Http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 1 Global Climate Change: Evolving Science, Emerging Policy David G. Victor...

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


3


4


5


6


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.


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


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



North Atlantic Turnover is Slowing (?)North Atlantic Turnover is Slowing (?)


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.


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


Amazon Forest: Drying Climate Increases Amazon Forest: Drying Climate Increases Risk of Superfires?Risk of Superfires?


Ecosystem ConversionEcosystem Conversion


Adaptation or Mitigation?Adaptation or Mitigation?


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


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


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


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



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.


How Well is Kyoto Working?How Well is Kyoto Working?


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


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)


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


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


What’s Really Happening…What’s Really Happening…


Actual and Projected EU-15 GHG emissions Compared with Kyoto Target for 2008–2012, Including Kyoto Mechanisms

Sources: EEA


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.


U.S. Regional InitiativesU.S. Regional Initiatives

Source: www.pewclimate.org


States with GHG Reporting and RegistriesStates with GHG Reporting and Registries

Source: www.pewclimate.org. As of March 2006.


States with GHG Emissions TargetsStates with GHG Emissions Targets

Source: www.pewclimate.org. As of May 2006.


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.


Renewable Portfolio StandardsRenewable Portfolio Standards

Source: www.pewclimate.org.


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 %


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


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



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


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


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.


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


Company InitiativesCompany Initiatives


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)


COCO22 Capture Capture


AEP Ohio River Valley COAEP Ohio River Valley CO22 Storage Project - Storage Project - Mountaineer PlantMountaineer Plant


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


New Ways to Burn Coal:New Ways to Burn Coal:Many Routes to Electricity Without Any COMany Routes to Electricity Without Any CO22


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



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



FutureGen Industrial AllianceFutureGen Industrial Alliance


Nuclear Power: Electricity without CONuclear Power: Electricity without CO22


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”


Supplemental SlidesSupplemental Slides


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


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%


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%


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 %

Http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 1 Global Climate Change: Evolving Science, Emerging Policy David G. Victor...

Documents

Transcript of Http://pesd.stanford.edu/ 1 Global Climate Change: Evolving Science, Emerging Policy David G. Victor...