les

cahiers
chaire modélisation prospective au service du développement durable

de la

chaire
« The decarbonized pathways
of post-Paris climate policy
«

Sandrine Selosse and Nadia Maïzi

MINES ParisTech, PSL Research University,

Centre for Applied Mathematics

W
Rue Claude Daunesse, CS 10207,
06904 Sophia Antipolis, France

Working Paper
N°2017-01-25
W contents
Working Paper
N°2017-01-25

1- Introduction

2- Modeling Approach

3- Results
3-1 - Convergence with the 2°C objective and burden sharing
3-2- technological choices in mitigation efforts

4- Conclusion and policy implications

www.modelisation-prospective.org
 W Working Paper
N°2017-01-25
The decarbonized pathways
of post-Paris climate policy

Sandrine Selosse* and Nadia Maïzi

MINES ParisTech, PSL Research University, Centre for Applied Mathematics, Rue Claude Daunesse,
CS 10207, 06904 Sophia Antipolis, France

Abstract

The historic climate agreement adopted by all countries in December 2015 marks a turning point towards a
decarbonized world. Applying a long-term prospective approach, and more precisely the bottom-up optimiza-
tion model TIAM-FR, we investigate different greenhouse gas emissions mitigation trajectories to discuss these
pathways and the corresponding technological solutions in global and regional perspectives. The contribution
to GHG mitigation varies according to regions’ development; as the technological choices regarding climate
constraints and the evolution of the energy system. Climate constraints tending toward a 2°C objective involve
significant decarbonization of the power system with considerable investments in renewable energies in the
lower and higher constraints, as well as in carbon capture and storage technologies (CCS), notably bio-energy
and CCS (BECCS). CCS technologies start to be installed when climate constraints are high (2°C) but not in
scenarios expressing national pledges. It is interesting to note that in case of a ban on BECCS, the latter is
compensated not by a higher development of fossil CCS technologies, but by an increase in renewable
energies.

Keywords

Paris Agreement; Nationally Determined Contributions; Equity; Energy system; Decarbonization; Carbon capture
and storage

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Chair Modeling for sustainable development, driven by MINES ParisTech,
Ecole des Ponts ParisTech, and AgroParisTech, supported by ADEME, EDF, GRTgaz, SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC
and the French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy.

