Research lines
| UNFCC |
|
Mexico and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
II. Fulfilling Commitments of Mexico under the Convention
• During the 1980s scientific evidence on the possibility of a global climate change increased dramatically, raising concern among scientists and decision-makers about its potential consequences. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) responded to the growing international worry by creating the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988, which aimed at:
I.2. Conclusions of the IPCC Second Assessment Report (1995) • In this century, the Earth’s surface temperature has been as high or even higher than in any other century since at least 1400 D.C. During the past century, temperature has had increases of about 0.3 and 0.6ºC, while the sea level has risen between 10 to 25 cm and mountain glaciers have diminished throughout the world. • If policies oriented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not implemented, the Earth’s average temperature may increase from 1 to 3.5ºC by 2100, which involves a growth rate higher than what has been observed in the past 10,000 years. • The sea level has been forecasted to rise between 15 and 95 cm by 2100. • The long atmospheric life-time of many greenhouse gases, together with the ocean’s thermal inertia, means that their effects will be long-lasting. • Even if greenhouse gas concentrations were stabilized by 2100, temperatures would continue to increase during several decades, and the sea level would keep on rising for many centuries. • Forecasted climate changes involve potential harmful effects which may affect the economy and the quality of life of this and future generations (e.g., health problems, water and food shortage, housing loss, and degraded ecosystems). • The success to adapt will depend on technological advances, institutional arrangements, funding availability, technology transfers, information interchanges, and the integration of climate change-related issues to the use of resources and development-related decisions. Adaptation alternatives for many developing countries are limited due to the scarce availability of economic and technological resources. • In many parts of the world, it is possible to increase current levels of energy efficiency by between 10 and 30%, at almost no cost, through conservation measures, the development of new energy supply technologies, and the improvement of land use practices during the next 2 to 3 decades. • Mitigation and adaptation may be reduced by implementing flexible and cost-effective policies based on economic incentives, as well as internationally coordinated instruments. Issues on international and intergenerational equity are crucial for policy- making. I.3. Objective of the Framework Convention • The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted during the UN Conference on Environment and Development (also known as “The Earth Summit”) in June 1992 in Brazil, receiving 155 signatures; from then it has been ratified by many countries.
I.4. Commitments of the Parties to the Convention • To develop, periodically update, and publish national emissions inventories, by source and sinks, on all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol. • To formulate, implement, publish, and regularly update national and, when appropriate, regional programs which contain both measures to mitigate climate change through the above-mentioned greenhouse gas emission control and measures to facilitate adequate adaptation to climate change. • To foster and cooperate in the development of practices to control or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. • Technology development and transfer. • Conservation of greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs (forests and other ecosystems, as in the case of CO2). • To prepare adaptation measures to face climate change. • To perform research on climate change considerations in social, economic, and environmental policies so as to minimize adverse effects of anthropogenic action on the environment. I.5. Commitments of the Annex I Parties • Additionally, the Convention establishes for Annex I countries the commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 levels for the year 2000. • However, shortly more than two years before this term expires, very few countries have been able to achieve this. It had already been surmised in 1995, therefore the Conference of the Parties (COP), which is the supreme body of the Convention which regularly reviews the implementation of the Convention and any related legal instrument it may adopt, met for the first time (COP1) and decided to establish a pilot phase for jointly implemented activities oriented to reduce emissions among Parties included in Annex I, and other Parties not included in the Annex which may request so on a voluntary basis (Joint Implementation). COP1 decided as well, based on the need of a readequating of commitments under the Convention, to establish the Berlin Mandate and its working group, whose purpose was during COP3 to reinforce such commitments. • During the Second Conference of the Parties (COP2), held in Geneva in 1996, the pilot phase and the Berlin Mandate process were supported, and the determination that during COP3, to be held in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, the Parties to the Convention approve the Protocol containing legally-binding commitments was confirmed. II.1. National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory • The total greenhouse gas emissions for 1990, according to the updated inventory (1996) were 460.99 million tons, from which 444.489 millions corresponded to (CO2) carbon dioxide emissions (Figure 1). The most important source of carbon dioxide in Mexico is the energy sector. • Altogether, energy sources related to combustion account for the major contribution (67%). Nevertheless, the forestry sector and land-use change emissions account for 30.57% of CO2 national emissions.
