PNPL 2011 Alaska

8/3/2019 PNPL 2011 Alaska

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pnpl-2011-alaska 1/6

FACTS ALASKA A M E R I C A N S E C U R I T Y P R O J E C T

Pay Now, Pay Later: Alaska

A dmittedly, the eects o climatechange, a complex and intri-cate phenomenon, are dicult

to predict with precision. Inormedscientifc and economic projections, as we have used in our research, however,

allow us to see that Alaska acessignifcant losses in industries crucialto its economy i no action is taken.

Moreover, data shows Alaska is poisedto beneft rom the research, develop-ment, and distribution o renewableenergy technologies. Alaska already supplies 24% o its energy needs withhydroelectric power, and investmentin biomass resources is encouraging.5 Tese resources ulfll a growing, but

still negligible, portion o Alaska’senergy needs.6 Energy productioncosts are expected to drop with greateremployment o wind power,7 andederal tax incentives or making theconversion have been put in place.8 Should we ail to take action againstclimate change, Alaskans have muchto lose.

In the last 50 years, temperatures in Alaska have risen at over twice the rate o the rest o theUnited States.1

The area o Alaskan orests burned by fres is expected to double by 2050 and triple or evenquadruple by the end o the century, a result o increasing temperatures and less precipita-tion.2

Alaska has massive wave power. Its southern coast alone can potentially produce 1,250 TWhper year3—more than 184 times Alaska’s current total net electricity generation. 4

Pay Later: The Cost o InactionIn 2008, roughly 50% o Alaskans worked in an industry that relied on their state’s abundant natural

resources, including shing,mining, tourism, and agriculture.9 Te Alaskan livelihood is contingentupon the preservation o its environ-ment and investment in its renewableenergy resources. Climate changecould pose signifcant challengesnot only to Alaska’s industries, butalso to the liestyles o its people andthe health o its orests, oceans, andanimals.

Climate change will not have a solely negative eect on Alaska, however. Warmer temperatures could attractmore tourists and would extend thegrowing season.10 Some fndings showthat melting permarost could decreaseconstruction costs, and melting seaice in the north could open up newshipping routes.11

However, these potential beneftscould likely be oset by the increas-ingly negative eects o climatechange.12 For example, additionaldays o warm temperatures would beaccompanied by increased precipita-

tion, drought, an increase in pestsand orest fres, and a reduction o soilmoisture caused by melting perma-rost. Moreover, 85% o the state liesupon the layer o permarost projectedto melt at an increasing rate over thecoming decades, causing damage andincreasing costs.13 Despite the uncer-tainty o climate change’s eects on Alaska, it is clear that the state acespotentially huge setbacks and hasmuch to gain by investing in cleanenergy.

Data shows Alaska is poised

to beneft rom the research,

development, and distribution o

renewable energy technologies.

Alaska already supplies 24% o its

energy needs with hydroelectric

power, and investment in biomass

resources is encouraging.

Thawing Permarost

Melting permarost is expected toadd between $3.6 and $6.1 billion to



1100 New York Avenue, NW | Suite 710W | Washington, DC 20005

202.347.4267 | www.americansecurityproject.org

Alaska’s public inrastructure costsin the next 20 years.14 Permarost,the layer o earth that remains rozenthroughout the year, is the ounda-tion on which Alaska’s inrastructureis built (including the rans-AlaskaPipeline System, APS)—and it isthawing. As a result, roads, water andsewer inrastructure, landing strips,

and APS will require signifcantadditional maintenance.15

APS covers 800 miles as it runs romPrudhoe Bay on the northern coast toValdez in the south, and almost hal rests upon permarost.16 Certainly,at some uture date, investment inrenewable energies would negatively aect North Slope oil productionand an industry that generates 35%o the Alaskan gross state product.17

Problems already exist, however;between 1970 and 2002, the numbero days hospitable to oil drilling and exploration were nearly cut in hal due to the thawing permarost .18 By late century, strains on the industry are likely to be signifcantly worse; orexample, Seward Peninsula is projectedto be largely thawing or permarost-ree by this time.19

Forests

Climate change could be both abeneft and a detriment to Alaskanorests. In recent years, warmertemperatures have increased the lengtho growing season by 20%, height-ening productivity and expandingorests into the Alaskan tundra. Inother areas, however, moisture stresshas reduced productivity; the lowest

rates occurred during the last decadeso the 20th century.20 Moreover, warmer temperatures attract anincrease in pests. In particular,drought-weakened trees will be morevulnerable to beetles, which livelonger and reproduce aster in warmer

temperatures.21 In 1992, spruce bark beetles damaged over 2.3 millionacres o Kanai Peninsula orests.Causing immense damage to thenative ecosystems, this would havecost $332 million in lost paper and timber products in commercialorests.22

Warmer and drier summers—andtrees killed by pests—will make Alaska’s 129 million acres o orestsmore susceptible to fre damage.23 In1996, a single re burned 37,000acres and caused $80 million indirect damages. An increase o this magnitude will directly aect Alaska’s timber resources, and theadditional carbon emissions rom fresand the disappearance o trees thatabsorb carbon will exacerbate climate

change.24 Harming the orestry sector and natural ecosystems—not to mention Alaskan air quality—thearea afected by orest res in Alaska and throughout the North Americanboreal orests is expected to doubleby 2050 and perhaps quadruple by 2100.25