*Corresponding author: [email protected], +33 493 678 917 www.cma.fr 3

 W Working Paper
N°2017-01-25

1- Introduction

Spurred by significant awareness and following decades newable sources in 2030, China 15% of non-fossil in
of negotiations and regional divisions, a historic climate TPES by 2020 and 20% by 2030, and India 40% of its
agreement was adopted by all 195 parties at the UN- power supply capacity from renewables in 2030. Bioen-
FCCC, on December 12, 2015, to respond to climate ergies are also highlighted to diversify the energy mix
issue. The 21st Conference of Parties (COP 21) then and contribute to mitigating CO2 emissions, as illus-
marked a decisive stage in the transition to a decar- trated for example by the Indian objective of a 20% min-
bonized world, with countries calling for a more ambi- imum blending rate of biofuel (Kang et al., 2015).
tious long-term goal. With new words for a new world, Indeed, energy and climate change challenges call for
they recognized the 1.5°C goal (without formalization) as an evolution in the global energy system, especially in
the main long-term objective of the Agreement, and the the technological mix required to satisfy energy de-
need for net-zero emissions, implying phasing out fossil mands and in response to climate issues and policy. In-
fuel use in the long-term. This historical agreement troducing carbon capture and storage (CCS) increasingly
marked a major milestone in climate policy and in the appears inevitable to bring down future CO2 emissions
transition initiated by the (Intended) Nationally Deter- in line with the limit of a 2°C temperature increase. This
mined Contributions ((I)NDCs). Indeed, all countries is all the more so if fossil fuels are to remain the dominant
signed the agreement and almost all countries submitted source of energy over the next decades, resulting in a
their NDCs to UNFCCC, representing more than 98% of drastic increase in GHG emissions to reach unsustain-
global GHG emissions. Notably, the ten largest CO2 able levels. Indeed, CCS are still presented as a solution
emitters, representing nearly 76% of global emissions, to reach ambitious climate targets, despite persistent
submitted their contribution: by order of issue, China, controversies in terms of significant and uncertain costs,
USA, Europe (a single contribution for the 28 Member insufficient investment and progress in terms of plausi-
States), India, Russia, Japan, South Korea, Canada, In- ble, large-scale deployment, and also of infrastructures
donesia and Saudi Arabia. Considering these NDCs, and (i.e. transport, shared platform), support for incentives in
despite the unprecedented international mobilization, the comparison with other options, such as renewables, or
world might still be heading towards a rise of between the risks to environment and human health that question
2.7 and 3 degrees Celsius (Luomi, 2016) or, according to the social acceptability and the appropriate place of CCS
Climate Action Tracker, between 2.4 and 2.7°C in the within the portfolio of GHG abatement strategies. The
case of full implementation of the NDCs (Climate Action combination of bio-energy carbon capture and geologic
Tracker). Thus, to ensure that we remain on a compatible storage (BECCS) is also the focus of increasing atten-
trajectory with the 2°C or 1.5°C boundary, the Paris tion, as this alternative offers an unique opportunity for
Agreement requires that each country review these net carbon removal from the atmosphere while fulfilling
NDCs every five years from 2020, with no reduction of energy needs (Obersteiner et al., 2001). When stringent
targets and with encouragement for individual states to targets are applied, negative emissions become a valu-
be more ambitious. In addition, GHG emissions need to able option (Azar et al., 2010; Katofsky et al., 2010;
peak as soon as possible, so that countries must aim to Luckow et al., 2010; Ricci and Selosse, 2013, van den
achieve neutral emission in the second half of this cen- Broek et al., 2011; van Vuuren et al., 2007, 2009).
tury. The aim of this study is to analyze different paths of GHG
NDCs outline their pathways until 2030, involving several emission mitigation targets. We investigate different mit-
potential long-term pathways. The first aim of this study igation trajectories according to an ambitious ultimate
is to explore some of these pathways considering the and global target by 2050 in line with the 2°C objective,
level of regional mitigation. To achieve this objective nec- commitments resulting from the Paris Climate Agree-
essarily requires gradually phasing out the most polluting ment, and regional assumptions by 2050 according to
fossil fuels. The most advanced economies have already the optimistic/pessimistic revisions of long-term com-
included renewable energy in their energy mix, and have mitments. Then, we discuss possible futures for the next
planned to increase its use to achieve their mitigation climate regime. We also focus on the energy system, no-
objectives. The European Union anticipates that renew- tably investigating different constraints on the use of
ables will reach 27% of its final energy consumption. BECCS.
Japan aims to obtain 22-24% of its electricity from re-

www.modelisation-prospective.org
 The decarbonized pathways of post-Paris climate policy

