http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 1 global climate change: evolving science, emerging policy david g. victor...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
http://pesd.stanford.edu/
Global Climate Change:Global Climate Change:Evolving Science, Emerging PolicyEvolving Science, Emerging Policy
David G. Victor15 June 2006
Program on Energy & Sustainable Development
Stanford University
2
http://pesd.stanford.edu/
3
http://pesd.stanford.edu/
4
http://pesd.stanford.edu/
5
http://pesd.stanford.edu/
6
http://pesd.stanford.edu/
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 7
Heinrich and non-Heinrich Periods:Heinrich and non-Heinrich Periods:Schematic View of Ice Flow and SedimentationSchematic View of Ice Flow and Sedimentation
John T. Andrews, Thomas G. Andrews and Lisa M. Lixey. 2001. “Heinrich Events,” NOAA Paleoclimatology Program.
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 8
Heinrich EventsHeinrich Events(H-1, approx 15,000 years ago)(H-1, approx 15,000 years ago)
John T. Andrews, Thomas G. Andrews and Lisa M. Lixey. 2001. “Heinrich Events,” NOAA Paleoclimatology Program.Photo: Bedford Institute of Oceonagraphy
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 9
Heinrich Events:Heinrich Events:“teleconnected climate” in the whole “teleconnected climate” in the whole North Atlantic region?North Atlantic region?
John T. Andrews, Thomas G. Andrews and Lisa M. Lixey. 2001. “Heinrich Events,” NOAA Paleoclimatology Program.
10
http://pesd.stanford.edu/
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 11
North Atlantic Turnover is Slowing (?)North Atlantic Turnover is Slowing (?)
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 12
Abrupt Climate Change and FeedbackAbrupt Climate Change and Feedback
Source: Reprinted from Foley, Jonathan A. (2005) “Tipping Points in the Tundra.” Science. 310: 627-8. Quirin Schiermeier, Munich. (2005) “Past climate comes into focus but warm forecast stays put.” Nature. 433: 562-3.
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 13
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)~ 55 Mya~ 55 Mya
• Extreme and rapid (~10-20 kyr) warming; ~5 to 10°C Tropic/Polar SST, +4-5°C deep sea
• Elevated humidity/precipitation in mid- to high latitudes• Changes in the diversity and distribution of marine and terrestrial biota
Expansion of tropical/subtropical fauna/flora into high latitudesMass extinctionMammalian dispersal/faunal reorganization
+8
+5
+8
+5
Source: James Zachos
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 14
Amazon Forest: Drying Climate Increases Amazon Forest: Drying Climate Increases Risk of Superfires?Risk of Superfires?
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 15
Ecosystem ConversionEcosystem Conversion
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 16
Adaptation or Mitigation?Adaptation or Mitigation?
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 17
Who Emits Greenhouse GasesWho Emits Greenhouse GasesToday and tomorrowToday and tomorrow
Western Europe
Canada
United States
ChinaFormer Soviet
Union
Other Asia
Middle East
Japan
India
Africa
Eastern Europe
Other Central/South America
2002
2020
Source: EIA
18
http://pesd.stanford.edu/
Per-Capita Emissions of CO2(Burning of fossil fuels and cement production, 1999)
5.5
3.93
2.69 2.63 2.49 2.46 2.29 2.04 2
1.050.61
0.3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
USA
Canad
a
Russia
Germ
any
Japa
nUK
Korea
Ukrain
eIta
ly
Mex
ico
China
India
met
ric
ton
nes
Car
bo
n p
er p
erso
n
Data source: Gregg Marland, Tom Boden, and Bob AndresOak Ridge National Laboratory, University of North Dakota
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 19
International Treaties: International Treaties: Framework Convention System: UNFCCCFramework Convention System: UNFCCC
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change– signed in 1992 (“Earth Summit”)
• Content– Avoid “…dangerous anthropogenic interference…” in the climate system– Industrialized Nations
• Aim to stabilize emissions at 1990 levels• Pay into a fund to compensate developing countries• File reports
– Developing Countries• Compensated with “agreed incremental cost” of compliance• File reports
• All Countries Agree to Keep Talking
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 20
International Treaties: International Treaties: Framework Convention System: KyotoFramework Convention System: Kyoto
• Treaty signed in 1997; finalized in 2001
• Basket of six greenhouse gases (not just CO2) • Emission Cuts for 38 industrialized countries
• Against 1990 baseline: +10% to -8% (average: 5.2% cut)• “targets and timetables”• Applies only to 2008-2012 “budget period”
• Developing countries exempt• “opt in” through Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
• “What, When and Where Flexibility”
21
http://pesd.stanford.edu/
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 22
Properties of Major Greenhouse GasesProperties of Major Greenhouse Gases
GASCHEMICAL
COMP’N
RADIATIVE EFFICIENCY (Wm-2ppb-1)
LIFETIME (yrs)Forcing in 2100
(% of increase)
Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.000015 ~100 73%
Methane CH4 0.00037 ~12 10%
Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.0031 114 4%
CFC-12 CCl2F2 0.32 100 -3%
HFC-134a CH2FCF3 0.15 13.8 1%
Sulfur Hexafluoride SF6 0.52 3,200 1%
PFCs e.g., CF4 0.08 50,000 1%
CO2 does not have a single lifetime—some processes that remove CO2 occur rapidly; others require centuries. The values for CH4 and N20 are adjustment times including feedbacks of emission on lifetimes. CO2 radiative forcing is for small changes from current concentrations (370 ppmv). 2050 radiative forcing calculations are % of total anthropogenic (including ozone depletion effects) for SRES B2 scenario, total forcing in 2100 of 3.73 Wm-2. Other Scenarios do not much affect the allocation of forcing among these gases.
