mit joint program sponsors meeting · mit joint program on the science and policy of global change...

MIT JOINT PROGRAM SPONSORS MEETING

June 15th 2016 • Cambridge, MA

MIT Joint Program

on the Science and Policy of Global Change

Report to Program Sponsors 15 June 2016 • 14:00 – 17:00

Grand Ballroom B, West Tower The Royal Sonesta Hotel Cambridge, MA USA

1. Introductions

2. Program Overview and Future Forums

3. Program Highlights & Directions

(a) The 2o C Challenge in the MIT Climate Action Plan (b) The Food / Energy / Water Nexus (c) China Energy and Economics Directions (d) Accelerating Action on Global Climate Change

4. Discussion of Emerging Issues & Assessment Needs

http://globalchange.mit.edu/

Introductions

Section 1


New Sponsors and Projects

New Program SponsorsHancock Natural Resource GroupInstitute of Nuclear Energy Research (INER)

New Funded ProjectsU.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)– (X. Gao) “Use of Soil Moisture Retrievals to Refine Global Land Trace Gases Emissions and their Climate Feedbacks” (in collaboration with Emory University)

Renewed ProjectsU.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) – (V. Karplus) “Dynamics of Energy Use in China”

Section 2 – Program Overview


CollaborationsOngoing Research Collaborations (selected examples)

MIT Environmental Solutions Initiative, MIT Energy Initiative, MIT Climate Modeling Initiative, Darwin Project, Singapore-MIT AllianceEcosystems Center of the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) in Woods Hole, MassachusettsCommunity Earth System Model (CESM) at the Nat’l Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE)Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP)International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Projects involving colleagues at NASA JPL, NASA GISS, NASA GSFC, NRELCooperative efforts with other Universities (selected examples)

Penn State University (Chris Forest)Emory University (Eri Saikawa)Tsinghua University (Zhang Xiliang)Univ. Federal de Viçosa, Brazil (Angelo Gurgel)Univ. of California, Davis (Kyaw Tha Paw U) Lehigh University (Ben Felzer)Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks (K. Walter-Anthony)Purdue University (Qianlai Zhuang)Harvard School of Public Health (Petros Koutrakis, Elsie Sunderland)Univ. of Rhode Island (Rainer Lohmann)Michigan Tech (Judith Perlinger)



PersonnelInternal Promotions

Erwan Monier, principal research scientistNiven Winchester, principal research scientist

New AppointmentsMei Yuan, research scientistDimonika Bray, administrative assistant

New Research AssistantsNinad Rajpurkar, research assistantArun Singh, graduate student research assistant

New VisitorsHui-Chih Chai, visiting researcher, Institute of Nuclear Energy Research, TaiwanWei-Hong Hong, visiting researcher, Institute of Nuclear Energy Research, TaiwanCicero Zanetti de Lima, visiting PhD student, from the Federal University of Vicosa, Brazil

DeparturesClaudia Octaviano, postdoctoral associate, now with Government of Mexico as General Coordinator for Climate Change and Low-Carbon DevelopmentDavid Ramberg, postdoctoral associate, now with Amazon as Senior Demand Planner / Data EngineerChiao-Ting, postdoctoral associate, now with the HIWIN Corp. in Taiwan as R&D engineerTox Akobi, completed Master’s degree, now a consultant at Boston Consulting Group, Houston, TexasDanwei Zhan, completed Master’s degree, accepted a position at Tsinghua University, ChinaXiaohan Zhang, visiting student, returned to Tsinghua University to complete PhD program



Future Global Change Forums

Discussion of future locations, topics and collaborators

DC/VA environs, USA – Week of 27-31 March, 2017Theme: TBD

Possible Future Forums:Korea, Quebec, Colorado

Section 2


(a) The 2 Challenge in the MIT Climate Action Plan

(b) The Food / Energy / Water Nexus

(c) China Energy and Economics Directions

(d) Accelerating Action on Global Climate Change

Program Highlights & Directions

Section 3

Sea level rise is an exemplar of the risks to be avoided. The record of past temperatures and sea levels deduced from polar ice cores and other data shows that the last time polar temperatures went above about 4°C over 1875 levels (116,000 to 129,000 years ago),

global sea levels were 5-10 meters (16-32 feet) higher than present (IPCC, WG1, 2013). This sea level rise indicates melting of much of

the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets.