Te timber industry employed 63,000ull- and part-time Alaskans andbrought in $617 million in timber

receipts in fscal year 2009.26

Coastal Communities underStress

Warmer temperatures will cause seaice to break up earlier and orm laterin the season. Te likely reductionin this buer will allow increasedstorm activity—induced by the warmer temperatures and lower

atmospheric pressure—to have aneven more damaging eect, exposingcoastal regions to erosion or longerperiods o time. Te rate at which Alaska’s northeastern coast is erodinghas already doubled over the last50 years.27 Oten coastal commu-

nities—home to 46% o Alaska’spopulation28—must choose betweenrelocation and the construction o expensive inrastructure, the ecacy o which is uncertain. Te U.S. Army Corps o Engineers estimates a $30-50 million price tag or each Alaskan village that needs to berelocated, though no unds have yet

been appropriated .29 Other esti-mates place costs as high as $400 to$450 million per village.30 Alaska ishome to 160 such villages, at least 6 o which vare already planning torelocate.31

Threats to Fishermen

Alaska’s $2.8 billion fshing industry employs more than 20,000 people.33

Te efects o climate change could reduce shery production by asmuch as 50%, costing local econo-mies millions o dollars. Somefsheries could disappear, others couldarise. For instance, cod could migrateto colder waters.34 Sea lie is the sourceo subsistence or many indigenouspeoples in Alaska; negative eects

on the industry threaten not only their liestyle and health,35 but wouldincrease their cost o living. Replacing

Source: Te Wilderness Society 32

46%

Alaskan Population

Projected to be

Directly Affected





harvested ood with purchased ood would cost between $1,800 and $3,800 per person, 13-77% o community per capitaincome in the region.36

Te 2006 pink salmon harvest yielded 40 million ewer sh than expected, due to warmer waters.37 Alaska boastsexceptional fsheries, including the world’s largest, ound in the Bering Sea. Tese fsheries are dependent on planktonblooms, which are sensitive to changes in the seasonal recession o the sea ice.38 Local Alaskan economies could lose millionseach year as a result.39

Furthermore, storms have with increasing requently aected shipping activity and impaired fshing operations duringthe autumn months o the recent past. Storms are expected to become more severe as temperatures rise, pressure alls, and

increased moisture eeds storms in the Arctic Ocean.40

Pay Now: The Benefts o Taking ActionGiven this uncertainty about the potential damage to its lands, resources and people, Alaskans should secure their economy by investing in sustainable, renewable energy. Alaska meets 17.3% o its energy needs with hydroelectric resources. While hydroelec-tric power is clean and its capacity is being exploited,41 Alaska has signifcant renewableresources that remain untapped, including sawmill waste, fsh oil, and garbage. Projectsare underway in towns such as Craig, Alaska where a boiler created to burn sawmill

waste will save the city approximately $120,000 per year in heating costs, as well asdisplace approximately 19,000 gallons o oil and 33,000 gallons o propane. 42

Potential geothermal resources are attracting increasing attention in Alaska; drillingprojects have already begun in Unalaska, Akutan, and Mt. Spurr. A resort at Chenarecently expanded its geothermal generation rom 400 kWs (which yielded savings o approximately $450,000 per year) to 680 kWs. Te $2.1 million project will pay or itsel in less than fve years.43

Alaska has more coastline than the other 49 states combined, and is in a position to useocean power—wave and tidal energy—to generate electricity. Alaska’s southern coasthas the potential to generate an estimated 1,250 Wh per year,44 more than 184 times

the state’s current total net electricity generation.45

Wind resources could also providean estimated 5% o the Railbelt’s electricity; signifcant additional wind resources couldbe located throughout the state, especially on the coasts and in the western part o thestate.46

Te Alaska Energy Authority’s Alternative Energy and Energy Eciency section directs or fnanaces 47 projects throughout Alaska with a budget o $63.9 million.47 Furthermore, one recent study ound or every $1 million invested in cleanenergy, 16.7 jobs are created, in contrast to 5.3 jobs created by an equivalent investment in ossil uels. 48 Alaskacertainly has the room and the incentive to expand its investment, research, and development o the renewable energy sector.

Conclusion Alaska must consider action on climate change not just in terms o cost, but also in terms o opportunities. I we give Alaska’s population, businesses, and investors clear and consistent signals by properly oering initiatives and cultivatingdemand, investment and innovation in renewable technologies will ollow.





Alaskans will have to pay or the efects o climate change. Te only remaining question is whether they will pay now, orpay later and run the risk o paying signifcantly more.

(Endnotes)

1 Tomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Tomas C. Peterson, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States , U.S. Global ChangeResearch Program, 2009, 60, 139. http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pds/climate-impacts-report.pd (accessedOctober 1, 2010).