2- Modeling Approach

This research is developed with TIAM-FR, the French ver- We investigated alternative scenarios according to as-
sion of the TIMES Integrated Assessment Model, a widely sumptions concerning: the long-term UNFCCC 2°C ob-
used, linear programming TIMES family model developed jective on the one hand, and the Paris Accord with the
under the IEA’s Energy Technology Systems Analysis Pro- NDCs on the other hand. More precisely, we considered
gram (ETSAP). TIAM-FR is a bottom-up model, depicting the Post-Paris pledges for 2030 and made assumptions
the world energy system with a detailed description of dif- on the 2050 targets. We then compared these pledges to
ferent energy forms, technologies and end-uses consti- global scenarios compatible with the 2°C objective. As re-
tuting the Reference Energy System (RES). The RES gards the latter, three scenarios express this goal accord-
network links these commodities to several thousand ex- ing to a range of uncertain pathways of reduction
isting and future technologies characterized by their eco- percentage of GHG emission by 2050 compared to 2010:
nomic and technological parameters in all sectors of the • UNFCCC-40: 40%;
energy system (agriculture, industry, commercial, residen- • UNFCCC-50: 50%;
tial and transport; taking into account conversion and the • UNFCCC-70: 70%.
electricity sector). Driven by end-use demand, it aims to Concerning the commitments occurring according to the
supply energy services at minimum global cost by simul- Paris Accord for 2030, we consider low and high targets
taneously making decisions on equipment investment and (conditional and unconditional) for the period. The various
operation, primary energy supply, and energy trade. It scenarios we investigate include environmental targets for
minimizes the total discounted cost of the world energy different world regions over the period 2010-2050. We an-
system over a long time period under environmental, alyze a combination of these scenarios in order to provide
technical and demand constraints. Geographically inte- a framework for understanding the climate context of the
grated, TIAM-FR offers a representation of the global en- future regime depicted by the Paris Accord. This combi-
ergy system in 15 regions. In each region, TIAM-FR nation gives us the different trends of the ambition:
computes a total net present value of the stream of the • NDCs-2050-lolo: lower 2030 GHG targets and
total annual cost, discounted at 5% to the selected refer- lower 2050 assumptions;
ence year 2010 and describes the energy system with the • NDCs-2050-loup: lower 2030 GHG targets and
same level of technological disaggregation. These re- higher 2050 assumptions;
gional discounted costs are then aggregated into a single • NDCs-2050-uplo: higher 2030 GHG targets and
total cost which is the objective function to be minimized lower 2050 assumptions;
by the model while satisfying a number of technological • NDCs-2050-upup: higher 2030 GHG targets and
and/or environmental constraints. The demands projec- higher 2050 assumptions.
tion of the five energy service sectors is based on socio- Almost all countries have submitted and published their
economic assumptions specified by user (GDP, contributions to reduce GHG emissions under the NDCs,
household, population, sectorial growth, and industrial and notably, the three largest GHG emitters, China, USA,
production.) over the time horizon. The structure of the and Europe, representing nearly 54% of global emissions.
energy system is given as an output: future investments, With its commitment to reduce its carbon intensity by
type and capacity of the energy technologies, energy con- 60%-65% by 2030 in comparison with its 2005 level,
sumption by fuel, emissions, energy trade flows between China foresees a peak in its emissions by 2030. USA has
regions, etc. TIAM-FR integrates several CCS technolo- committed to contributing a 26-28% reduction by 2025
gies derived from fossil or bioenergy resources. In the compared to 2005, and Europe to a reduction of at least
power sector, it considers two capture technologies for 40% by 2030 compared to 1990. Table I presents the dif-
bioplants: pre-combustion for the biomass gasification ferent NDCs of our 15 modeled regions, based on their
process, and post-combustion for the direct combustion climate targets pledged under the Paris Accord by 2030,
process. Biomass co-firing in coal power plants has also and the different assumptions for 2050.
been implemented, with and without carbon capture.

www.cma.fr 5
 W Working Paper
N°2017-01-25

Industrialized Fast developing Developing

Australia
South Middle Asian Latin
Regions Europe USA and New Canada Japan China India Russia Mexico Africa
Korea East countries America
Zealand
Reference
1990 2005 2013 2005 1990 Business as Usual
year NDCs
Reduction from
40 26-28 26-28 30 26 60-65 33-35 25-30 25-40 37 15-30 15-30 15-30
level (%) TIMES-
2030 ALyC
Reduction
climate Emission reduction Carbon intensity Emission reduction
type
target
(2025 Mitigation
for 2010-2030 -33.3 -26 15.5 133 16.1 -2.6 -20.8 17.1 14.7 6.5 15.3
USA) (Low) (%)
Mitigation -29.5 -25.8 -25.5
2010-2030
(High) -35 -28 1.1 126 8.4 -22.1 -20.8 -3.5 -5.5 -12.3 8.6
(%)
Reference
1990 2005 2013 2030 2030
year
Reduction
60-80 83 60-80 60-80 60-80
level (%)
Peak 2030 Peak 2030
Reduction
Emission reduction
type
2050
Mitigation
climate
2030-2050
targer -72.8 -45.9
(LowLow)
(%)
-33.3 -42.9 -45.9 0 0
Mitigation
2030-2050
(HighHigh) -72.1 -72.2
(%)

