GHG projections in Norway
Peer Stiansen
Ministry of Environment
Main characteristics of the
Norwegian model
•
•
•
•
•
Emissions projections are consistent with overall macroeconomic
projections
Combination of a top down and a bottom up approach
Macro driver for emissions mainly energy use (CO2); offshore,
transport, onshore energy use
Micro approach:
• non CO2 emissions
• processing industry
• road traffic
• petroleum sector
Micro level and micro information possibly more relevant and
available for 2010 than 2020
Methodology in use
• CO2 projections are based on a macroeconomic general
equilibrium model called MSG
• An emission calculation model is included in MSG
• Projections for non-CO2 emissions are based on
information from relevant sectors and consistent with
macroeconomic projections
• Emission projections are (as a rule) fully updated every 4
years
News
• Updated projections (2010/ 2020) will be published in a
White paper in Nov. 2004
Emission calculation model
• Different pollutants (CO2, NOX, SO2 and VOC) are
disaggregated by source and sector and specified in the model
• Emission are projected as a function of activity data and
emission coeffisients.
• Emission coeffisients are calibrated to a base year, and
emissions are projected by taking into account effects of
environmental instruments or policies that are already
implemented or decided
• Microinformation is used as guidance to adjust or overrule
model projections
• Statistics Norway develop and update the Emission calculation
model in collaboration with The Norwegian State Pollution
Control
Authorities involved
•
•
•
•
Ministry of Finance are responsible for the production and
publishing of the official emission projections, and activity
data fed into the MSG ( including energy data)
The Norwegian State Pollution control are responsible for
the production of emission projections of non-CO2 gases,
and also for publishing emissions by source for alle GHGgases
Ministry of Petroleum and Energy is responsible for the
annual projections of emissions from the Petroleum sector
Ministry of Agriculture and The Norwegian State Pollution
Control Agency are responsible for the LULUCF projections
Policy reflection – do shifts
matter ?
• Taxes (energy/transport emissions, waste)
• Emissions trading (energy,other ghgs) –
Price ?
• Agreements (industrial, F-gases)
• Direct regulations (waste, some industry)
• Grant schemes, labelling etc. (energy)
• Planning measures (energy, transport,
housing)
Royal Norwegian Ministry of the Environment
Nas jonale klimagas s uts lipp – frems krivninger med
og uten gas s kraft
Royal Norwegian Ministry of the Environment
Domes tic GHG emis s ions 2 0 0 2 by s ource
Other sources 16 %
Energy onshore 13
%
Petroleum
22 %
Mobile sources 30 %
Industrial processes
19 %
CERs
EUA, 05-07
EUA, 08-12
AAU
Towards 2012 (scenario from PointCarbon)
CERs trace highest
EUA price
EUAs fall because
of increased supplies
Price rise because
of banking to 2013
EUAs rise due
to NAPs for 08-12
EUAs collapse due to oversupply
and limited banking to 2008
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
International post-2012
agreement enters into force
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Challenges
• Intersection between macro and micro level
– How to ensure consistensy with macrolevel and
activity data fed into the macro model, and
emission projections when relying on a large
degree of micro information and information
gathered within sectors ?
• How to deal with ”voluntary agreements” in
projections and scenarios when measures and
emisson reductions would be achieved
anyway?
• How to interprete the different scenarios in the
reporting guidelines ?
LUCF projections
•
•
•
•
In Norway there are no permanent institutional arrangement
for making projection on GHG emission/removals from
LUCF sector
Ministry of Agriculture and The Norwegian State Pollution
are responsible for the LUCF projections
Norwegian forest has a long rotation period (70-120 years),
thus the projection is mainly driven by past forest
management practice which will result in continuing gross
increment the next 10-20 years
The projection is based on following assumptions:
- continuation of increase in gross increment
- continuation of current harvesting rate
- no changes in natural dieoff
- no change in forest policy
- soil carbon and non-CO2 GHGs not included
Challenges:Land-Use Change and Forestry
• Difficult to project harvesting rate, since this is mainly
driven by the international prices on timber
• Difficult to predict eventually increased in the natural
dieoff (decay) when the rate of old forests increase due to
reduces harvesting rate
• Difficult to predict changes in soil carbon stock due to
changed harvesting rate
• Difficult to project effect of past measures (improved
forest management)
• Difficult to predict carbon changes in marginal forests
(forest in mountain areas and in northern parts of Norway)