Climate Management - Solving the Problem Part 3 ppt

improve predictive climate models to allow investigation of a wider range of possible scenarios in order to be able to antici-pate how and where changes could happen;determine potential

 Climate management

and Europe would be on average 9°F (5°C) cooler If this extensive rent were to shut down, it would have a negative impact on the entire ocean/atmospheric system and cause adverse effects worldwide not only in ocean circulation, but also in the jet stream in the atmosphere that drives storm systems Based on evidence retrieved from ice cores

cur-in Greenland, scientists have determcur-ined that the THC has been shut down in the past and that every time it has been shut down, an abrupt climate change has occurred The chief mechanism for shutting down the THC is the addition of freshwater

The report goes on to analyze how an abrupt climate change nario could “potentially de-stabilize the geopolitical environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints such as:

sce-Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production;

Decreased availability and quality of freshwater in key regions due to shifted precipitation patterns, causing more frequent floods and drought;

Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess.”

As these conditions persist and global and local carrying ties are reduced, tensions could mount around the world, leading to two principal strategies: defensive and offensive Nations that have the resources and are in a position to do so may build fortresses around their countries, protecting and keeping the resources for themselves Less fortunate nations—especially those who share borders with war-ring nations—may engage in battle for access to food, clean water, or energy Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense priorities shift, and the goal becomes resources for survival instead of religion, ideol-ogy, or national honor

capaci-If these chains of events were to occur, it would pose new lenges for the United States Randall and Schwartz suggest that in order to be prepared to deal with such changes, it is important that the United States:

chal-1

2

3

improve predictive climate models to allow investigation of a wider range of possible scenarios in order to be able to antici-pate how and where changes could happen;

determine potential impacts of abrupt climate change, through modeling, and how it could influence food, water, and energy;

determine which countries are most vulnerable to climate change and could contribute materially to an increasingly disorderly and potentially violent world;

Identify “no-regrets” strategies such as enhancing ties for water management;

capabili-Rehearse adaptive responses;

Explore local implications;

Explore geoengineering options that control the climate

The authors advised the DoD to look at potential responses now because there is already evidence in place that global warming has reached a threshold where the THC could start to be significantly affected, such

as documented measurements of the North Atlantic being freshened

by melting glaciers, increased precipitation, and increased freshwater runoff making it substantially less salty over the past 40 years Because

of this, Randall and Schwartz recommend the report be elevated from

a scientific debate to a U.S national security concern In their research, they concluded that weather-related events can have an enormous impact on society They influence food supply, conditions in cities, availability and access of clean water, and the availability of energy.According to the Climate Action Network of Australia, climate change will probably reduce rainfall in rangeland areas, which would cause a 15-percent drop in grass productivity This could cause a reduc-tion of the average weight of cattle by about 12 percent, which would significantly reduce the world beef supply In addition, dairy cows would probably produce 30 percent less milk and insects may invade new fruit-growing areas Drinking-water supplies would also be affected, possibly causing a 10-percent reduction in water supply With this given scenario, several major food-producing regions around the world over the next 15 to 30 years may not be able to meet demand

 Climate management

When population numbers are added to the equation, the tion becomes dire Currently, more than 400 million people live in the dry, subtropical, overpopulated, and economically poor regions where the negative effect of global warming poses a severe risk to their politi-cal, economic, and social stability In other countries that completely lack resources, the situation will be even worse In these countries, it

situa-is expected that there will be mass emigration as desperate people seek better lives in regions such as the United States that have the resources available to allow them to adapt This scenario has immediate implica-tions for issues concerning food supply, health and disease, commerce and trade, and their consequences for national security What the study concluded was that large population movements are inevitable Learn-ing how to manage populations and border tensions will be critical, and new forms of security agreements dealing specifically with energy, food, and water will be needed Disruption and conflict will become an everyday way of life

Although the United States had a slow start toward addressing the global warming issue, current legislation is now percolating, and progress is slowly being made The global warming issue has also made it to the Supreme Court On April 2, 2007, in one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that the EPA now has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions The Court further stipulated that the EPA could in no manner “sidestep its authority to regulate the green-house gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.” This gives the EPA the right

to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act.