There are now compelling reasons to regard a warming of about 2°C (3.6 °F) between preindustrial (1875) and 2100 as a threshold, above which the damages globally to human and natural systems

due to climate change begin to become economically and ethically less and less tenable (IPCC, WG1, 2013)

IT WILL NOT BE EASY. WE ARE ALREADY ABOUT 1OC ABOVE PREINDUSTRIAL.

Due to amplification of polar warming, a polar temperature 4°C over preindustrial corresponds to a global average temperature of

about 2°C over preindustrial.

THE 2OC CHALLENGE in the MIT CLIMATE ACTION PLAN Ronald G. Prinn, Sponsors Meeting

A new study: The 2°C Challenge: Accelerating the Transition to a Zero-Carbon FutureA new study: The 2°C Challenge: Accelerating the Transition to a Zero-Carbon Future

A PLAN FOR ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE President Rafael Reif et al

October 21, 2015

A PLAN FOR ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE President Rafael Reif et al

October 21, 2015

Task 1. Understanding the key individual elements involved in the challenge a. What is the evolution of the cost for each existing or potential low/zero emitting

technology and each existing or potential energy efficiency technology over time with uncertainty, and what is the value of lowering these costs?

b. What is the uncertainty in climate response (climate sensitivity, ocean heat and carbon sink, aerosol radiative forcing), and what is the value of lowering that uncertainty?

c. How can we lower short-lived climate forcers (ozone, BC), or will the co-benefits of air pollution regulation and CO2 emission reduction suffice?

d. What is the sustainability of each new technology at large scale (economics, natural resources, air pollution, biogeophysical and biogeochemical impacts)?

e. What are the lowest cost and most politically feasible approaches to incentivize the needed transformations, and what is the impact of using more costly approaches? Task 2. Integrating science, technology, economics and policy to meet the challenge

a. What combinations of sustainable technologies, technology cost reductions, climate response uncertainty reductions, short-lived forcer reductions, and incentivizing approaches will enable achievement of the (probabilistic) 2°C challenge at lowest cost?

b. Based on these combinations, what are the highest priorities for future development that will yield the greatest return on investments to meet the 2°C challenge?

MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF 2 DEGREES CENTIGRADE

A proposal from the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF 2 DEGREESGG CENTIGRADECC

A proposal from the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

Task 1. Understanding the key individual elements involved in the challengea. What is the evolution of the cost for each existing or potential low/zero emitting

technology and each existing or potential energy efficiency technology over time withuncertainty, and what is the value of lowering these costs?

b. What is the uncertainty in climate response (climate sensitivity, ocean heat and carbon sink, aerosol radiative forcing), and what is the value of lowering that uncertainty?

c. How can we lower short-lived climate forcers (ozone, BC), or will the co-benefitsof air pollution regulation and CO2 emission reduction suffice?

d. What is the sustainability of each new technology at large scale (economics,natural resources, air pollution, biogeophysical and biogeochemical impacts)?

e. What are the lowest cost and most politically feasible approaches to incentivize the needed transformations, and what is the impact of using more costly approaches?Task 2. Integrating science, technology, economics and policy to meet the challenge

a. What combinations of sustainable technologies, technology cost reductions,climate response uncertainty reductions, short-lived forcer reductions, and incentivizingapproaches will enable achievement of the (probabilistic) 2°C challenge at lowest cost?

b. Based on these combinations, what are the highest priorities for futuredevelopment that will yield the greatest return on investments to meet the 2°C challenge?