Figure 1
• Mexico is among the top 15 countries in greenhouse gas emissions (Table 1). When compared against Non-Annex I countries of the Convention, it is only exceeded by China, India, Brazil, and Indonesia. • In 1990, Mexico contributed approximately with 2% of global CO2 emissions by producing 4.1 tons per person. In this regard, Mexico exceeded the four above-mentioned countries emitting more than China and twice as much as Brazil.
Table 1. Countries with the Highest Total Carbon Emissions (C) Due to Fossil Fuel Combustion and Their Position Regards Per Capita Emissions and as Per Millions of GDP US Dollars. 1994.
Source: G. Marland,R.J. Andres T. A. Boden, "Global, Regional and CO2 Emission Estimates from Fossil Fuel Burning, Cement Production and Gas Flaring: 1950-1992" (electronic database) (Oak Ridge, Tenn. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1995). World watch estimates based on ibid., and on British Petroleum, BP Statistical Review of World Energy (London: Group Media & Publications, 1995). Population Reference Bureau, 1994 World Population Data Sheet (Washington, D.C.:1994); World Bank, The World Bank Atlas 1995 (Washington, D.C.:1995). *GDP measured in Purchasing Power Parity for 1993. II.2. Mexico: Current and Foreseen Climate Regional Scenarios • For the vulnerability studies within the Country Study: Mexico (except for the coastal zone study), two methods were used to create climate change scenarios to assess potential impacts of this phenomenon: o The first method consists in performing sensitivity studies establishing arbitrary temperature (+2 and +4 ºC) and precipitation (±10% y ±20%) increases, as well as combinations of these (for example, +2ºC and +20%) superimposed on temperatures and precipitations observed. o The second consist in using two General Circulation Models (GCMs): GFDL-R30 (Geophysical Fluids Dynamics Laboratory) and CCCM (Canadian Climate Center Model) (Figure 1) that simulate temperature increases and change ratios in precipitation and radiation: DT=T(2xCO2) - T(1xCO2), Ppn = P(2xCO2)/P(1xCO2) o Where T(2CO2), T(1xCO2), P(2xCO2), and P(1xCO2) are temperatures and precipitations obtained from the general circulation models under the assumption that CO2 atmospheric concentration is twice the current one, respectively. Among still present uncertainties concerning climate change is that of its regional effects and their temporality. Regional-scale effects are considered assuming temperature increases at actual regional temperatures, and regarding temporality that these scenarios may occur after the mid-XXI century. o Result obtained in both models differ in magnitude and in sign (Figure 1): o GFDL-R30 Model: Average temperature increases of 3.2ºC and 20% in precipitation were obtained. o CCCM Model: An increase for Mexico in annual mean temperature of 2.8ºC and a decrease in annual precipitation of 7% were recorded.
Figure 1. Temperature Increases and Precipitation Change Ratios or Percentages. GFDL-R30 Winter.
Source: Estudio de País: México: Escenarios Físicos Regionales Actuales y Futuros (Country Study: Mexico: Phyiscal RegionalCurrent and Fitutre Scenarios. Conde, C., Magaña, V., Sánchez , O. and Gay C. 1995. • In the present study, the vulnerability to climate change of corn production in Mexico was assessed by comparing potential variations vis-à-vis the current situation, in terms of output and fitness of such crop determined by CCCM and GFDL models. Fitness Maps obtained show similar scenarios: • Unfit surface for corn cultivation would shift from 60% to approximately 75% of the national territory. • The moderately fit surface for corn cultivation would be reduced from 33% to between 8% and 22% of the Mexican territory. • On the other hand, the percentage of the national territory fit for seasonal corn cultivation may increase from the current 8% to 16%, or diminish to only 2.5%, depending on the model used. • The increase in unfit areas would result –to a great extent– from the loss of moderately fit surface, whereas the increase in fit surface in central Mexico would be due to rises in minimum temperatures in highlands, such as Atlacomulco. (Figure 2).