According to Justice John Paul Stevens, “The only way the agency could avoid taking further action now was if it determined that green-house gases do not contribute to climate change or provides a good explanation why it cannot or will not find out whether they do.”

The Supreme Court also heard another case concerning the Clean Air Act, giving the EPA a broader authority over factories and power plants that want to expand or increase their emissions of air pollutants Under this broader reading, they made a ruling of 9 to 0 against the Duke Energy Corporation of North Carolina in favor of the EPA, which made environmentalists ecstatic, marking a historic occurrence in the U.S Supreme Court as a positive step toward the mitigation of global warming Interestingly, since the ruling on the first case, there has been

a growing interest among various industrial groups in working with environmental organizations on proposals for emissions limits

According to a New York Times article on April 3, 2007, Dave

McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said

in response to the decision that, “The Alliance looks forward to working constructively with both Congress and the administration in addressing this issue This decision says that the EPA will be part of this process.”Although many claimed victory with the Supreme Court’s decision, not everyone was satisfied Chief Justice John G Roberts, Jr., believed the court should never have addressed the question of the agency’s legal obligations in the first place

On April 17, 2009, the EPA formally declared CO2 and five other GHGs to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare This landmark decision will now put in motion a process that will lead to the regulation of GHGs for the first time in U.S history According to the EPA, “The science supporting the proposed endangerment finding was compelling and overwhelming.” The decision received diverse reac-tions Many Republicans in Congress and industry spokesmen warned that regulation of CO2 emissions would raise energy costs and kill jobs Democrats and environmental advocates, however, said the decision was long overdue and would bring long-term social and economic benefits

 Climate management

Lisa P Jackson, the EPA administrator, said, “This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations Fortunately, it follows President Obama’s call for a low- carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation.”

The ruling will be followed by a grace period for comments to be made and legislation to emerge from Congress Once this has occurred, the EPA will determine specific targets for reductions of heat-trapping gases and new requirements for energy efficiency in vehicles, power plants, and industry At that point, the EPA will begin the process of regulating the climate-altering substances under the Clean Air Act

A New York Times article of December 18, 2007, stated that the

Congress plans to create a huge new industry with the purpose of verting agricultural wastes and other plant material into fuel, citing as its primary motive the reduction of the nation’s dependence on foreign sources of oil and the cutting back of greenhouse gas generation What Congress is proposing has far-reaching objectives—the fuel types pro-posed have not been produced commercially in the United States before and not everyone backs the idea Some critics claim the technology is immature, the economics are uncertain, hundreds of new factories will

con-be required, and a huge capital investment will con-be necessary

According to Mark Flannery, head of energy equity research at Credit Suisse, when asked about the plan’s feasibility: “It’s not clear that

it is doable, but it wasn’t clear you could send a man to the moon, either You don’t know until you try.”

Historically, Washington’s efforts in finding new solutions to energy demand and efficiency were to develop more fuel-efficient cars, not alternative-fuel cars, making this new approach by Congress significant Other portions of the bill are equally groundbreaking The bill calls for

a significant increase in the amount of ethanol used in the nation’s fuel supply Congress is proposing to double the nation’s current level of production to 15 billion gallons (57 billion l) It also foresees that by

2022, an additional 21 billion gallons (79 billion l) a year of ethanol

or other biofuels will be produced by developing technology that can

obtain useful energy from biomass such as straw, tree trimmings, corn

stubble, and even common garbage

Another reason why political involvement is crucial is that in order to accomplish these goals, the nation’s key scientists and busi-ness leaders will need political and financial support to successfully deal with the technical, environmental, and logistical obstacles they will encounter.

Martin Keller, the director of the Department of Energy (DOE) BioEnergy Science Center at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, said, “We have the opportunity to revolutionize the way we create fuel for transportation If we focus on this, we can replace between 30–50 percent of our gasoline consumption with new biofuels.”