Table I: Overview of GHG emissions constraints from NDCS by 2030 and 2050

We also consider an emission reduction of 25-30% by 2030 respectively in 2030 by comparison with 2010 in the high
compared to 1990 for Russia, an emission reduction of 25- case. In Latin America, the NDCs are equivalent to an in-
40% % by 2030 compared to their BAU level for Mexico, and creased limitation of GHG emission, with an augmentation of
an emission reduction of 37% by 2030 compared to their between 15.3% and 8.6% over the period. In Africa, Middle
BAU level for South Korea. For Africa, Middle East and the East and Asian countries, the high case of commitments in-
other Asian developing countries, we assume a GHG emis- volves a reduction of GHG emissions by 3.5%, 5.5% and
sion of 15-30% by 2030 compared to their BAU level. For 12.3% respectively, against a limited increase in the lower
Latin America, we implement the targets extracted from case.
TIMES-ALyC, the TIMES model of Latin America and the The commitments to GHG emissions mitigation pledged by
Caribbean (Postic, 2015; Postic and al., 2016). Each NDC is developed and developing countries cover 98% of 2005
implemented individually in the TIMES-ALyc model so that we global emissions. The major question is to determine what
can determine the level of GHG emissions to mitigation by will happen after 2030. Decisions adopted emphasize the
2030. The aggregated target for the whole region Central and need to radically increase the ambition of pledges beyond
South America is then implemented in TIAM-FR. 2020 to cut GHG emissions in order to achieve the objective
It is interesting to note what these targets mean in terms of of 2°C. To place us on a compatible trajectory with this 2°C
emissions levels and, if we translate them to the same refer- boundary, the Paris agreement requires that each country re-
ence year (2010), and follow the same type of reduction view these NDCs every five years from 2020, without reducing
(emission mitigation). Table 1 also highlights the GHG emis- the targets and with active encouragement for states to do
sions level that the regions undertake not to exceed (high or better. In addition, GHG emissions must peak as soon as pos-
low) and the evolution that these pledges involve from 2010 sible, and countries should aim to achieve neutral emission
to 2030. Europe has pledged a 40% reduction in GHG emis- in the second half of this century. Then, for the long-term
sion by 2030 compared to 1990 levels; this commitment rep- pathways, we assumed low and high targets for industrialized
resents a reduction of 29.5% by 2030 compared to 2010, countries, i.e. 60% and 80% reduction in GHG emissions by
against 33.3% in the low case and 35% in the high case for 2050 compared to their official reference year. For the United
the USA. China’s reduction of carbon intensity by 60% and States, we considered the target indicated in the Copenhagen
65% by 2030 compared to 2005 is equivalent to limiting the Accord. In its NDCs, China committed to reach a peak in its
increase of its CO2 emissions by 15.5% in 2030 compared emissions by 2030. For all other regions, we assume an emis-
to 2010 in the low case and by 1.1% in the higher case. In sions peak by 2030.
India, between 2010 and 2030, the limitation of increase is We analyze a combination of these scenarios to provide a
133% in the low case and 126% in the high case. This is due framework for understanding the climate, technological and
to wide variations in GDP projections. Note the significant re- energy resources context of the future regime that is expected
duction represented by Mexican and South Korean commit- to be followed after 2020.
ments (based on BAU level), i.e. 22% and 21% of reduction

www.modelisation-prospective.org
 The decarbonized pathways of post-Paris climate policy