Source: IPCC Working Group 1. 2001. Tables 6.7 & 6.14.
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 23
How Well is Kyoto Working?How Well is Kyoto Working?
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 24
Why the United States Left Kyoto:Why the United States Left Kyoto: Trajectories and Kyoto Commitments Trajectories and Kyoto Commitments
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
MtC
O2
BPAmoco_HHV
IIASA/WEC
Oak Ridge
EIA
IEA_LHV
Official FCCC baseyear
USA
EU15
Japan
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 25
Why the United States Left Kyoto:Why the United States Left Kyoto: Trajectories and Kyoto Commitments Trajectories and Kyoto Commitments
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
MtC
O2
BPAmoco_HHV
IIASA/WEC
Oak Ridge
EIA
IEA_LHV
Official FCCC baseyear
USA
EU15
Japan
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 26
Consequences of Consequences of Allocating Permits Allocating Permits to Countries with to Countries with Different Marginal Different Marginal Abatement Costs:Abatement Costs:
Huge Revenue Huge Revenue FlowsFlows
0.0
1.5
3.0
4.5
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050
0.0
1.5
3.0
4.5
2050
The Kyoto Protocol’s Impact on Industrialized Countries:Energy-related Carbon Emissions
Ann
u al e
mis
s io n
s ( G
tC)
A1A2
A3
B
C1
C2
Ann
u al e
mis
s io n
s ( G
tC)
A1
A2
A3
B
C1C2
Other Annex 1 countries (North America, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand)
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030
Reforming countries(Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union)
IIASA/WEC “Middle Course”
IIASA/WEC “Middle Course”Kyoto target
-7.4% of 1990 level(2.7 GtC deficit)
Kyoto Target:+0.6% of 1990 level(1.7 GtC surplus)
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 27
Data Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Maddison, A. (2004)
Carbon Intensity of Major EconomiesCarbon Intensity of Major Economies
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020
gra
ms
Ca
rbo
n (
gC
) p
er
19
90
In
tern
atio
na
l Ge
ary
-Kh
am
is d
olla
r
China
USA
South AfricaUK
France
Brazil
India
Mexico
Japan
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 28
Fraction of CDM Pipeline by Project TypeFraction of CDM Pipeline by Project Type
Source: Michael Wara. (CERs supplied to Dec. 31, 2012)
Other1%
Energy Efficiency3%
Biomass7%
Wastewater CH41%
Livestock CH44%
Landfill CH414%
HFC2338%
Wind5%
Industrial Process3%
Cement Process3%
Hydro5%
Adipic/Nitric N2011%
Oil Field CH44%
Coal Mine CH40%
Fuel Switching1%
Landfill CH4Livestock CH4Wastewater CH4Oil Field CH4Coal Mine CH4HFC23Adipic/Nitric N20BiomassHydroWindCement ProcessIndustrial ProcessFuel SwitchingEnergy EfficiencyOther
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 29
What’s Really Happening…What’s Really Happening…
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 30
Actual and Projected EU-15 GHG emissions Compared with Kyoto Target for 2008–2012, Including Kyoto Mechanisms
Sources: EEA
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 31
A Fragmented Response:A Fragmented Response:Emerging Carbon CurrenciesEmerging Carbon Currencies
Sources: PointCarbon, International Emissions Trading Association
(10)
(5)
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Jan-01 May-02 Sep-03 Feb-05 Jun-06 Nov-07
$/M
etric
Ton
ne C
O2
Volume (MTCO2)
1.5 million
500,000
125,000
50,000
EU
PCF CCX
CDMNSW
UK
CCX volumes are monthly and prices are monthly weighted averages.
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 32
U.S. Regional InitiativesU.S. Regional Initiatives
Source: www.pewclimate.org
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 33
States with GHG Reporting and RegistriesStates with GHG Reporting and Registries
Source: www.pewclimate.org. As of March 2006.
