Solutions for Climate Change

The Muir Glacier in Alaska, (left) photo from 1941, (right) same view in 2004. Photo courtesy of William O. Field / American Geographical Society-World Data Center for Glaciology and Bruce Molnia / USGS. For more examples, see sfgate.

Climate change is the leading environmental and economic threat facing the world. A nonpartisan international task force chaired by Republican Senator Olympia Snowe and British MP Stephen Byers warned last month that we are approaching a point of no return. "The cost of failing to mobilize in the face of this threat is likely to be extremely high," they said, pointing to economic, social, and ecological risks ranging from loss of biodiversity to "a pronounced decrease in the quality of life" and "mass loss of life."

A major question raised by many political leaders is the economic cost of addressing a problem whose solution requires no less than the re-invention of the world's electricity generation and transportation system.

This article will focus on the solutions by first suggesting a "budget" - how much global warming pollution (GWP) can we put into the atmosphere? Second, we will describe a collection of solutions that can be used to stabilize the concentration of GWP in the atmosphere over the next 50 years.

The Deficit

For more than 1,000 years prior to the start of the industrial revolution, the atmosphere was stable with a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of about 280 parts per million (ppm). (Over the last 400,000 years the concentration of CO2 varied between about 200 ppm during ice ages and 280 ppm during interglacial periods, but never rose above 300 ppm). Natural processes adding CO2 to the atmosphere, such as plant decay and ocean out gassing, were balanced by ocean uptake and photosynthesis.

This balance has been disrupted during the last century. Currently an average of about 6.3 billion metric tons of carbon (in the form of CO2) are added to the atmosphere each year -- the majority from the human use of fossil fuels. Plants and the ocean absorbed about half that amount, 3.1 billion metric tons, leaving a net increase of 3.2 billion in the atmosphere. This increases the carbon concentration by about 1.5 parts per million per year. By the end of 2004, we had more than 375 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The Budget

Graph A shows expected carbon emissions (billion metric tons) in a Business As Usual (BAU) case together with what emissions would need to be if the atmosphere was to stabilize at a concentration of 500 parts per million. Graph B shows seven "stabilization triangles" which would keep total concentration below 500 parts per million. A stabilization triangle is a program that evenly reduces emissions by 1 billion metric tons per year within 50 years or 25 billion metric tons total over 50 years.

To stabilize the atmosphere at our current level of 375 ppm, we would need to immediately stop burning all fossil fuels - which, of course, is impossible. This means the concentration will continue to rise while the world debates what to do about it. The international climate task force recommendation was to keep the total average warming effect of GWP to 2 degrees centigrade in order to avoid "dangerous" climate change. (The earth has already warmed by 0.6 C, with another 0.4 C in the pipeline due to the increase in GWP that has already happened.) This increase in temperature corresponds to approximately 400 - 500 parts per million. Given "business as usual", we will reach 450 ppm by 2040 and keep right on increasing.

There is no guarantee that stabilizing at 450 ppm will lead to no more than a 2-degree increase. In addition, an average increase of 2 degrees globally means an increase of 4 degrees Celsius at the poles. At some point, the polar melting means the frozen arctic tundra will start to thaw and release trapped CO2 and the melting Antarctic will cause sea level rise - all of which will accelerate global warming. (See http://climateprediction.net for some interesting results).

Wedges as Solutions

No single solution will solve global warming. The solutions fall into five general categories:

1. Energy efficiency for vehicles and electric usage
2. Substitute for coal electric generation
   - substitute natural gas for coal (natural gas emits 1/2 the GWP of burning coal)
   - substitute nuclear fission for coal (minimal GWP emissions but we would need to solve the economic, safety and waste disposal problems)
3. Capture & store carbon dioxide from fuels (coal, gasification of biomass)
4. Renewable electricity & transportation fuels
5. Sequestration of carbon in forests & soils

A wedge as defined by Stephen Pacala & Robert Socolow (see August 13, 2004 issue of Science) is a program that can evenly reduce emissions over 50 years to a rate of 1 billion metric tons per year - or 25 billion tons over the 50-year period. They identify 15 different programs - each being one wedge - any seven of which could achieve the goal:

1. Efficient vehicles - increase fuel economy from 30 to 60 mpg for 2 billion vehicles.
2. Reduce use of vehicles - Improve urban design to reduce miles driven from 10,000 to 5,000 miles per year for 2 billion vehicles.
3. Efficient buildings - reduce energy consumption by 25%.
4. Improve efficiency of coal plants from today's 40% to 60%.
5. Replace 1,400 gigawatts of coal power plants with natural gas.
6. Capture and store carbon emitted from 800 gigawatts of new coal plants
7. Capture and reuse hydrogen created by #6 above.
8. Capture and store carbon from coal to synfuels conversion at 30 million barrels per day.
9. Displace 700 gigawatts of coal power with nuclear.
10. Add 2 million 1 megawatt windmills (50 times current capacity).
11. Displace 2,000 gigawatts of coal with solar power (700 times current capacity)
12. Produce hydrogen fuel from 4 million 1 Megawatt windmills
13. Use biomass to make fuel to displace oil (100 times current capacity)
14. Stop de-forestation and re-establish 300 million hectares of new tree plantations
15. Conservation tillage - Apply to all crop land (10 times current usage.)

We provide this list not because it is exhaustive or necessarily self-explanatory but to show the wide range of solutions and encourage the debate to shift from whether we should do anything to which are the best seven ideas. For more details on each of the wedges, see "Solving the Climate Problem" by S. Pacala and R. Socolow.

U.S. Contribution

Emissions in tons of CO2 measured per capita and per economic output. Note that units are in tons of CO2. To convert to tons of carbon, divide by 3.67.

The "wedges" shown above apply to the world as a whole; however, not all countries are equally responsible. The chart below shows projected emissions through 2025 by country or region.

Despite the faster growth in China and India, the U.S. will continue its role as the largest polluter with a 24% share of cumulative GWP. To put this in context, of the total emission of 6.3 billion tons of carbon in 2003, the U.S. contributed 1.6 billion or 5.4 tons per person. The rest of the world produced 4.7 billion or .8 tons per person. Thus the U.S. share is seven wedges of .25 billion tons.

California Example

While the U.S. leads the world in per capita GWP, not all states contribute at the same levels. As the chart below shows, California's emission levels per capita are about one half that of the U.S. average (with Massachusetts and D.C. doing even better and Texas the worst):

California has some advantages over the U.S. average with its access to hydroelectric power during rainy years, nuclear power, and a moderate climate but it has substantially more GWP from transportation. California's energy policy is by far the single biggest reason for California's success. The policy causes substantially more efficient buildings to be built and appliances to be purchased. These, in turn, save owners money in operating costs and stimulate the market for innovation in energy products. If the entire U.S. had matched California's energy policies over the last 30 years, energy use per capita would be 70% lower. We mention this to emphasize the point that energy efficiency policies are a proven way to reduce demand while positively impacting the economy and the consumer.

U.S. Wedges

The U.S. could meet its share of carbon reduction by creating policies which implement seven wedges of at least .25 billion tons each over the next 50 years. Example wedges include:

1. Electric end-use efficiency, 1.3 U.S. Wedges (i.e. .33 billion tons): Efficiency improvements in motors, lighting, refrigeration and other electrical equipment reduce total electricity consumption by 25% in 2050 compared to business as usual. Resulting total electricity consumption is 5,500 billion kilowatt-hours, 50 percent greater than current consumption levels.

2. Other end-use efficiency, 1.1 U.S. Wedges: Improvements in building designs and industrial processes result in a 40 percent reduction in non-electric energy consumption by stationary sources compared to business as usual. Overall emissions from these sources declines by 15 percent from current levels.

3. Passenger vehicle efficiency, 1 U.S. Wedge: Widespread use of hybrid and fuel cell vehicles, as well as improvements to conventional vehicles, raises the average fuel economy of the in-use vehicle fleet to 54 miles per gallon in 2050, compared with 24 mpg under business as usual.

4. Other transport efficiency, 0.9 U.S. Wedges: Heavy truck fuel economy increases to 13 mpg, compared with 7 mpg under business as usual and aircraft efficiency increases to 105 seat miles per gallon, compared with 80 under business as usual. In addition, smart growth policies reduce total travel demand by 10 percent.

5. Renewable energy, 1.3 U.S. Wedges: Renewable energy accounts for 30 percent of total electricity generation by 2050, compared with less than 5 percent under business as usual. This much electricity could be supplied by 600 billion watts of wind (e.g. 300,000 2-MW-turbines). Turbines would be spread over 25 million acres, but the land could also be used for crop production or livestock grazing. In addition, 40 billion gallons of biofuels would be supplied from energy crops grown on 30 million acres of land, assuming productivity of 12 tons/acre.