3. Results
3.1. Convergence with the 2°C objective and burden sharing

Current climate pledges do not yet correlate with the agreed global objective, and are still far from the “well below”
2°C objective. However, the Paris Agreement initiates the stabilization of GHG emissions. NDCS would achieve rel-
ative stabilization of GHG emissions by 2030 in comparison with 2010 levels, while a drastic reduction is expected
to be in line with the 2°C objective, whatever the strength of the UNFCCC scenarios (Figure 1 and 2). In the long
term, although the direction seems right, a move to a higher level is necessary. The issue is to determine the level of
mitigation that each region should target to globally reach a decarbonized pathway consistent with the climate change
fight.
The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities played a major role in negotiations and is still active in
structuring post-2020 negotiations. However, an ambitious emission mitigation objective does not seem realistically
achievable without significant contribution from developing countries, especially in terms of technological challenges.
Considering the targets pledged by countries under the framework of the Conferences of Parties, three groups of
countries can be distinguished according to the level of their commitments:

• "Industrialized countries", considered as responsible for past, present and future climate change, and committed
to absolute emissions reduction targets (Europe, USA, Japan, etc.).
• "Fast-growing countries", considered as responsible for present and future climate change, and committed to
relative targets (in relation to their level of growth; China and India).
• "Developing countries", considered as responsible for future climate change and/or vulnerable countries, some
of which are committed to absolute emissions reduction targets, while others implement national actions, and
some are committed to a relative mitigation target (according to BAU level).

In 2005, industrialized countries represented 48% of the world’s GHG emissions against 25% for fast-growing coun-
tries and 27% for developing countries. In 2010, they represented 36%, 29% and 34% respectively. Thus, the miti-
gation challenge is a fair way of determining countries’ contributions, and particularly those of developing countries,
and so, burden sharing. Their participation is essential to reach an ambitious target, and industrialized and fast-grow-
ing countries must assume their responsibility for GHG emissions and contribute as far as they are able. But are
these implemented targets in line with the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities?

Figure 1: Regional contribution to GHG emissions mitigation (Gt) in NDCs scenarios

www.cma.fr 7
 W Working Paper
N°2017-01-25

Figure 1 highlights the contribution of each regional group to reach their climate target in comparison with the business
as usual (BAU) scenario. Thus, in 2050, 28 Gt of GHG are expected to be avoided in the NDCs-2050-lolo scenario by
comparison with the BAU 2050 level of emission. In other words, climate target pledges in NDCs-2050-lolo implies
reaching a GHG emissions level of 34 Gt by 2050 instead of 62 Gt of expected GHG emission if nothing is done, as in
the BAU scenario, i.e. a GHG emission reduction of 28Gt. The NDCs-2050-upup scenario allows a reduction of 32.8 Gt
of GHG emissions. In these scenarios, the contribution to GHG mitigation varies according to the region. Thus, indus-
trialized countries reduce their GHG emissions from 8.4 Gt to 10 Gt respectively in the lower and higher NDCs scenarios,
fast-growing countries from 12 Gt to 13.4 Gt, and developing countries from 7.6 Gt to 9.6 Gt.

In NDCs-2050-lolo, industrialized countries represented 37% of the world’s GHG emissions against 39% for fast-growing
countries and 24% for developing countries in 2030 but respectively 13%, 45% and 42% in 2050. In NDCs-2050-upup,
industrialized countries represented 35% of the world’s GHG emissions against 39% for fast-growing countries and
26% for developing countries in 2030 but respectively 10%, 48% and 43% in 2050. This highlights the limits of the im-
pact of industrialized countries’ decarbonization with the aim of drastically reducing global GHG emission levels and
the importance of the contribution of developing countries, China and India.

At the global level, in the UNFCCC scenarios, from 39.7 Gt to 51 Gt of GHG have to be avoided in 2050 to be in the
range of the 2°C objective. 43.5 Gt of GHG emissions are expected to be avoided in UNFCCC-50 by 2050 by comparison
with the BAU level. These GHG emissions mitigations also obviously result from different regional contributions (Figure
2). Industrialized countries reduce their GHG emissions by 8.6, 10.1 and 11.4 Gt, respectively in the UNFCCC-40, UN-
FCCC-50 and UNFCCC-70 scenarios; fast-growing countries by 18.5 Gt, 19.1 Gt and 23 Gt, and developing countries
by 12.7 Gt, 14.3 Gt and 16.6 Gt.

