welcome to the ebc seminar global climate change - a primer sponsored by:
Post on 14-Jan-2016
36 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Welcome to the Welcome to the
EBC SeminarEBC Seminar Global Climate Global Climate
Change - A PrimerChange - A Primer Sponsored by:Sponsored by:
Global Climate Change –Global Climate Change –
A Primer A Primer ModeratorModerator
John BewickJohn BewickPresidentPresident
Compliance Management, Inc.Compliance Management, Inc.
Climate Change: The Climate Change: The Planetary Experiment Planetary Experiment
Prof. Daniel SchragProf. Daniel Schrag
Harvard UniversityHarvard University
How Good Are Climate How Good Are Climate Forecasts? Forecasts?
Prof. Ronald G. PrinnProf. Ronald G. Prinn
Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyMassachusetts Institute of Technology
What Will It Take to What Will It Take to Manage the Risk?Manage the Risk?
Prof. Henry D. JacobyProf. Henry D. Jacoby
Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyMassachusetts Institute of Technology
Understanding What Needs to Be Done
EBC Global Climate Change Seminar
12 September 2006
Henry D. JacobyJoint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
CO2 Emissions, No Policy
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
GtC
Reference
PopulationEcon. GrowthDirtier Fuels
Drivers
CO2 Concentrations
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Year
pp
mv
EPPA Reference
Pre-industrial 275 ppmv Possible target
2X preindustrial
CO2 Emissions, 550 ppmv
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
GtC
Reference
550 ppmv
6-9 GtC
Scale of The Challenge• For 1 GtC reduction in 2050
– 1000 MW electrics with CO2 capture (800)– 1000 MW nuclear stations (700)– 1 MW wind turbines (1 million)– Double fuel economy of cars (2 billion)
. . . None economic & accepted today . . .
• To achieve any target now discussed– Price (& regulatory) penalty on CO2 emissions– Technology advance to lower the cost of low-
CO2 energy supply and use of energy services . . . Only policy involving BOTH will work . . .
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100Year
Ex
ajo
ule
s/Y
ea
r
Energy Reduction from ReferenceNon-Biomass RenewablesNuclearCommercial BiomassCoal: w/ CCSCoal: w/o CCSNatural Gas: w/ CCSNatural Gas: w/o CCSOil: w/ CCSOil: w/o CCS
Transport
Buildings
Industry
Global Primary Energy: 550 ppmv
Coal
Gas
Oil
Bio-mass
CCS
Nuc
Penalty on Carbon Emissions
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Year
$/to
nn
e (2
000$
)
550 ppmv
Current ETS price
$2.50/gal gas tax
Can We Afford to Take Stabilization Seriously?
• Could rich nations afford it?– GDP loss– Jobs (aggregate employment)
• Could poor nations?• Winners & losers
– Coal industry & regions, and railroads (lose)– Forestry and agriculture (win)– Wind, biomass, solar, efficient tech’n (win)– Domestic oil & gas (depends), OPEC (lose)– Auto manufacturers (depends)
Not
Progress To a Global Regime• Need a regime architecture: a unifying
structure to guide potential agreement– The metaphor– Examples in environment, trade, etc.
• Complexities of this “commons” problem– 20 or so rich AND poor countries matter– An economic as well as environmental issue – Many emissions & land use contribute– Continuity over century and more– Parties are sovereign nations
The Climate Regime
No CO2 obligation
+ leakage
Independent action
Compliance details
Tightening limited without U.S.
US & Australia
Ratifying parties
Lack incentive to
commit
?
Framework Convention on Climate Change
Kyoto Protocol
1st 2nd2005 2008 2012
(Non-Annex B)
(Annex B)
Lessons Learned the Hard Way
• A common view of international process(1) Agree on the structure for negotiations(2) Negotiate commitment levels & measures(3) Nations implement control measures
• For an issue like climate change the process begins the other way around– Nations only agree to a potentially costly
commitment if confident they can meet it– Binding agreements follow (not lead)
domestic commitment
U.S. Federal Picture• No direct action on greenhouse gases
– Keep climate off the political agenda
• Support of indirect measures– Voluntary programs– Subsidies (e.g., biomass, solar, hybrid cars)– R&D and commercial demonstration– Regulatory reform (e.g., nuclear)– International technology cooperation
• Proposals in Congress, but no action yet
Democrat
Republican
2004 Election
Action at the State Level
California80% by 2050
(AB-32)
Oregon75% by 2050
N. Mexico 75% by 2050
Regional cap & trade
(in electrics)
Arizona 50% by 2050
Renewable Portfolio Standards(Requirement that generators purchase a minimum
percentage of supply from qualified renewable sources)
Mandatory
Goal
Standards
Possible Developments by 2012• Federal
– Cap-&-trade system– Carbon tax– Put CO2 under the Clean Air Act– Tighter CAFE standards– Portfolio standards– Subsidies to renewables– Subsidy to capture and storage
• States and cities– Actions– Pressures on federal measures
LikelyNot likely?
UnlikelyContinuedLikely
In some
Definitely
Likely
Senate Cap-&-Trade Proposals• Now being formulated
– McCain Lieberman– Bingaman– Feinstein– Jeffords, Kerry, others
• Alternative designs– Transport fuel included, or not– Electrics and heavy industry– Electric utilities only
• Issues of permit allocation
ETS
Cap-&-Trade Designs
Transport fuel
Ind. & comm.
Electric power
Government
Households, agriculture, small entities
McCain-Lieberman,
Feinstein(up)
(dn)
(dn)
(dn)
Bingaman (upstream)
When?
What Next? A Personal View• For years to come: a climate “favela”• Serious discussions only after two nations
start independent, domestic action– The US
• Beyond R&D, subsidies and voluntary measures• Processes are under way . . . And the timing?
– China• Some action and contingent commitments• Are processes under way? . . . And the timing?
• The timing is bad for achievement of 450 or 550 ppm stabilization levels
How to Get Up In the Morning• A century-scale problem• Understanding risks and policy effects is important • Public knowledge is ratcheting up slowly• Lesser achievements in GHG control do matter
2000-2100
CHANGE
WITHOUT
POLICY750 ppm
STABILIZATION550 ppm
STABILIZATION
>6.8 F (3.8 C)
global warming
>10 F (5.6 C)
Alaska warming
>2 feet (0.6 meter)
sea level rise
1 in 10
1 in 3
1 in 6
1 in 29
1 in 4
1 in 20
< 1 in 250
< 1 in 250
< 1 in 250
NOTE: Values are preliminary and for illustration purposes only
top related