6. Carbon capture and storage, 1.3 U.S. Wedges: Carbon capture and storage technology is applied to 180 billion watts of coal-fired integrated gasification combined cycle power plants. Additional carbon dioxide is captured from natural gas production facilities and large industrial sources. The total volume of carbon dioxide put into storage would be 25 times the volume currently used for enhanced oil recovery and would be equivalent to 4 times the annual flow of natural gas through buffer storage facilities.

7. Displace 175 billion watts of coal power with nuclear. 1 U.S. Wedge.

The examples above add to 8 wedges. Generally speaking, they represent new jobs and reduced operating costs due to energy efficiency balanced against some increased costs in energy production. A recent NRDC report that examined the economics of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act (which would set binding limits on GWP for the U.S.) demonstrated positive jobs and economic benefits. This is consistent with the E2 sponsored reports that looked at the impacts on different states.

It is important to recognize that a wedge represents capital purchases that operate for a long time. For instance, it is not uncommon for a coal powered electric generator to last over 50 years, a passenger vehicle to last 15 years, and a truck to last over 25 years. So, we need to influence the buying decisions because once purchased, the GWP emissions for these types of items are fixed for the lifetime of their use.

It continues to be our belief that addressing climate change will have both a positive economic effect and reduce the growing economic problems that global warming will bring including insurance costs, disease, loss of fresh water, and coastal damage, etc.

Coal-Powered Electricity

More than 50% of U.S. electricity comes from burning coal. Coal is also the cheapest and most readily available fuel for China and other developing countries. Burning coal produces more carbon per kilowatt than any other generation choice. Thus any practical, near-term solution must deal with coal-powered generation. In the next 25 years, more than 1,300 billion watts of coal-powered plants worldwide are scheduled to be built.  Each will operate for at least 50 years.

A viable alterative to burning coal is to gasify the coal, remove the impurities, and then separate out the CO2 and burn the remaining hydrogen to produce electricity. The CO2 can then be injected into geologically stable formations deep underground where it will remain indefinitely. (This requires that a coal plant be within 100 miles of a suitable geologic formation, which they typically are in the United States.) This adds costs but produces an environmentally cleaner product and the hydrogen can be used for a variety of purposes increasing the economic opportunities for the operator.

The incremental costs of requiring all future coal plants to use gasification with carbon sequestration are about $10.1 billion per year of increased capital spending world wide. If the industrialized countries paid the incremental costs for developing countries, it would add .5 cents per kilowatt-hour to the current U.S. cost (i.e. 7.5 cents versus the current 7 cents average U.S. cost). The cost for the industrialized countries to cover only their own coal-electric generation would be .3 cents/Kwh (i.e. 7.3 cents versus 7 cents currently). For a detailed description of the coal solution, see NRDC Submission to Senate Energy Committee. For an short description see "Bush signs on to help clean air in China, India".

Conclusions

To have a reasonable chance at stabilizing concentrations of greenhouse gases at a level less than twice the pre-industrial level, and subsequently limit the average global warming to 2 degrees centigrade, we need policies in place in next four years that will guide developments in energy for the next 50 years.

"Wedges" of 1 billion metric tons globally (or .25 billion for U.S. alone) are a good model for thinking about solutions. In this article we described 14 global choices from which we need to choose seven. We also described seven choices specific to the U.S.

We need to move the discussion rapidly from whether we should do anything to which wedges provide the most benefits for the least costs. Among other measures, policies to cap total emissions of GWP are essential to drive investment in all of the solutions and will allow the market to help select the most cost-effective options.

• Eliminate national security risks posed by oil addiction
• Eliminate major sources of air pollution
• Create valuable technologies which the U.S. can export to developing countries

In the coming months, E2 will be teaming with NRDC to promote climate change solutions both in Congress and at state legislators. We will also be working with public pension funds, and state utility regulators to encourage them to ask power generators, fuel producers and auto companies for the economic risks to their businesses associate with climate change.

Have Questions About Climate Change?

NRDC has compiled a Frequently Asked Questions page about Global Warming on its website, that answers questions ranging from "What causes global warming?" to "What can I do about it?" Please see Global Warming FAQ for more information. 

And what about the skeptics' questions? Jim Hansen's "Can We Diffuse the Global Warming Time Bomb?" which recently appeared in Scientific American, addresses some of their concerns in new ways. 

NRDC NEWS

Administration Budget Poses Disproportionate Cuts to Environmental Programs

1) Superfund: The Superfund Trust Fund has been drained and is now crippled, leaving a toxic legacy for future generations. The administration no longer collects a 'polluter pays' fee on industries. Now that the fund's billions of dollars have been used up, American taxpayers are forced to cover the huge costs for toxic waste cleanup. Under this administration, the pace of annual cleanups has fallen from 87 in 2000 to only 40. The administration also has broken its promise to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is paid for through oil and gas royalties. That fund was supposed to receive $900 million a year for land acquisition and protection, but the president's budget proposes only $132 million -- a new low for this administration.