Figure 2: Regional contribution to GHG emissions mitigation (Gt) in UNFCCC scenarios

Indeed, the level of the contribution from fast-growing countries, but also largely from developing countries, increases
with the strength of the climate target. This is less the case for industrialized countries, whose contributions are at the
same level in NDC scenarios as can be expected in the global UNFCCC objective scenario (especially UNFCCC-40
and UNFCCC-50). At this level, the energy system used by industrialized countries is well advanced in terms of decar-
bonization and it appears difficult to significantly reduce their GHG emissions. Note that this level of contribution cor-
responds to that of developing countries in the NDC scenarios. However, contribution equality does not mean equity.

www.modelisation-prospective.org
 The decarbonized pathways of post-Paris climate policy

3.2. Technological choices in mitigation efforts

Over the entire time period, in the BAU scenario, the global power mix is dominated by fossil fuels, followed by hydro
and nuclear, at respectively 66%, 18% and 14% of electricity generation in 2010 and respectively 67%, 16% and 10%
in 2050. Renewables represent less than 2% of world production in 2010. Their share increases in 2050 to 7% in the
BAU (Figure 3). When climate constraints tend toward a 2°C objective, significant decarbonization of the power system
takes place, whatever the UNFCCC scenario. Such a transformation of the system involves considerable investments
in renewable energies and carbon capture and storage technologies. The CCS option is particularly deployed in the
more constrained scenario, where it appears as early as 2030, against 2040 in UNFCCC-50 and to a lesser extent in
UNFCCC-40. Furthermore, the stronger the climate constraint is, the greater the CCS development is.

Figure 3: World electricity production by scenario (PJ) – Pathways to a decarbonized world

Considering the NDCs scenarios, an important result is the fact that the CCS technology is not developed. To reach the
climate target, the decarbonization of the power system results from the integration of renewable energies, in the lower
and higher cases. Coal production of electricity is drastically reduced over the time period, but oil and gas plants are still
used to produce electricity. In NDCs-2050-lolo, fossil fuels represent 33% in 2050. Hydro and nuclear represent 19% and
11% in 2050 respectively. Renewables reach 35% of the power mix (including geothermal, tide and wave) and bioplants
generate 2% of the world’s electricity. In NDCs-2050-upup, in 2050, fossil fuels represent 22%, hydro 19% and nuclear
14%. Renewables reach 41% and biomass 3%.

In 2050 the global renewable production of electricity represents 47% in UNFCCC-40, 43% in UNFCCC-50 and, 32% in
UNFCCC-70. CCS technologies represent respectively 9%, 17% and 34% in these scenarios. The development of CCS
technologies is, to a large extent, BECCS. An interesting question could be to determine whether CCS remains competitive
in the face of renewable energies, if BECCS, and thus negative emissions, is not deployed.

www.cma.fr 9
W
Working Paper
N°2017-01-25

Focusing on the intermediate global climate scenario, UNFCCC-50, Figure 4 highlights the power mix according to
technological availability. More precisely, in UNFCCC-50-noBECCS, BECCS is forbidden but CCS in fossil plants
is allowed, including co-firing coal/biomass plants. In UNFCCC-50-noBECCScf, BECCS is forbidden, such as co-
firing coal/biomass plants, but CCS in fossil plants is allowed. In UNFCCC-50-noCCS, CCS is forbidden, whatever
the plant. It is interesting to note that the BECCS ban is not compensated by greater development of fossil CCS,
but by an increase in renewable energies. In UNFCCC-50-noBECCScf, fossil CCS represents a small part of the
mitigation option, and the renewables share increases again.

