation analysis is done • International reporting • Projections context • Commitment to meet Australia’s 108% Kyoto target • Estimating measures impact critical • Basis for policy • To meet Kyoto target • Longer term policy

  3. Australian Context • Energy intensive economy • Committed to 108% Kyoto Target • Extensive range of mitigation policies • Wide range of emissions modelling groups • ABARE • CoPS • McKibbin’s MSG

  4. 2004 emissions projections 900 800 BAU 700 Impact of abatement measures 108% of 1990 600 e 2 emission level Mt C0 'With measures' emissions 500 400 300 200 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

  5. Key Features of Aust Projections: • Multi models for key sectors (esp SE) • Reflects diversity of views • Currently four SE models used (two top down,two bottom up) • Reconciling different models results an issue • Complicates mitigation estimation

  6. Policy modelling • Generally done separately to projections, though often same models and using projections baseline • Eg ABARE’s GTEM, MSG’s G CUBED (GE models) • Bottom up analysis of program options

  7. NM Projection (BAU) and measures • Aust initially modelled NM (BAU) and measures separately • Until 2004, SE modellers only included BAU/NM and a few measures • WM was produced by separately adjusting for measures estimates • ‘Only 9 countries report (full) NM/BAU’ • Important to avoid double counting between BAU and measures

  8. Top Down (GE models) • Useful for evaluating economic instruments • Stronger on demand side than energy supply system • Assume ‘efficient markets’ • Different models give very different results • Need to understand each model’s assumptions and the exact scenario

  9. Bottom up models • Better understanding of energy supply • Understanding program/project specifics can be more important than the modelling • Rebound etc can be second order • Cost or take-up assumptions critical • ‘No regrets/ ‘free lunch’ issue • Need to understand barriers to changing behaviour • Beyond BAU issue • Measures optimism

  10. ‘Comparing approaches?’ • Value of reconciling • ‘Back of the envelope’ estimates [‘BOTE analysis’] with • formal modelling estimates • Model estimates should ‘make sense’ compared to other studies

  11. Some key challenges • Modelling ‘horses for courses’ • Model uncertainty • Program specifics crucial • Avoiding ‘measures optimism’ • Beyond BAU issue • Check with BOTE analysis

  12. Aust Projections and Measures Products ‘Tracking to the Kyoto Target 2004’ -plus sectoral projections papers At:http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/projections/index.html

  13. Diversity in 2003 SE Projection

  14. 2004 (electricity BAU) projections much closer

More Related