Figure 2
• Vulnerability of forest ecosystems was determined based on potential modifications of vegetation types resulting from climate change (Table 1). Different types of vegetation are associated with different types of climate. Therefore, if the latter changes associated vegetation will also change. • The study allowed to verify that almost 50% of the national vegetal cover would experience alterations, being temperate forest the most affected.
Table 1 Changes in Surface of Potential Vegetation in Selected Ecosystems Related to Climate Correspondence
* It refers to areas potentially covered by vegetation II.3.3.Desertification and Meteorological Drought • Vulnerability to desertification may be defined as susceptibility of the national territory to soil degradation by:
• Vulnerability to desertification results from the integration of the above-mentioned variables to climate, land-use, and land slope variables. The results obtained are the following:
• The analysis of the vulnerability of water resources to climate change was performed based on a thermal-hydrological balance model that assesses their availability, reserves, and run-off. Such model allowed to establish vulnerability indexes related to these factors for each of the twelve hydrological regions in which Mexico was divided for the study. • Results thus obtained show that the central region, and that which encompasses the Lerma-Chapala-Santiago basin are the most vulnerable ones in all cases. The Baja California region would also be vulnerable due to the low run-off it experiences. Likewise, it is observed that the most vulnerable regions would match with the most populated regions (Figure 4).
Source: Estudio de País: México: Vulnerabilidad de los Recursos Hidrológicos ante el Cambio Climático (Country Study: Mexico: Vulnerability of Hydrology Resources to Climate Change. Mendoza, V., Villanueva E.,, Maderey, L., Jiménez, A., 1995. • Vulnerability Criteria: Vulnerability in coastal zones takes places in regions located between the high-tide level and a 2-meter high strip. • Coastal zones showing highest vulnerability were detected in Tamaulipas (Río Bravo Deltaic Lagoon), Veracruz (the Alvarado lagoon, the Papaloapan river), Tabasco (Grijalva-Mezcapala-Usumacinta deltaic complex), Yucatán (Los Petenes) and Quintana Roo (Sian Kaán and Chetumal bays) (Figure 5). This is partly due to the fact that most Gulf and Caribbean coasts are low-lying and located at less than a meter above sea level. • In the most vulnerable zones, marine influence would be perceived as far as 40 and 50 km. inland, as in the case of the Mezcapala-Usumacinta river.
Figure 5
II.4.1. Future Emissions Scenarios In order to know future greenhouse gas emissions in Mexico, a model on primary and final energy demand developed by the Programa Universitario de Energía - UNAM coordinated by the Instituto Nacional de Ecología was used. Such model disaggregates the national economy into two major divisions: the productive sector division (PEMEX, CFE, agriculture and livestock husbandry, commercial, public and services, transport and industry), and the consumer sector division (residential). The model considers three economic growth scenarios (high (ES1), low (ES2) and reference (ES3)), and a population scenario, and incorporates two energy intensity alternatives, constant (IECC) and "expert opinion” (IEOP). In order to assess emissions associated with historical energy consumption and with energy projections, a matrix including sources and pollutants was used. Figure 1.1 shows the results obtained for total CO2 emissions and projections for the different scenarios and alternatives. Biomass contribution was included just for explanatory purposes, though it was not added to the total (upper curve), as per the IPCC methodology. On the other hand, Figure 1.2 shows per capita emissions for selected years in the period 1970-2010. The Figure shows that in 1982 the maximum historical was recorded, 1.12 tonC per capita, and the value of such emissions has always (except for 1991 and 1992) been below the 1990 value, and very close to 1 tonC per inhabitant. Likewise, it is observed for 1995, and in every scenario, that per capita emissions were closed to the 1990 value. Nevertheless, since 1996, they increased, and by 2000 they would show a maximum of 1.24 and a minimum of 1.06 tonC per capita,
exceeding the 1990 emissions by between 2.04 and 1.94 %. Energy efficiency-oriented actions, technological change, and production restructuring would contribute to reduce the excess. However, analysis and implementation of further measures, such as fuel substitution, may also be convenient.
