planning policy and emissions reduction: - the national
Post on 09-Feb-2022
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
PLANNING POLICY AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION: DO THE RESULTS MATCH THE HYPE?
Timothy F. Welch
University of Maryland
National Center for Smart
Growth Research and Education
ACSP
53rd Annual Conference
November 2, 2012
The Imperative
Reduce GHG emissions and atmospheric C02Concentrations before 450PPM
– To hold a +2oc global temprature change
– Avoid catastrophic anthropomorphic climate destabilization
R² = 0.9916
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
CO
2 (
PP
M)
Year
CO2 Concentration 450 (PPM) 350 (PPM) CO2 TrendAtmospheric CO2,Mauna Loa Observatory (Scripps / NOAA / ESRL)
New Evidence
• Total amount of CO2 that can be emitted between 2000 and 2050
• 80% chance of maintaining a 2oC warming (compared to pre-industrial period)
886gigatons
• From 2000 to 2011:
• 337gigatons CO2emitted
549gigatons
• of CO2 left for next 38 years
M. Meinshausen et al., Nature 458, 1158 (2009).
Research Questions
• How likely are state climate strategies to meet
GHG reduction policy goals?
• How well do the policies conform to the new
evidence on needed GHG reduction needs?
Policy TargetsInternational Origin
IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report - Annex I
(developed) countries need to reduce GHG
emissions 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020,
and 80-95% below 1990 levels by 2050, in order
to stabilize below 450 ppm CO2-eq
concentration, after a temporary overshoot by
50 ppm
IPCC AR4 WGIII. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. WGIII Contribution
to the IPCC AR4 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007), chapter 13, Box 13.7 on
page 776.
Policy TargetsNational Policies
ACT TARGET
Climate Stewardship Act of 2007 (Olver-Gilchrest) H.R.620 &
H.R. 4226 (Died – at Introduction and Committee, respectively)70% below 1990 level in
2050
Global Warming Reduction Act of 2007 (Kerry-Snowe) S.485
(Failed)62% below 1990 level in
2050
Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act
(McCain-Lieberman) S.280 (Failed – 2003/5/7)60% below 1990 level in
2050
Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (Sanders-Boxer) S.
309 (Proposed - 2007)80% below 1990 level in
2050
Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, S.3036
(Died in Senate)71% below 2005 level in
2050
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (Waxman)
H.R. 2454 (Died in Senate)83% below 2005 level in
2050
Executive Branch – EPA can regulate CO2 as a pollutant
Pledge to the United Nations17% below 2005 level in
2020
Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 (Upton) H.R.910 (Passed
House – April 07, 2011)Bars EPA from taking
any GHG related action
Policy TargetsState Policies
6
1 1 1
12
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2010 2012 2015 2017 2020 2025
1st Target date
0123456789
10
10%
below
1990
5%
below
1990
1990 2000 2005 15%
below
2005
20%
below
2005
25%
below
2006
30%
below
buiness
as usual
1st Taret Level n=23
7
2
1 1
7
0
2
4
6
8
2020 2025 2035 2040 2050
2nd Target date
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1990 10%
below
1990
25%
below
1990
60%
below
1990
75%
below
1990
80%
below
1990
10%
below
2000
50%
below
2000
80%
below
2001
30%
below
2005
80%
below
2005
80%
below
2006
2nd Taret Level n=18
Source: Author’s Calculations
Policy TargetsMaryland Policy
GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION ACT OF 2009
• Reduce statewide GHG emissions 25% from 2006 levels by 2020
• By 2011 MDE to:
– develop a 2006 Statewide greenhouse gas emissions inventory;
– develop a projected “business as usual” emissions inventory for 2020; and
– develop/publish for public comment a proposed plan
• Adopt final plan to achieve reductions, by 2012
GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION ACT OF 2009
• Plan must ensure:
– no loss of existing jobs in the State’s manufacturingsector;
– net increase in State jobs
– net economic benefit to the State’s economy;
– opportunities for new “green” jobs in the energy and low carbon technology fields; and
– no adverse impact on the reliability and affordability of electricity service and fuel supplies
Policy TargetsMaryland Policy
Kaya Identity
���������� = ��� ��
���
��
��
���
��
Population
Per Capita GDP
Energy Intensity
Carbon Intensity
1
2
3
4
XX
XX
����������� = ��
��
���
��
Current Strategies• T-1. Maryland Clean Cars Program
• T-2. National Medium- & Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency Standard
• T-3. Clean Fuels Standard
• T-4. Transportation and Climate Initiative