Christopher G Standlee, executive vice president of Abengoa Bioenergy remarked, “It certainly is a challenge, but an achieveable challenge.”

Under the new legislation, corn ethanol use would reach 15 lion gallons (57 billion l) by 2015 Mandates for next-generation bio-fuel use would reach 9 billion gallons (34 billion l) in 2017 and 21 billion gallons (79 billion l) by 2022 The bill does contain an escape clause, allowing the government to modify the mandates if they do not prove feasible

bil-The measure is not without uncertainty or critics Some have expressed concern at the short time line of only five to 15 years According to Aaron Brady, an ethanol expert at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, “Congress is making the assumption that the technology will appear To make billions of gallons of next-generation biofuels, a lot of things have to go right within the space of only a few years.”

Brady estimates that more than 100 additional corn ethanol plants will be required, along with at least 200 other biomass fuel plants, a number that could rise depending on how technology develops He also figures that 700,000 tons (635,000 metric tons) of biomass would be needed each year for a distillery to produce 50 million gallons (189 mil-lion l) of ethanol, which adds up in energy costs to transport it

Some environmentalists remain uneasy because ethanol produced from corn still requires energy and fertilizer involving the use of natu-ral gas, oil, and coal Some food producers argue that the plan would require growing 20 million more acres (8 million ha) of corn—leaving

global warming Pollution reduction act of 2007

The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007 (S.309), also known as the Sanders-Boxer bill, was proposed as a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of CO2 Introduced in the 110th Con-gress by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) on January 15, 2007, it was based on the increasing scientific evidence that

“global warming is a serious threat to both the national security and economy of the United States, to public health and welfare, and to the global environment; and that action can and must be taken soon to begin the process of reducing emissions substantially over the next 50 years.” The bill is considered the most aggressive bill on global warming and is backed by former vice president Al Gore

The bill listed several targets, incentives, and requirements that the EPA would employ to reduce emissions and help stabilize global concentrations of GHGs The bill set a goal of reducing U.S green-house gas emissions to a stable global concentration below 450 ppm—

a level advised by leading global warming scientists It required the United States to reduce its emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and make additional reductions between 2020 and 2050 Specifically, by 2030, the United States would have to reduce its emissions by one-third of

80 percent below 1990 levels; by 2040, emissions must be reduced by two-thirds of 80 percent below 1990 levels; and by 2050, emissions must be reduced to a level that is 80 percent below 1990 levels The National Academy of Sciences would be the reporting agency to the EPA and Congress

The bill also included a combination of economywide reduction targets, mandatory measures, and incentives for the development and diffusion of cleaner technologies to achieve the goals The bill also con-tained the following items:

vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards;

power plant greenhouse gas emissions standards;

standards for geologic disposal of greenhouse gases;

global warming research and development;

energy efficiency standards in electricity generation;

reporting system for global warming pollutants;

clean energy task force to support development and mentation of low-carbon technology programs

imple-The bill was never passed into law although it was proposed in sessions

of Congress for the past two years It can be reintroduced The sure was supported by several environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the National Audubon Society, and the Union of Concerned Scientists

mea-global warming wildlife survival act

The Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act was introduced in the House and the Senate in 2007 However, it has since died in committee

The Consolidated appropriations act of 2008

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, which became lic Law 110-161 on December 26, 2007, directed the EPA to develop

Pub-a mPub-andPub-atory reporting rule for greenhouse gPub-ases The mePub-asure wPub-as included in a $500 billion omnibus budget that was signed into law by President Bush and will require U.S companies to report their green-house gas emissions The law did not specify, however, which industries must report or how often they must report

Overall, the EPA would inventory approximately 85 to 90 percent

of U.S GHG emissions—from about 13,000 facilities across the nation The GHGs included in the inventory include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and other fluorinated gases, includ-ing nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and hydrofluorinated ethers (HFEs) Collected data will include the total GHG emissions from all sources as well as each gas by category Once a facility has met the requirements in one year, that facility will continue to report GHG emissions in future years Companies must reevaluate each facility’s emissions whenever