Mitigation Options in the Energy Sector The Instituto de Ingeniería of the UNAM performed a study coordinated by the Instituto Nacional de Ecología on CO2 mitigation scenarios that resulted from energy consumption in Mexico. This analysis estimated cost differences of what Mexico would have to pay in 2005 for implementing or not implementing diverse CO2 emission mitigation technologies. The scenarios comprised the analysis of three different energy efficiency technologies: co-generation for five industrial branches (including shifts in current technology and new plants), compact fluorescent lamps in the residential sector, and efficient lighting in the commercial sector.
The results showed that: • Cogeneration happens to be highly profitable since it avoids the construction of new generation plants, which results in total investment cost reductions. For new plants, cogeneration systems are very feasible, since investment according to the type of industry, increases only between 5 and 10%. • It is evident that greatest mitigation is found in electricity generation. • If all the technological measures of cogeneration and efficient lighting were implemented, mitigation equivalent to 67 million tons of CO2 (equivalent to 18.3 million tons of C) would be obtained, which would mean a reduction of 13% of the emissions expected for 2005 under the high growth scenario. Likewise, annualized cost at present value per unit of CO2 mitigated would be negative. In consequence, it is profitable for Mexico to invest in cogeneration in industrial plants and efficient lighting in the commercial and residential sectors, more profitable than maintaining the current growth trend. • In all scenarios, the cost of mitigated carbon was negative, which means that the investment is smaller in the mitigation scenario than in the reference scenario. • Industries where the greatest CO2 mitigation may be obtained through cogeneration are the fertilizer and cellulose and paper industries due to the intensive use of fueloil. • Greatest CO2 mitigation in the residential sector is obtained through compact fluorescent lamps. • An analysis of CO2 mitigation scenarios originated from energy consumption in Mexico was performed. In such study, differences in costs that would have to be paid in 2005 for implementing or not a number of CO2 emission mitigation technologies were estimated. The scenarios encompassed the assessment of three energy efficiency technologies: cogeneration for five industrial branches (including changes in current technologies and new plants), compact fluorescent lamps in the residential sector and efficient lighting in the commercial sector. The results obtained proved that (Figure 2): o Cogeneration is highly profitable, since it avoids constructing new generating plants, resulting in a reduction in total investment costs. For the new plants, new cogeneration systems are very feasible, since the investment required only increases between 5 and 10%, depending on the type of industry.
Figure 2
Sourcee: Evaluación de las emisiones de Gases de Invernadero y Estrategias de Mitigación en Méxic o(Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment and Mitigation Strategies in Mexico),. Quintanilla, J., Bauer, M., Sheimbaum, C., Viqueira, L. 1996
Figure 3
Source: Evaluación de las emisiones de Gases de Invernadero y Estrategias de Mitigación en México (Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment and Mitigation Strategies in Mexico). Quintanilla, J., Bauer, M., Sheimbaum, C., Viqueira, L. 1996 II.4.3. Energy Sector Emissions vs. Forestry Capture • In Mexico, a number of studies on forest carbon sequestration capacity have been performed. The results of those studies show that according to the Mexican Government targets (SEMARNAP, Programa de Uso Forestal y de Suelo [Forestry and Soils Program] 1995-2000), the forestry sector capture would be greater than the expected growth of 48.3 MtonC of annual emissions from energy consumption between 1990 and 2010 (Figure 4). • This means that forests may aid the country to win time for the intensive development of renewable energies and efficient technologies, since as it may be observed in Figure 4, in spite of the significant growth of energy sector emissions, total emissions (emissions-sequestration) have remained below the 1990 level during the period 1995-2010 due to the sequestration from the forestry sector.
Figure 4
Captura Sector Forestal Mexicano ( Mexican Forest Sector Capture) Source: Future Greenhouse Emissions and Sequestration Scenarios from Land Use Change in Mexico. Masera, O.1995.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Última actualización en Viernes, 02 de Octubre de 2009 14:27 |
Climate Change Program
Comentarios sobre este Sitio de Internet