• T-5. Public Transportation Initiatives*
• T-6. Double Transit Ridership by 2020*
• T-7. Intercity Transportation Initiatives*
• T-8. Bike and Pedestrian Initiatives*
• T-9. Pricing Initiatives
• T-10. Transportation Technology Initiatives
• T-11. Electric Vehicle Initiatives
• T-12. Low Emitting Vehicle Initiatives
• T-13. Evaluating GHG Emissions from Major New Projects
• T-14. Airport Initiatives
• T-15. Port Initiatives
• T-16. Freight and Freight Rail Strategies
• T-17. Renewable Fuels Standard*
• T-18. CAFE Standards (MY2008-2011)
• T-19. Promote Hybrid & Electric Vehicles
• T-20. Pay-As-You-Drive Insurance
Target in Context
• In 2010– Total GHG reduction less than 9% in midst of greatest recession
since 1930s
– 26% industrial reduction, due to lower activity
– 15% power plant reduction, due to natural gas prices
– 6.5% transport, less commuting less activity
– Increases in commercial and residential
• All likely temporary reductions, 2011-12 expect increases
• Recommended reductions greater than entire GHG output of:– Commercial,
– Residential,
– Industrial,
sectors combined
Baseline/Current/Target GHG
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Maryland Commercial Industrial Residential Transportation Electric Power
MM
T C
O2
2006
2010
2020 Target
Energy Consumption by Source
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Av
era
ge
MP
G
Year
Historical CAFE Standards and Average US Fleet Economy
LDV MPG
New Method
CAFE
Price Assumption
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Ga
s P
rice
(p
er
gall
on
)
CP
I
Year
CPI (projected) Annual (Ave.) CPI Gas Price (nominal)
R² = 0.9881
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Av
era
ge
MP
G
Year
Historical & Projected CAFE Standards and Average US
Fleet Economy CAFE
LDV MPG
Poly. (LDV MPG)
Inventory and Goals
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
CO
2 (
ton
s/d
ay
)
CO2 By County
2006 2020 2020 Target (SHARE)
$0.08
$0.09
$0.10
$0.11
$0.12
$0.13
$0.14
$0.15
$0.16
AO
C (
$/m
ile
)
Year
Scenario Auto Operating Cost ($/mi, 2000 Constant Dollars)
BAU Gas Tax ($0.50) Gas Tax ($2.00) VMT Tax ($0.50)
VMT Tax ($2.00) CO2 Tax ($25/ton) CO2 Tax ($50/ton) CO2 Tax ($75/ton)
2006/2020/Target(Statewide Implementation)
R² = 0.9005
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Yea
rly
CO
2e
(M
MT
)
Year
Transportation GHG Emissions
Historic
Baseline
2020
Proportional
Target
Gas Tax
($0.50)
Gas Tax
($2.00)
VMT Tax
($0.50)
VMT Tax
($2.00)
CO2 Tax
($25/ton)
CO2 Tax
($50/ton)
CO2 Tax
($75/ton)
Power
(Historic)
2006/2020/Target(Statewide Implementation)
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Yea
rly
CO
2e
(M
MT
)
Year
Transportation GHG Emissions
Historic
Baseline 2020
Proportional Target
Gas Tax ($0.50)
Gas Tax ($2.00)
VMT Tax ($0.50)
VMT Tax ($2.00)
CO2 Tax ($25/ton)
CO2 Tax ($50/ton)
CO2 Tax ($75/ton)
Efficiency (65mpg)
Hybrid Max
2006/2020/Target(Statewide Implementation)
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Yea
rly
CO
2e
(M
MT
)
Year
Transportation GHG Emissions
Historic
Baseline 2020
Proportional Target
Gas Tax ($0.50)
Gas Tax ($2.00)
VMT Tax ($0.50)
VMT Tax ($2.00)
CO2 Tax ($25/ton)
CO2 Tax ($50/ton)
CO2 Tax ($75/ton)
Efficiency (65mpg)
Required Target
Hybrid Max
Conclusions/Recommendations
• Establishing ‘fantastical and magical’ strategies and targets only distracts from important policy goals
• Provides a ‘way out’ for policy makers– By looking tough, but doing little
– Likely a set-up in many states for a cap and trade program to generate revenue
• Need to formulate a multitude of realistic strategies, test and incrementally ramp-up or replace
• Policy formulation through jurisdictional convergence– As opposed to “set it and forget it” mentality
Conclusions/Recommendations
Jurisdiction Planned
Target Year
Year CO2 Budget
Exceeded
(w/o CAP)
Year CO2 Budget
Exceeded
(w/ CAP)
Maryland 2020 2027 2029
United States 2050 2028 2031
World 2050 2026 2033
Conclusions/Recommendations
• For Maryland to do its part in keeping 20C within 20% probability
– Can only emit 1,113 Mt CO2 from 2012 – 2050
• Compared to current trend: 2,754 Mt CO2
• And current CAP: 2,318 Mt CO2
– Need to aggressively change target
• From: 25% below 2006 by 2020
• To: 70% below 2006 by 2020
• Or: 68% below 1990 from 2020 – 2050
– AND HOLD CONSTANT
Conclusions
To keep 80% chance of 2oC pre-industrial:
• Not only do the likely policy results not match
the ‘hype’
• The hype does not match the need
Jurisdiction Target Year Reduction Year Percent Below Avg. Annual Reduction
(from 2012)
Maryland 2020 2006 70% 8% (65%)
United States 2033 1990 80% 3.73% (82%)
World 2039 1990 80% 3.23% (87%)
top related