Figure 4: World electricity production by scenario (PJ) – Sensitivity to BECCS availability

As shown in section 3, the contribution to GHG mitigation varies according to the region, depending on whether it
includes industrialized, fast-growing or developing countries. The same is true in terms of technological choices to
deal with climate constraints and the evolution of the energy system. Concerning the power mix in 2050 in indus-
trialized countries, interesting results consist in the significant development of CCS technologies in the UNFCCC
scenario – representing 38%, 16% and 5% respectively in UNFCCC-70, UNFCCC-50 and UNFCCC-40 – and the
fact that no CCS is developed if BECCS is forbidden. In this case, in UNFCCC-50-noBECCS, investments are made
in bioplants. In the NDCs scenario, the reduction of GHG emission involves greater development of renewable en-
ergies but no development of CCS, whatever BECCS of fossil CCS.

In China and India, significant investments are made in CCS technologies and particularly in BECCS. The strength
of the climate constraints supported by this region involves the need to benefit from negative emissions.

Unlike industrialized countries, if BECCS is banned, India and China still develop CCS technologies, to a larger
extent co-firing plants in UNFCCC-70-NoBECCS. In UNFCCC-70-NoBECCScf, where BECCS and co-firing CSS
are forbidden, CCS technologies remain an important option for attaining carbon constraints. Note that renewable
energies are largely developed in all climate constraint scenarios, even in NDCs scenarios. However, in the NDCs
scenarios, CCS technologies are not developed.

In developing countries, the decarbonization of the energy system is possible thanks to the significant development
of CCS technologies in the global UNFCCC scenarios and the integration of renewables in the system in NDCs
scenarios.
In 2050, in NDC-2050-lolo, renewables represent 9% of power generation, and 19% in NDC-2050-upup. Hydro-
electricity represents respectively 33% and 34%. Fossil fuels remain a dominant resource to produce electricity in
the lower NDCs scenario, even if coal almost disappears. In the UNFCCC scenario, CCS represents 48% of the
power mix in the stronger scenario, against 25% and 11% in the less constrained climate scenarios. BECCS rep-
resents a significant share of CCS investment in these scenarios.
 The decarbonized pathways of post-Paris climate policy