2 Ibid., 141.

3 Alaska Energy Authority, R enewable Energy Atlas o Alaska 2009 , 12. http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Reports%20and%20Presentations/EnergyAtlas2009.pd (accessed October 1, 2010).

4 1 Wh is equivalent to 1x10^6 MWh, which means that the potential production o 1,250,000,000 MWh compared to the currentnet generation o 6,775,000 MWh is more than 184 times the current net generation, U.S. Energy Inormation Administration, Alaska Renewable Energy Profle. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cnea/solar.renewables/page/state_proles/alaska.html (accessed June, 25 2010).

5 Alaska Energy Authority, 5-6.

6 U.S. Energy Inormation Administration, Alaska Renewable Energy Profle.

7 “Alaska utility says wind arm power cheaper,” Associated Press, June 23, 2010. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/ wireStory?id=10991972 (accessed October 1, 2010).

8 Alaska Energy Authority, 18.

9 Matthias Ruth, Dana Coelho, and Daria Karetnikov, Te US Economic Impacts o Climate Change and the Costs o Inaction, Centeror Integrative Environmental Research, University o Maryland, October 2007, 33. http://www.cier.umd.edu/documents/US%20Economic%20Impacts%20o%20Climate%20Change%20and%20the%20Costs%20o%20Inaction.pd (accessedOctober 1, 2010).

10 U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Impacts in Alaska. http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/ino/assessment/alaska.html (accessedSeptember 2, 2010).

11 Ruth et al., 34-35.

12 Yereth Rosen, “A Melting Alaska Draws Visitors,” Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 2007. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1114/p03s02-usgn.html(accessed October 1, 2010).

13 Ruth et a l., 33-35.

14 Karl et a l, 142; P.H. Larsen et al., Estimating Future Costs or Alaska Public Inrastructure at Risk rom Climate Change, Global Envi-ronmental Change, June 2007, 1. http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/JuneICICLE.pd (accessed October 1, 2010).

15 Ibid., 27-32.

16 Ruth et al., 36.

17 Ibid. 33.

18 “Cool the Planet, Save the Arctic.” Iowa Sierran 37. 1 (2007), 4, http://iowa.sierraclub.org/IaSierranSpring07.pd (accessedOctober 1, 2010).

19 Karl et al., 142.

20 Edward A. Parson, Potential Consequences o Climate Variability and Change or Alaska, U.S. Global Change Research Program. 295.http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/10Alaska.pd (accessed October 1, 2010).





21 Karl et al., 140-1.

22 Ruth et al., 37.

23 Parson, 295; Karl et al., 141.

24 Parson, 296.

25 Karl et al., 141.26 Alaska Department o Natural Resources Division o Forestry, Annual Report: 2009, 12, 66. http://orestry.alaska.gov/

pds/2009AnnualReport.pd (accessed September 30, 2010).

27 Karl et al., 139, 143.

28 Te Wilderness Society, Protecting Alaska’s Economy, Communities, and Environment rom Global Warming , 2. http://wilderness.org/les/Alaska%20brie.pd (accessed October 7, 2010).

29 America’s Climate Choices, Adapting to the Impacts o Climate Change , National Research Council. 3. http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brie/Adapting_Report_Brie_nal.pd (accessed October 7, 2010).

30 Ruth et al., 36; Te Nature Conservancy, Global Climate Change: Climate Change Impacts in Alaska, April 2006. 2. http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/les/alaskaacts3.pd (accessed June 25, 2010).

31 America’s Climate Choices, 3.

32 Forty-six percent o the Alaskan population lives in a coastal community.

33 Ruth et al., 37.

34 Te Nature Conservancy, 2.


36 Parson, 301.

37 Alaska Center or the Environment, Commercial and Subsistence Fishing , 2008. http://akcenter.org/climate-energy/efects-o-climate-change/commercial-and-subsistence-shing (accessed October 7, 2010).


39 Te Nature Conservancy, 2.

40 Karl et al., 142-3.


42 Burning wood or uel is a centuries old practice, currently making up 2% o American total energy use. While wood pelletcombustion does release carbon monoxide and other particulates, sometimes producing acid rain, it is still superior to the burning o ossil uel, and clean-burning technology is available. Burning wood waste also saves companies money they would otherwise haveto spend on purchasing electricity. U.S. Energy Inormation Administration, Renewable Biomass. http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy.cm?page=biomass_home-basics (accessed October 8, 2010); Alaska Energy Authority, 6.


44 Ibid., 12.







47 Pat Lavin, Change the Forecast or Wildlie: Global Warming and Alaska , National Wildlie Federation, 2. http://www.nw.org/Global-Warming/~/media/PDFs/Global%20Warming/Global%20Warming%20State%20Fact%20Sheets/Alaska.ashx (accessed October 8, 2010).

48 Robert Pollin, James Heintz, and Heidi Garrett-Peltier, Clean-Energy Investments Create Jobs in Alaska, Political Economy ResearchInstitute, 29. http://www.peri.umass.edu/leadmin/pd/other_publication_types/green_economics/economic_benets/economic_benets.PDF (accessed October 8, 2010).

PNPL 2011 Alaska

Documents

Transcript of PNPL 2011 Alaska