  After several years of research, estimates of the cost of Carbon Capture & Sequestration (CCS) have risen substantially.   Entry of China and other countries into the Nuclear Power Sector has lowered costs and increased the future viability of Nuclear at least in Developing Countries.   Current & projected costs of solar power (manufacture and installation) have steadily decreased, and to a lesser extent of wind power, but intermittency remains a challenge for both.   Expectations for affordable biofuels (cellulosic in particular) and to a lesser extent biomass electricity have grown.

SOME RECENT TRENDS IN THE VIABILITY OF LOW & ZERO EMISSIONS TECHNOLOGIES THAT INFLUENCE OUR RESULTS

USE IGSM-EPPA MODEL THAT: RESOLVES ALL MAJOR NATIONAL ECONOMIES AND TRADE BETWEEN THEM, HAS VERY

DETAILED ENERGY AND NON-ENERGY SECTORAL TREATMENTS, & INCLUDES INTER-INDUSTRY STRUCTURE, VINTAGING OF CAPITAL & INTERNATIONAL TRADE SPECIFICATION

USE A POLICY THAT PLACES A COST ON EMISSIONS: CARBON PRICE RISES FROM 50, 100 & 150 $/tonCO2-eq in 2010 to 1400, 2800 & 4200 $/tonCO2-eq in 2100

FOR LOW, MEDIUM & HIGH CLIMATE RESPONSE RESPECTIVELY.

USE IGSM-MESM WHICH HAS EXPLICIT TREATMENTS OF: CO2 & NON-CO2 EMISSIONS BY NATION & SECTOR,

GREENHOUSE GAS & AIR POLLUTANT CHEMICAL CYCLES, RADIATIVE FORCING, & UNCERTAINTY IN CLIMATE RESPONSE TO GREENHOUSE GASES

A “PRELIMINARY EXPLORATION” OF THE 2OC CHALLENGE

1900 2000 2100 2200 2300

Time (years)

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

Su

rfac

e T

emp

erat

ure

Ch

ange

(C

)

e5_policy_150_2015_p0_r0 CS=4.5 e5_policy_100_2015_p0_r0 CS=3.0e5_policy_50_2015_p0_r0 CS=2.0

OBS

Global Average Surface Temperature Change (OC)

Total Greenhouse Gases (ppm CO2 equivalents)

THE 2OC CHALLENGE, contd. CHOOSE COMBINATIONS OF: POLICY COST (CARBON PRICE in 2010 & 2100, in 2010 US$/tonCO2-eq)

and LOW, MEDIUM OR HIGH CLIMATE RESPONSE (labeled by 2, 3, 4.5 OC climate sensitivities) THAT ACHIEVE THE TARGET. After 2100 all human GHG emissions decrease at 1%/year. (Prinn, Paltsev, Sokolov & Chen calculations)

2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300

Time (years)

350.00

400.00

450.00

500.00

550.00

600.00

650.00

700.00

Equ

ival

ent

CO

2 co

ncen

trat

ion

(ppm

)

e5_policy_150_2015_p0_r0 CS=4.5 e5_policy_100_2015_p0_r0 CS=3.0e5_policy_50_2015_p0_r0 CS=2.0

Low Climate Response Low Price: $50-1400/tonC

Medium Climate Response Medium Price: $100-2800/tonC

High Climate Response High Price: $150-4200/tonC

PRELIMINARY EXPLORATION COMBINATIONS OF POLICY (CARBON PRICE in 2010 & 2100 in 2010 USA $/

tonCO2-eq) & CLIMATE RESPONSE (2, 3, 4.5 OC climate sensitivities) THAT

ACHIEVE TARGET.

As carbon price rises, the fraction of energy from low/zero emission technologies

rises (renewables [wind, solar, biofuel], hydro,

nuclear) relative to fossil.

$50-$1400/ton, Low Response

$100-$2800/ton, Medium Response $150-$4200/ton, High Response

As carbon price rises, energy

use decreases due to higher

energy efficiency.

Global Total Energy Use (Exa-Joules per year) by Production Technology.

Emerging competition for land and water resources

(biofuels, biomass electric power,

hydropower, forestry, food, thermal cooling.)