0 Climate management

there is a process change or other change that may increase the facility’s emissions Facilities that fail to satisfy the reporting requirements are subject to enforcement and penalties under the Clean Air Act

According to the EPA, data collected would be used in future policy decisions and serve as a benchmark to measure annual progress toward emissions reduction targets This action is viewed as a first step toward

a massive, comprehensive national climate change regulation

The EPA recommends that as companies work to comply with the proposed rule, they should remain focused on the global issue of cli-mate change and the necessity to prepare for possible further federal mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions They stress that due to the importance of this issue, reducing emissions is not just a question

of compliance; it is now the foundation of business performance From now on, it should be viewed as part of the cost of doing business.Because this act represents the first major step toward national comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions regulation, the EPA has pro-posed some guidelines in order to calculate an initial baseline emission measurement Any owner or operator of a facility in the United States that directly emits GHG from specific source categories or emits 27,558 tons (25,000 metric tons) or more of CO2 emissions annually from sta-tionary combustion will be required to report emissions data under the regulation The first report would be due in 2011 for calendar year 2010 Exempt from this are motor vehicle and engine manufacturers, which would start their reporting for model year 2011 The EPA has identified the following types of businesses that would be required to report their GHG emissions (See table on opposite page.)

The effective date of this rule is 60 days after the rule is published

in the Federal Register The Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule was published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009, and

became effective on December 29, 2009 The final rule was changed slightly from its April 2009 version For example, it now exempts research and development activities from reporting, adds additional monitor-ing options, and requires more data to be reported rather than kept as records so that the EPA can more easily verify reported emissions.The EPA also foresees a future role for the individual states that are already ahead in reporting and controlling emissions It views these states as an asset for education States could take the role in educating the

public and businesses and ensuring compliance In addition, the House and Senate are currently working on a plan that is intended to posi-tion the United States as a global leader on climate change policy at the post-Kyoto discussions to take place in Copenhagen in December 2009 Progressive estimates place implementation of any such U.S legislation dealing with climate change to take effect no later than 2012 or 2013.

Businesses required to report ghg emissions under the

fY 2008 Consolidated appropriations act

SECTOR REPORTERS

electricity generation power plants

transportation vehicle and engine manufacturers

industrial all large industrial emitters, including those in

the following industries:

• metals iron and steel, aluminum, magnesium,

ferroalloy, zinc, and lead

• minerals cement, lime, glass, silicon carbide, pulp, and

paper

• chemicals hCFC-22, ammonia, nitric acid, adipic acid,

SF6 from electrical equipment, hydrogen, petrochemicals, titanium dioxide, soda ash, phosphoric acid, electronics

• oil and gas components of oil and gas systems (e.g.,

refineries), underground coal mining other landfills, wastewater treatment, ethanol, food

processing agriculture manure management

upstream suppliers petroleum refineries, gas processors, natural

gas distribution companies, coal mines, importers, industrial gases

Source: Environmental Protection Agency

 Climate management

american Clean energy and security act of 2009

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES Act, H.R 2454) was passed by the U.S House of Representatives by a vote of 219 to 212,

on June 26, 2009 Also referred to as the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Bill (it was proposed by Rep Henry Waxman [D-CA] and Rep Edward Markey [D-MA]), it contains five distinct titles: (I) clean energy, (II) energy efficiency, (III) global warming pollution reduction, (IV) tran-sitioning to a clean energy economy, and (V) agriculture and forestry related offsets

Title I has provisions related to federal renewable electricity and efficiency standards, carbon capture and storage technology, stan-dards for new power plants that use coal, research and development for electric vehicles, and support for the development of the electric smart-grid Title II provides provisions related to building, appliance, lighting, and vehicle energy efficiency programs Title IV hosts provi-sions to preserve domestic competitiveness and support workers, pro-vide assistance to consumers, and provide assistance for domestic and international adaptation initiatives Titles III and V deal with a GHG cap-and-trade program