2) Clean Water: The administration also proposes whacking the federal contribution to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund by one-third and capping the amount of money eventually being loaned out of the fund at only $3.4 billion per year -- far below the $19.4 billion EPA has identified as the annual need to meet this Clean Water Act mandate.

3) Drilling in the Arctic: The administration's debilitating funding cuts for the environment are compounded by its disingenuous use of the budget process to throw open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling in return for what amounts to an illusory conservation bribe. The budget's promise of using a portion of speculative oil revenues to fund conservation efforts would not even materialize until after the president leaves office -- if at all. It is more likely that this cynical maneuver would be added to the long list of this administration's broken conservation promises.

As far as good news, NRDC supports a few proposals in the president's budget. These include tax credits for renewable energy and energy efficient vehicles, reductions to some environmentally destructive Army Corps of Engineers water projects, and reforms for agricultural subsidies. Unfortunately, these few positive proposals are more than offset by the president's support for subsidies for polluting energy industries and crippling reductions to water quality and land conservation funding.

Finally, and perhaps most alarmingly, this year's budget proposes granting to the executive branch the authority to sweep aside innumerable environmental, consumer, and labor protections under the guise of government 'effectiveness.' This proposal would set up two commissions that could automatically let programs expire (or 'sunset') or even eliminate them based on a skewed White House scoring process, with little or no Congressional oversight.

NRDC Submits Comments on Cape Wind Project

U.S. Blocks Mandatory U.N. Agreement on Cleaning Up Mercury Pollution

The UNEP Governing Council opted for a voluntary partnership proposal backed by the United States over the proposal offered by the European Union, which called for countries to phase out and then eliminate mercury exports by 2011. The agreement announced on February 25, 2005 by the United Nations Environmental Program on international steps to reduce global mercury pollution will not adequately protect public health or the environment, according to environmental and indigenous peoples organizations. (For UNEP's announcement, click here.) (For more on the split between the United States and Europe on mercury, click here.)

Environmental organizations attending the conference said the UNEP Governing Council's recommendations did not go far enough because of the United States' "obstructionist" role. (For environmental organizations' comments to UNEP, click here.)

NRDC sharply criticized the U.S. position on mercury pollution. "This administration has been pointing to pollution sources outside of our borders for years as the rationale for not aggressively curbing power plant pollution and other mercury sources within our own country," said Dr. Linda E. Greer, director of NRDC's Health Program. "The abdication of its responsibility to play a leadership role internationally breeds tremendous cynicism about its commitment to solving this global problem and protecting public health." (For a copy of Dr. Greer's statement to the plenary session of UNEP, contact Elizabeth Heyd at eheyd@nrdc.org.) For more information see NRDC's Press Release.

Top Winter Athletes, Companies Join Forces in Environmental Push

Top winter sports athletes and major winter sports companies have joined forces with conservationists and ski areas to fight global warming with new public service announcements running across the country for the "Keep Winter Cool" campaign, a partnership between NRDC and NSAA, now in its third year. Leading skiing and snowboarding companies like Burton and Rossignol are getting involved as well, supporting their athletes' involvement and helping to raise awareness of the need for action on global warming.

Skiing and snowboarding is a $3 billion industry, and resorts alone employ tens of thousands of people. In New Hampshire, for example, winter recreation accounts for more than 10% of jobs in the state. And with snowmaking already accounting for up to twenty percent of resorts' budgets, warmer days and nights will only drive that figure higher. For more information, see NRDC's Press Release.

"I've spent a lot of time on the slopes over the years, so I know the difference a few degrees can make between a great season and a bad season," said Jeremy Jones, a top rider for RossignolSnowboards and named Big Mountain Rider of the Year by Snowboarder magazine. "It's great that the winter sports industry is calling for real solutions. Now we need car and power companies to get serious about cutting global warming pollution."

Calendar of Events

We hope you'll tell your friends about E2 and NRDC. To learn about E2 and our programs please go to www.e2.org. Information about NRDC can be found at www.nrdc.org.

Thanks for your support. Comments, questions and introductions to possible new members are always welcome! Learn how to join E2 at how to join. To learn more about the leaders of E2 please read about the E2 co-founders.

Bob Epstein and Nicole Lederer, Editors
bob@bobepstein.to nicole@nicolelederer.com