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 34
States with GHG Emissions TargetsStates with GHG Emissions Targets
Source: www.pewclimate.org. As of May 2006.
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 35
States with a Carbon Cap or Offset States with a Carbon Cap or Offset Requirement for Power Plants Requirement for Power Plants
Source: www.pewclimate.org.
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 36
Renewable Portfolio StandardsRenewable Portfolio Standards
Source: www.pewclimate.org.
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 37
Where Do U.S. Emissions Come From?Where Do U.S. Emissions Come From?
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Tex
asC
alifo
rnia
Pen
nsyl
vani
aO
hio
Flo
rida
Indi
ana
Illin
ois
New
Yor
kLo
uisi
ana
Mic
higa
nG
eorg
iaK
entu
cky
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Ala
bam
aT
enne
ssee
New
Jer
sey
Mis
sour
iV
irgin
iaW
est V
irgin
iaW
isco
nsin
Okl
ahom
aM
inne
sota
Was
hing
ton
Ariz
ona
Col
orad
oS
outh
Car
olin
aIo
wa
Mar
ylan
dK
ansa
sM
assa
chus
etts
Uta
hA
rkan
sas
Wyo
min
gM
issi
ssip
piN
ew M
exic
oN
orth
Dak
ota
Nev
ada
Ore
gon
Neb
rask
aA
lask
aC
onne
ctic
utM
onta
naM
aine
Haw
aii
New
Ham
pshi
reD
elaw
are
Idah
oR
hode
Isla
ndV
erm
ont
DC
Mil
lio
n M
etri
c T
on
nes
CO
2
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Cu
mu
lati
ve %
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 38
U. S. Capacity Additions… 2005 to 2010U. S. Capacity Additions… 2005 to 2010
804
1,546
0
New Capacityin MW
3,001 and Above1,501 to 3,000501 to 1,5000 to 5000 to 500
2,552
1,2701,982
10,091
376
7,958
1,240
1,754
275
434 258
2,044
1,501
61
1,944
315
384
871
2,032
1,200
3,513
4,728
1,784
298
4,312
2,859
1,160 27
5,014
1,083
2,200
3,689
90
1,729
510
1,559
1,136
1,173
255
New England
345
Total = 78,386Over 78 GW of New Capacity
Source: EPRI Analysis
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 39
U. S. Capacity Additions by Year and U. S. Capacity Additions by Year and Technology, 1999 to 2014Technology, 1999 to 2014
-10,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
Other
Wind
Nuclear
Coal
Gas
Retirements
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Capacity, MW
Source: EPRI Analysis
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 40
Comparison of U.S. Federal Policy OptionsComparison of U.S. Federal Policy Options
Bingaman - Domenici Proposal
Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act
McCain - Lieberman
KyotoProtocol
Climate Initiative Bush Administration
Mandatory / Voluntary Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory Voluntary
Target Absolute based on 2.4% intensity improvement 2010-2018, after 2019
target increases stringency to 2.8%
Absolute emissions 2000 emissions level after 2010
Absolute7% below 1990 levels by
2012
Intensity target goal 18% reduction by 2012
Offsetting Emissions Allowed for Compliance
YesNot to exceed 3%
Yesnot to exceed 15% of allowance allocation
Yesno limits specified through
Kyoto, though implementing countries have discretion
N/A
Cost Cap Yes - $7 No No No
Stabilizes Emissions No(12% above 2010 levels
in 2020)
Yes
Yes
No(12% above 2000 levels
by 2012)
EIA Estimated Emissions Reductions 2025(MTCO2)
621 2180 3,800 400 (goal)
EIA Estimated Permit Price 2025 ($/TCO2)
$8.73 $36 $354 N/A
EIA Estimated Impact on real GDP2025
-0.13% ($29 billion)
-0.4%($89 billion)
-0.7%($135 billion in 2020)
N/A
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 41
Number of Climate Change Related Number of Climate Change Related Legislative Proposals: Federal GovernmentLegislative Proposals: Federal Government
0
20
40
60
80
100
105th (1997-1998) 106th (1999-2000) 107th (2001-2002) 108th (2003-2004) 109th (2005-2006)YTD
Congress
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 42
U.S. Energy R&D InvestmentU.S. Energy R&D Investment
Source: Reprinted from Daniel M. Kammen, Gregory F. Nemet. "Real Numbers: Reversing the Incredible Shrinking Energy R&D Budget." Issues in Science Technology, Volume 84, September, 2005.
