XXV: policy and regulatory responses to the energy-climate problem

Transcription

1 XXV: policy and regulatory responses to the energy-climate problem

2 review there is widespread agreement that stabilization of the atmospheric CO 2 concentration at any safe level requires reduction (and then stabilization) of C emissions despite this understanding, and the known urgency of the climate change problem, there has been little meaningful policy or regulatory response delay in policy response is symptom of weak leadership on the issue and a widely held public view that tackling the climate change problem will hurt the economy MIT s John Sterman argues that this has led public to wait and see approach to climate change problem Sterman argues that this is only reasonable if there are small delays between understanding, policy actions, emissions reductions, and CO 2 and climate responses, and that damage is reversible the public needs to understand that none of this is true a number of economically viable emissions abatement options are available (given as abatement cost curves ) the US can reduce its emissions substantially via (largely costsaving) efficiency measures alone this is a leadership opportunity

3 outline consequences of EPA finding US climate/energy legislation Safe Climate Act HR 1590 (new draft 4/09) industry stance (USCAP) challenges regional (multi-state) response international response Kyoto Protocol (and successor treaty) Major Emitter Group recommendations (i.e. biased view of a climate scientist) FCQs

4 recent GHG news? EPA proposes to find GHGs in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations GHGs at unprecedented levels and are very likely the cause of observed temperature change and other climatic changes effects observed to date and projected to occur in the future include- more frequent and more intense heat waves, more wildfires, more heavy downpours and flooding, increased drought, greater sea level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, harm to agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems- are effects on public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act the proposed finding is specifically with respect to six GHGs- CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6 proposing to find that combined emissions of several of these gases from new motor vehicles are contributing to these gases in atmosphere, contributing to pollution and endangering public health April 24, 2009 at

5 EPA finding: consequences such broad regulatory authority will not be welcomed (and will spur many law suits) so legislative response is very likely i.e. finding forces Congress hand

6 climate legislation dead letter since 2007 (when a variety of bills were drafted) election cycle war economy public opinion EPA finding will lead to resurrection of some bills analysis

7 dead bills of 2007 (proposed reductions/ increases are w.r.t emissions)

8 dead bills of revived for 09 draft legislation at: acesa_discussiondraft.pdf

9 targets and offsets H.R. 1590, analysis auctions coal analysis of 1sky.org

10 transition investments H.R. 1590, analysis energy analysis of 1sky.org

11 Energy Policy 2002

12 industry action formed

13 public opinion challenge re. legislative action fell by 5-6% since last year Pew Center 2009

14 regional/state response lacking federal leadership, states and regional coalitions began acting on own beginning (generally) in 2007

15 northeastern states

16

17 California

18 western states (CA, Canada)

19 Colorado

20 international response Kyoto Protocol adopted 1997, in force 2005, ratified by 183 countries modest reduction targets for developed countries no targets for developing countries US not signed on no real penalties for non-compliance motivates carbon trading mechanism raises awareness, creates platform ( soft benefits ) 2012 successor treaty (Dec. 09 talks) Major Emitter Group 16 countries making up 80% of all emissions less wieldy, more effective than UN

21 emissions v. Kyoto targets Extrapolation after 2005 suggests industrialized participants will collectively meet target, mostly due to early-period economic declines in E. Europe and Russia. EU countries have not met individual targets (except Sweden, UK). Global emissions still rising fast due to US (non-kyoto) and developing countries (no targets). from Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency 2007

22

23 price of allowance on EU market

24 recent price of allowance on EU market Global recession (w/ price recovery):

25 international response Kyoto Protocol adopted 1997, in force 2005, ratified by 183 countries modest reduction targets for developed countries no targets for developing countries US not signed on no real penalties for non-compliance motivates carbon trading mechanism raises awareness, creates platform ( soft benefits ) 2012 successor treaty (Dec. 09 talks) Major Emitter Group 16 countries making up 80% of all emissions less wieldy, more effective than UN? binding authority? (meeting in DC yesterday and today)

26 I have found over the years that students wish to hear recommendations which they can consider in order to help form their own opinions and inform their actions The following slides provide my present thinking re. big picture recommendations (often adopted from others)

27 Recommendation #1 Moratorium on Coal-Fired Power Plants Technology w Sequestration ~ Decade Away All Plants w/o Sequestration must eventually be bulldozed (by 2030?) Efficiency Can Handle Needs during Interim (and is necessary in the long run) This should be done by Congress In interim Citizens must accomplish it borrowed from Dr. J. Hansen, well-informed US citizen

28 Recommendation #2 C tax and investment in technology and infrastructure rising tax on carbon, paid at source (POP) simple, transparent reflects true costs allows price competition from renewables funds innovation avoids cap and trade loopholes federal support for CCS federal support for improved electrical grid (replace transformers now!), as needed for reliability and future demand anyway

29 Recommendation #2 related: provide long term tax incentives for efficiency and C-free energy re-task DOE to develop new sources of energy (vs. stockpile stewardship)

30 Recommendation #3 Energy Efficiency Standards Buildings: Adopt 2030 Challenge - 50% less CO 2 fr. new/renovated buildings - endorsed by U.S. Conference of Mayors Vehicles: Adopt California Standards (or better) Remove Structural Barriers to Efficiency This needs to be legislated borrowed from Dr. J. Hansen, well-informed US citizen

31 legislate: Ford, GM & Chrysler sell hi-mpg vehicles in Canadian and European markets- why not here?

32 regulation: industry generally doesn t like but there are examples of how it can work well (let s see..)

33 from Steven Chu, LBNL

34 from Steven Chu, LBNL

35 could largely eliminate need for coal Quadrillion BTU/yr from Steven Chu, LBNL

36 from Steven Chu, LBNL

37 learning goals this is your future, get involved have a safe and enjoyable summer thank you for your attention

38 FCQs next review FINAL EXAM 4 May 1:30 PM