In all National Groups, as the carbon price rises, the fraction of energy from low

& zero emission technologies (renewables

[wind, solar, biofuel], hydro, nuclear) rises.

As carbon price rises, the energy use decreases in

Developed Nations but increases in Other G20 Nations. Rest of World

is mixed.

Total Energy Use (EJ/year) by Production Technology & National Grouping for $100-2800/ton Cost, &

Medium Climate Response Case

Industrial-isation &

population growth drive increases in

Non-Developed Nation energy.

DEVELOPED NATIONS (USA, EU, Japan, etc.)

REST OF WORLD (Middle East, Africa, etc.)

OTHER G20 NATIONS (China, India, Brazil, etc.)

PRELIMINARY EXPLORATION COMBINATIONS OF POLICY (CARBON PRICE in

2010 & 2100 in 2010 USA $/tonCO2-eq) & CLIMATE RESPONSE (2, 3, 4.5 OC climate

sensitivities) THAT ACHIEVE TARGET.

  Keeping future global average surface temperatures less than 2OC above preindustrial is feasible, but the technological, economic and political challenges are very large.   Decrease consumption of energy through increases in energy efficiency: buildings, urban infrastructure, air, land and sea transportation, and transportation systems.   Transform primary energy generation: biofuels, biomass electricity, fossil or biomass with carbon capture & sequestration (CCS), geothermal, hydro, nuclear, solar, waves and wind.   Match energy supply and demand in an energy system with significant intermittency: energy transmission (the grid), secondary fuels (hydrogen) and energy storage (batteries, pumped storage).   Engage technologies to reduce non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions: methane, nitrous oxide, synthetic high technology gases.   Affordable technologies for CCS also provide a “safety valve” allowing large scale biomass electric power generation with CCS to create a gigatons/year carbon sink.   Economic and political barriers motivate adoption of national & global policies that use market mechanisms to minimize costs and revenue neutrality to gain acceptance.   Achieving the 2OC target has significant air pollution reduction co-benefits.   The many difficulties in achieving the 2OC target argue for substantial efforts in adaptation in concert with mitigation.

2OC CHALLENGE SOME PRELIMINARY THOUGHTS REGARDING IT’S ACHIEVEMENT

The Food, Energy, Water Nexus: Enhancing the Representation of Agriculture in the IGSM

Framework

2

Goal: Improve the biophysical and economic representation of agricultural sector as it affects land use, GHG emissions,

water, and energy

Aggregation in the Standard EPPA model

3

Regions Industries Production factorsUnited States Crops CapitalCanada Livestock LaborJapan Forestry Coal resourcesAustralia-New Zealand Food Oil resourcesEuropean Union Coal Gas resourcesEastern Europe Crude Oil Crop landRussia plus Refined Oil Harvested Forest landMexico Gas Natural forest landChina Electricity Managed pastureIndia Energy Intensive Industry Natural grass landEast Asia Other IndustryRest of Asia ServicesAfrica Commercial TransportationMiddle East Household TransportationBrazilLatin America

C l d

Extending Land Types

4

Regions Industries Production factorsUnited States Crops CapitalCanada Livestock LaborJapan Forestry Coal resourcesAustralia-New Zealand Food Oil resourcesEuropean Union Coal Gas resourcesEastern Europe Crude Oil Rain-fed Crop landRussia plus Refined Oil Irrigated Crop landMexico Gas Harvested Forest landChina Electricity Natural forest landIndia Energy Intensive Industry Managed pastureEast Asia Other Industry Natural grass landRest of Asia ServicesAfrica Commercial TransportationMiddle East Household TransportationBrazilLatin America

5

282 Water Basins Interact with 17 EPPA Regions

Effect of Water Limits on Land, bil hectares

Greater increase in rainfed than reduction in irrigated—irrigated more productive (Total expansion: .20 (prop.); .21 (current); .23 (80%)