The bill covers seven greenhouse gases: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride Emitters that would be included under the regula-tion would include large stationary sources emitting more than 27,558 tons (25,000 metric tons) per year of GHGs; producers (i.e., refineries) and importers of all petroleum fuels; distributors of natural gas to resi-dential, commercial and small industrial users (i.e., local gas distribu-tion companies); producers of “F-gases”; and other specified sources The proposal also calls for regulations to limit black carbon emissions

in the United States (black carbon is formed through the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuel, and biomass and is emitted in both anthropogenic and naturally occurring soot)

The bill has set up progressive targets over time It establishes sion caps that would reduce aggregate GHG emissions for all involved facilities to 3 percent below their 2005 levels in 2012, 17 percent below

emis-2005 levels in 2020, 42 percent below emis-2005 levels in 2030, and 83 cent below 2005 levels in 2050 Commercial production and imports of

per-HFCs would be addressed under Title VI of the existing Clean Air Act and are covered under a separate cap.

The bill also uses the value of emission allowances to offset the cost impact to consumers and workers, to aid businesses in transitioning

to clean energy technologies, to support technology development and deployment, and to support activities aimed at building communities that are more stable against climate change It is also designed to pro-tect consumers from higher energy prices Low- and moderate-income households will receive a refundable tax credit or rebate In the first few years of the cap-and-trade program, about 20 percent of the allowances will be auctioned This percentage will increase over time to about 70 percent by 2030 The bill still needs to be voted on and passed in the Senate and signed into law by the president

national Fuel efficiency Policy

On May 19, 2009, President Obama—for the first time in history—set

in motion a new national policy aimed at both increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks sold

in the United States The new standards, covering model years 2012 to

2016, and ultimately requiring an average fuel economy standard of 35.5 MPG in 2016, are projected to save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program with a fuel economy gain averaging more than

5 percent per year and a reduction of approximately 900 million metric tons in greenhouse gas emissions This would surpass the CAFE law passed by Congress in 2007 requiring an average fuel economy of 35 MPG in 2020

“In the past, an agreement such as this would have been considered impossible,” said President Obama “That is why this announcement is

so important, for it represents not only a change in policy in ton, but the harbinger of a change in the way business is done in Wash-ington And at a time of historic crises in our auto industry, this rule provides the clear certainty that will allow these companies to plan for a future in which they are building the cars of the 21st century.”

Washing-President Obama also said that the changes necessary to achieve better efficiency would cost consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle starting in 2016, but drivers would be saving at the pump He estimated

 Climate management

that a typical driver would save $2,800 over the lifetime of a car, ing gasoline costs around $3.50 per gallon by then He also stressed that the increased miles per gallon should cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 992 million tons (900 million metric tons), which is equiva-lent to shutting down 194 coal plants What the plan means for mileage per gallon is as follows: while the 30 percent increase translates to a 35.5 MPG average for both cars and light trucks, the percentage increase in cars would be greater, rising from the current 27.5 MPG standard to 39 MPG starting in 2016 The average for light trucks would rise from 24 MPG to 30 MPG For 2009 car models, however, according to MSNBC (5/19/09), the industry has really averaged 32.6 MPG; and if all goes

assum-as planned, by 2016 Americans can expect dozens of hybrid, plug-in hybrid and even all-electric vehicle models The national program will

be finalized once the Department of Transportation and the EPA ize the specifics, followed by a public review period

Throughout the United States and the world, regions are adopting

policies in an attempt to make progress against climate change Positive actions include increasing renewable energy generation, sell-ing agricultural carbon credits, and encouraging energy efficiency The positive effects of these are reducing vulnerability to energy price spikes, promoting development of local economies, and improving air quality This chapter examines cap and trade as a policy tool and how the carbon trading market works in an international arena and looks at the need for global action and what will be the economic implications

It also explores some of the activities individual states are undergoing in

an effort to combat global warming

CaP and Trade

Cap and trade is “an environmental policy tool that delivers results with

a mandatory cap on emissions.” The cap is the foundation on which the

3

Cap and Trade and

Other Mitigation

Strategies