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 43
Percent of World Total
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%
Arab States
Africa
SE Asia
C & E Europe
Oceania
Latin America
India & C. Asia
CIS
China
Japan and NICs
Western Europe
North America
Gross Expenditure on R&D(1994)Scientific Output (SCIPublications, 1995)Carbon Dioxide Emissions(1998)
Top Innovators and Emitters by World Top Innovators and Emitters by World RegionRegion
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 44
Company InitiativesCompany Initiatives
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 45
AEPAEP
• “IGCC technology appears to have the greatest potential for meeting AEP’s long term goals. During the course of our evaluation, the company concluded that accelerating IGCC technology development to reach commercial availability by 2015 or before must become a high priority for AEP.”
Source: AEP. “An Assessment of AEP’s Actions to Mitigate the Economic Impacts of Emissions Policies.” August 31, 2004. (http://www.aep.com/environmental/reports/shareholderreport/docs/FullReport.pdf)
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 46
COCO22 Capture Capture
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 47
AEP Ohio River Valley COAEP Ohio River Valley CO22 Storage Project - Storage Project - Mountaineer PlantMountaineer Plant
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 48
Southern Company: Southern Company: Technology and InnovationTechnology and Innovation
• Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
– Power Systems Development Facility (PSDF)• “The total plant cost for a 500-MW power plant with a
subcritical steam cycle is projected to be less than $850/kW with an efficiency of almost 47 percent (HHV). Such a plant could produce electricity more economically than a natural gas combined cycle as early as 2006.”
– Orlando Utilities Commission
• SCR Development for high alkaline ashes
• Mercury Control Research
– Full-scale testing of Activated Carbon Injection
• Development of a Fine Particulate Agglomerator
• NuStart – Nuclear Consortium
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 49
New Ways to Burn Coal:New Ways to Burn Coal:Many Routes to Electricity Without Any COMany Routes to Electricity Without Any CO22
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 50
Comparative Costs in 2010Comparative Costs in 2010
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50Cost of CO2, $/metric ton
Levelized Cost of Electricity, $/MWh
Wind@29% CF
Nuclear
PC w/o cap
IGCC w/o cap
BiomassNGCC@$6
Source: EPRI Analysis
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 51
What’s Possible: Comparative Costs in 2020What’s Possible: Comparative Costs in 2020
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50Cost of CO2, $/metric ton
Levelized Cost of Electricity, $/MWh
Nuclear
Wind Biomass
IGCC w/cap/t/sNGCC@$6
PC w/cap/t/s
Source: EPRI Analysis
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 52
FutureGen Industrial AllianceFutureGen Industrial Alliance
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 53
Nuclear Power: Electricity without CONuclear Power: Electricity without CO22
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 54
What’s Really Happening…What’s Really Happening…
• Kyoto leverage is small
– Shell game accounting
– Important political symbolism
• Real Policies being implemented “bottom up”
• U.S. notably absent
– State-based policies with limited leverage
– Some technology investment, but dangers…
– Some firm-led activities (AEP, BP, GE)
• Longer term: national policies to be “stitched together”
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 55
Supplemental SlidesSupplemental Slides
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 56
USA Primary Energy Mix, 1860-2004
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Traditional Biomass
CoalOil
Gas
Hydro Nuclear
New Renewables
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 57
Number of CDM Projects by Country Number of CDM Projects by Country as of 12/23/05as of 12/23/05(Countries with >20 projects are labeled)(Countries with >20 projects are labeled)
Brazil19%
Chile4%
China4%
India38%
Mexico5%
Philippines4%
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 58
Volume of CDM Projects (tCO2e/y) by Country Volume of CDM Projects (tCO2e/y) by Country as of 12/23/05 as of 12/23/05 (Countries with >1% Marketshare are labeled)(Countries with >1% Marketshare are labeled)
Nigeria4%
Argentina5%
Chile7%
Mexico14%
Republic of Korea11%
Brazil14%
India17%
China13%
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development - http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 59
Where do US Emissions Come From?Where do US Emissions Come From?
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Tex
asC
alifo
rnia
Pen
nsyl
vani
aO
hio
Flo
rida
Indi
ana
Illin
ois
New
Yor
kLo
uisi
ana
Mic
higa
nG
eorg
iaK
entu
cky
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Ala
bam
aT
enne
ssee
New
Jer
sey
Mis
sour
iV
irgin
iaW
est V
irgin
iaW
isco
nsin
Okl
ahom
aM
inne
sota
Was
hing
ton
Ariz
ona
Col
orad
oS
outh
Car
olin
aIo
wa
Mar
ylan
dK
ansa
sM
assa
chus
etts
Uta
hA
rkan
sas
Wyo
min
gM
issi
ssip
piN
ew M
exic
oN
orth
Dak
ota
Nev
ada
Ore
gon
Neb
rask
aA
lask
aC
onne
ctic
utM
onta
naM
aine
Haw
aii
New
Ham
pshi
reD
elaw
are
Idah
oR
hode
Isla
ndV
erm
ont
DC
Mil
lio
n M
etri
c T
on
nes
CO
2
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Cu
mu
lati
ve %
top related