Prelim. Results: Irrigation Constraints

in EPPA

Basin-Specific Assessment of Irrigation Expansion Potential

+ storage+ efficient sprinkler+ canal lining

6

CoalGasRefined oilHydroNuclearWindSolarBiomassNatural gas combined cycleIntegrated gasification combined cycle

Regions IndustriesUnited States CropsCanada LivestockJapan ForestryAustralia-New Zealand FoodEuropean Union Coal Eastern Europe Crude OilRussia plus Refined Oil Mexico GasChina Electricity India Energy Intensive IndustryEast Asia Other IndustryRest of Asia ServicesAfrica Commercial TransportationMiddle East Household TransportationBrazilLatin America

Sectoral Aggregation in the EPPA model

7

Conventional gasGas from shaleGas from sandstoneGas from coalSynthetic gas



Conventional crudeOil from shaleOil sands

8

ICE vehiclesPlug-in hybridsElectric vehiclesCNG vehicles



From crude oilCellulosic ethanol1st gen biofuels2nd gen cellulosicThermochemical

9

Regions IndustriesUnited States LivestockCanada CropsJapan ForestryAustralia-New Zealand FoodEuropean Union Coal Eastern Europe Crude OilRussia plus Refined Oil Mexico GasChina Electricity India Energy Intensive IndustryEast Asia Other IndustryRest of Asia ServicesAfrica Commercial TransportationMiddle East Household TransportationBrazilLatin America