4. Conclusion and policy implications high. Their size might increase significantly with a more
stringent target, but this depends on the cost and effi-
ciency of renewable technologies, and their comparability
with fossil fuels. Their future technological development
is still an uncertain variable that should be taken into ac-
count. Widespread integration of renewables would not
Tackling the problem of global climate change indeed re- be possible without investment in storage technologies.
quires a drastic reduction of total GHG emissions and a Considering the McKinsey abatement curve, a large port-
high level of international cooperation. The ambition of folio of technologies is available and some of them are fi-
the Paris agreement is to support countries in a new nancially advantageous. But some of others are yet
world: a decarbonized world. Firstly, a significant gap still complicated and expensive (Spiegel, 2015a,b). CCS is
remains between the ambition of countries’ commitments still quite expensive, but for IEA, Alberta’s Quest, a new
and what is required in order to stay well below the 2°C Canadian CO2 storage project initially developed to cut
temperature increase and so avoid dangerous climate emissions from oil sands, provides further proof that CCS
change. This position contrasts with the inclusion of the can help reduce GHG emissions. However, the question
reference to 1.5 °C in the Paris Agreement, even though is whether private companies are willing to invest in CCS
a revision pledge is provided in the text. However, at the projects. In a study on Norwegian oil companies, Emh-
same time, the Paris Agreement can be qualified as his- jellen and Osmundsen (2013) show that a CCS project is
toric and as the world’s greatest diplomatic success due unlikely to be implemented by a private company due to
to the fact that countries’ initial pledges appear sufficient its low ranking and CCS projects’ negative net present
to clearly limit the increase of global temperature, coupled value. CCS oil projects became profitable with the intro-
with the institutionalization of a new paradigm, as high- duction of a considerable subsidy (68% of investments).
lighted in Bodansky (2016). To take GHG emissions miti- Building CCS at this scale for climate change mitigation
gation further, a key measure of success is therefore how requires the development of incentive policies as well as
well, and how fast, the Paris Agreement will incentivize a regulatory framework to support business models and
more ambitious action (Luomi, 2016). However, while the result in widescale adoption (Rai et al., 2010). This implies
global contribution of all countries appears essential to that governments must play a decisive role in CCS tech-
reach the ultimate goal of the Paris Accord, a fair level of nologies. The IEA, in its latest Energy Technology Per-
contribution from developing countries has to be deter- spective (ETP), reported that moderate progress in CCS
mined. Or (financially) supported. In the same way, ambi- was made in 2015 and that industry and governments will
tious GHG reduction by India and China is expected to need to make significant investments in projects and
reflect their level of growth and pace of development, but technology development to get CCS on track to meet the
they must remain realistic. In a global context of drasti- expected target of annual CO2 storage (IEA, 2016). Sig-
cally reducing global GHG emission levels, this study nificant development of CCS will also involve making
highlights the limits of the impact of industrialized coun- storage sites socially acceptable, with the benefits of
tries’ decarbonization and the importance of a contribu- negative emissions due to BECCS only being effective in
tion from developing countries, China and India. At same case of sustainable use of biomass. In this area, the
time, it points to a significant transformation of their en- restoration and preservation of forests is another key fac-
ergy systems, even in their NDC context. Realistic climate tor. And so many more challenges remain to be over-
targets have to be discussed in line with realistic techno- come.
logical change and the availability of technological solu- To reach an optimistic climate constraint in line with the
tions. 2°C objective, the scale of the technological challenge
More broadly, discussions investigate long-term solu- has to be assessed. And to address these issues, the
tions, such as the development of CCS technologies or Paris Accord sends policy makers, investors and the
renewables, in response to a constraint that influences business community a clear signal for decarbonization.
the energy mix. The aim is to highlight the challenges. Not However, the question remains of the (institutional) ca-
only must countries act, but technological progress must pacity of developing countries to support a decarbonized
also find an adequate response to countries’ ambitions energy system and the willingness of industrialized coun-
to expand the pool of available (or not) technologies and tries to support them. Developing and emerging
their mitigation potential. This not only concerns CCS economies thus face a two-fold energy challenge: “meet-
technologies, but also non-fossil energies, like wind, solar, ing the needs of billions of people who still lack access
biomass. Thus the question of technological expansion to basic, modern energy services while simultaneously
is also a critical factor for the future international climate participating in a global transition to clean, low-carbon
regime. Indeed, the carbon constraint response in these energy systems” (Ahuja and Tatsutani, 2009). In this con-
scenario analyses is often investments in CCS technolo- text, more efficient technologies will not usually be the
gies in order to reach targets of different levels. However, first choice, and the choice of a decarbonized system
the feasibility of avoiding the required Gt of CO2 emis- “will depend to a large extent on how quickly developed
sions by investing in CCS technologies is questionable. and developing countries recognize and begin to act
Could the potential use of these technologies be enough upon their shared stake in achieving positive outcomes
to satisfy this need? This question of plausibility also con- that can be managed only by working together” (ibid.).
cerns renewables. In the total primary energy supply, the
shares of renewables, biomass, and alcohol can appear
www.cma.fr 11
 les
Working Paper

cahiers
N¡2016?04?22

de la
chaire modélisation prospective au service du développement durable

chaire
[email protected]

contacts
Nadia MAÏZI
Directrice du Centre de Mathématiques Appliquées (CMA)

MINES ParisTech/CMA
Rue Claude Daunesse - CS10207
06904 Sophia Antipolis - France
T. +33(0)4 97 15 70 79

Mail: [email protected]

Jean-Charles HOURCADE
Directeur de la Recherche au Centre International de Recherche
sur l’Environnement et le Développement (CIRED)

CIRED
Campus du Jardin Tropical
45 avenue de la Belle Gabrielle
94736 Nogent sur Marne cedex
T. +33(0)1 43 94 73 63

Mail: [email protected]

Working Paper
N°2017-01-25