Paddy RiceWheatOther grainsVegetables, fruits,

& nutsOil SeedsSugar Cane, BeetFiber CropsGrass BiomassWoody BiomassOther Crops

Extending Ag. & Forests in the EPPA model

ConstructionOther Services

Cement, etcIron & steelMetal ProductsOther EIT

Goal: Crops and Forest Product

Uses

EarthSystem

OCEANDynamical, Biological and

Chemical Processes

SEA ICEThermodynamical andDynamical Processes

LANDHydrology, Biogeophysics,

Biogeochemistry andEcosystem Dynamics

COUPLEDSYSTEM

LAND ICEIce Sheet Dynamics and

Sea Level Rise

CHEMISTRYChemical Gases, Aerosols

and Carbon Cycle

ATMOSPHEREDynamical and Physical

Processes

- EFFICIENT -> DETAILED CHEMISTRYFLEXIBILITY TO CHANGE CLIMATE SENSITIVITY

AND STRENGTH OF AEROSOL FORCING

- TEM BIOGEOCHEMISTRY& LAND-USE CHANGE- METHANE MODEL- CROP MODEL- WATER MODEL

- SIMPLE -> FULL DYNAMICAL- FLEXIBILTY TO CHANGE OCEAN HEAT UPTAKE RATE

EarthSystem

OCEANDynamical, Biological and

Chemical Processes

SEA ICEThermodynamical andDynamical Processes

LANDHydrology, Biogeophysics,

Biogeochemistry andEcosystem Dynamics

COUPLEDSYSTEM

LAND ICEIce Sheet Dynamics and

Sea Level Rise

CHEMISTRYChemical Gases, Aerosols

and Carbon Cycle

ATMOSPHEREDynamical and Physical

Processes

Human System

CONSUMERSECTORS

PRODUCERSECTORS

PRIMARY FACTORS

GOODS & SERVICES

INCOME

EXPENDITURES

REGION A

REGION B

REGION C

TRADE FLOWSBETWEEN REGIONS

ANTHROPOGENICEMISSIONS

MORTALITY & MORBIDITY

CONCENTRATIONS OFAIR POLLUTANTS

HEALTH MODULE

PHYSICAL WATER SUPPLY,AGRICULTURE WATER NEEDS

WATER RESOURCEMANAGEMENT

MODULE

WATER AVAILABILITYFOR DOMESTIC, ENERGY AND INDUSTRIAL USE

WATER NEEDS FORDOMESTIC, ENERGY

AND INDUSTRIAL USE

IRRIGATION AVAILABILITY

AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY,BIO-ENERGY & ECOSYSTEM

PRODUCTIVITY

FERTILIZER APPLICATION,LAND-USE CHANGE

AGRICULTURE& FORESTRY

PATHWAY

LAND-USELAND COVER CHANGE

CLIMATE IMPACTS ONLAND PRODUCTIVITY

& LAND GHG EMISSIONS

LAND-USELAND COVER CHANGEIMPACT ON CLIMATE

CLIMATE & ECONOMICGROWTH IMPACTS ONIRRIGATION AVAILABILITY







CLIMATE & ECONOMICGROWTH IMPACTS ONIRRIGATION AVAILABILITY


Sergey Paltsev

MassachusettsInstitute of Technology

Cambridge, MAJune 15, 2016

China Energy and Economics Directions

Presentation to JP sponsors


China’s Shares of Global GDP, Energy, and CO2

2

GDP growth. Data Source: IMF (2016)

China in The World (2014): 17% of GDP; 27% of CO2; 23% of energy.

Primary energy use in 2014.Data source: BP (2015)

Energy CO2.Data source: BP (2015)


3


Energy Question

4

Primary energy use in China. Data source: BP (2015).

Mitigating China’s air pollution and GHG emissions requires “All-of-the Above” energy strategy

Renewables, Nuclear, Natural Gas, CCS+Emission Trading System


Renewables

5

2015:China is #1 in Wind (145 GW) and Solar PV (45 GW) capacity

2020 goals:Wind (200 GW), Solar (100 GW)

Compare with 2015 Coal (900 GW), Gas (60 GW) and Nuclear (30 GW), but note different capacity factors.

For 2014:Wind (26%)Solar (16%)Coal (54%)Nuclear (85%)

Source:Zhang and Paltsev (2016)MIT Joint Program Report 294

Source: REN21 (2016)


Nuclear

6

China: 33 reactors + 22 under construction(29GW + 22GW = 51 GW)

China has very ambitious plans for nuclear energy development

2020 – 58 GW (2015 – 24 GW)

May 2016, IAEA PRIS database

High Growth Nuclear Scenario:Source: Paltsev and Zhang (2015)

2050 – 400 reactors (80 sites)

2020-2030 annual increase – 10.2 GW

2030-2050 annual increase – 12.5 GW

Nuclear share in 2050 – 30%


Natural Gas

7

Source: Zhang and Paltsev (2016)


China’s natural gas imports

8

2014:Consumption – 185 bcmProduction – 135 bcm

Pipeline capacityCentral Asia – 30 bcmMyanmar - 12 bcmLNG capacity – 50 bcm

Pipeline importsCentral Asia – 28 bcmMyanmar – 3 bcmLNG imports – 27 bcm

2020:Pipeline capacityCentral Asia – 85 bcmRussia – 38 (+30) bcmMyanmar - 12 bcmLNG capacity – 88 bcmTotal – 223 (253) bcm

LNG projects on hold –58 bcm

To meet 10% goal – 2020 consumptionshould be 350-370 bcm

Accelerating Action on Global Climate Change

2

The Need

2

We must successfully implement COP21 (or do better) and then rapidly accelerate the pace of emissions reduction.

3

The NeedRegardless of our efforts we are likely to see climate

changing. If we do no better than COP21, the change could be substantial and so we must adapt.

A Response

4

Organize leading research institutions around the world to help implement COP21 and accelerate progress

Identify cost effective measures to meet Paris goals, demonstrate value and feasibility, with proper economic

incentives a guide for public and private investment.

Identify local vulnerabilities to changing climate and effective adaptation strategies, to guide assistance,

compensation, and private investment in infrastructure.

How: Engage Stakeholders, Create Knowledge Bases, Evaluate Proposals, Direct Financing.

Who: MIT (JP, Co-Lab, ESI, MITEI) and Global Partners (AFD, Tsinghua, Singapore, Mexico, Brazil…)


Discussion of Emerging Issues and Assessment Needs

Section 4

mit joint program sponsors meeting · mit joint program on the science and policy of global change...

Documents