Transcript Slide 1

The Non-Regulatory Alternatives
to GHG Regulations –
Geo-politics, Geo-economics
and Geo-engineering
Session C - Thursday, October 18,2007, 10:45 am– 12:15 pm
Outlook for and Impact from Potential GHG Emission Regulations
David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D.,
Senior Energy and Environmental Fellow
Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
The Environmental Challenge
• Global Temperature
Rise
• The Cataclysmic
Results of Warming
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
The Environmental Challenge
Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way
to communicate about global warming and get people
motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope?
What's the right mix?
Mr. Gore: I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how
dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the
audience to listen to what the solutions are, and
how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this
crisis.
Source: http://techgnostic.newsvine.com/_news/2007/03/15/615696-gore-appropriate-to-have-an-overrepresentation-of-factual-presentations
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
What are the Risks
• Preventable Catastrophic Effect
- massive ocean level rise
• Unpreventable Effects
- coral reef loss
• Reversible Effects
- Tundra melt
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
The Strategic Response
• We need to prevent catastrophic
effects.
• If we fail to avoid the changes
that threaten global civilization,
the other effects become moot.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
The First Three
Catastrophic Events
• Greenland Ice Sheet Collapse
• West Antarctic Ice Sheet
Collapse
• East Antarctic Ice Sheet Melt
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Rapid, Irreversible and Massive
Effects
The Larsen Ice Shelf.
Florida in 30 Years
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
The Fatal Policy Conceit
Exclusive Reliance on
Reducing Greenhouse
Gases will prevent
catastrophic events.
It will not.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Time Scale of the Greenland Ice Sheet
Destruction
300 – 1,000 years IPCC (2001)
100 – 300 years Hansen (2005) IPCC (2007)
20 – 40 years Hansen (2007) Flannery (2007)
“If we have not already passed the dangerous
level, the energy infrastructure in place ensures
that we will pass it within decades [not
centuries].” James Hansen NASA (Aug. 2007)
“We passed the tipping point in 2005”
Tim Flannery
(Aus.) (Oct. 2007)
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Catastrophic Effects
• Greenland Ice Sheet will melt at +2ºC
• +2ºC Temperature rise at 440 ppm
•Current levels: 445 ppm CO2
Flannery – IPCC
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/10-09-2007/9896000bd89c6bb9.html
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Why Will We Fail To
Reduce Greenhouse
Gases in Time?
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Congressional
proposals are too
little too late.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Key Nations Can’t or
Won’t Help
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
China, India, Indonesia and
African nations said they won’t
follow the cartel and limit CO2
production until they have
significantly increased their
economic development.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
The McKinsey Global Institute projects that
from 2003 to 2020, the number of vehicles
in China will rise from 26 million to 120
million, average residential floor space will
increase 50 percent and energy demand
will grow 4.4 percent annually. Even with
"best practices" energy efficiency, demand
would still grow 2.8 percent a year,
McKinsey estimates. – The Washington
Post (August 15, 2007)
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation Rejects Binding
Greenhouse Gas Limits –
International Herald Tribune
(August 17, 2007)
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Bryan Walsh of Time Magazine thinks
that “as long as [China and India] send
out signals that they're unwilling to
consider substantial global-warming
action — especially anything that could
result in mandatory targets on
emissions — even green Democrats
in Congress will have a difficult time
defending carbon controls at home
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Key States Can’t or
Won’t Help
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
The Current Virginia
Energy Plan will fail to
produce an 80%
reduction in CO2 by
2100.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Virginia Energy Plan - 2007
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
People Won’t
Reduce their
Energy Enough.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
It Costs Too Much
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Probability
of Stopping
a 2ºC Rise
Marginal Cost Per Ton of Carbon
($US 2005)
75%
Low
Average
High
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
$1,400/tnC Impossible Impossible
50%
$130/tnC
$3,500/tnC Impossible
25%
$20/tnC
$90/tnC
100%
Geo-engineering
.
$0 02/tnC
$3,500/tnC
.
$0 10/tnC
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Geo-Engineering
The Non-Regulatory
Alternative
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
“Preventing a planet wide meltdown
is not a goal that can be achieved with
current energy technology. We need
to admit that and start thinking about
geo-engineering."
Professor Marty Hoffert,
New York University.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
We need an alternative to the policy
myopia that sees emission reductions
as the sole path to climate change
abatement.
Jay Michaelson (JD Yale) , 1998, GEOENGINEERING: A CLIMATE CHANGE
MANHATTAN PROJECT, Stanford Environmental Law Journal
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Efforts by societies to restrain their
greenhouse gas emissions might be
politically infeasible on a global scale,
or might fail. In this eventuality, other
options may be incapable of
countering the effects, and geoengineering strategies might be
needed.
National Academy of Science
Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: (1992)
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
“The very best would be if emissions
of the greenhouse gases could be
reduced so much that the geoengineering would not need to take
place.
Currently, this looks like a pious
wish.”
Paul J. Crutzen,
Nobel Laureate for his work on the ozone hole
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Wall Street Journal
Thinking Big on Global Warming
By FRED C. IKLE AND LOWELL WOOD
October 15, 2007; Page A22
Mankind's current energy system evolved during the
20th century as an offspring of the Industrial
Revolution. It may take almost as long to replace this
system with the novel energy sources and distribution
networks that future generations will need. This huge
transition would be greatly facilitated if geo-engineering
options are developed and tested to provide a safe
breathing space without a massive global-warming
crisis.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
“Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming” – NAS
1992
1. Does it appear feasible that
engineered systems could actually
mitigate the effects of greenhouse
gases?
NAS 1992 Response -
YES
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
“Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming” – NAS
1992
2. Does it appear that the proposed
systems might be carried out by
feasible technical means at reasonable
costs?
NAS 1992 Response -
YES
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
“Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming” – NAS
1992
3. Do the proposed systems have
effects, besides the sought-after
effects, that might be adverse, and
can these be accepted or dealt
with?
NAS 1992 Response - We Don’t Know
Caldeira 2006 - Apparently no significant
local climate changes,
and no harm from
particles
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Caldeira (Stanford U.) concluded that shading the sunlight directly over
the polar ice cap by less than twenty-five percent would maintain the
"natural" level of ice in the Arctic, even with a doubling of atmospheric
CO2 levels. By increasing the shading to fifty percent, and the ice shelves
grow. Further, the restoration happens fast. Within five years, the
temperature would drop by almost two degrees, stabilizing the ice, saving
the polar bears and the Inuit population, and demonstrating the efficacy of
planetary engineering for 1/36th the amount appropriated to assist in
recovery of the hurricane flooding disaster in New Orleans.
Because the aerosols are launched only
over the Arctic, there is little danger of
directly impacting humans. As well, the approach is
incremental and can be expanded or shut down at will so that
temperature effects dissipate within months, returning the region to its
"natural" state.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Hansen, J. et al., (2005) “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications”, Science 308, 1431.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Stratospheric reflecting aerosols
Controlled scattering of incoming sunlight by airborne
microscopic particles (residence time ~ 5 yrs)
• Dielectrics – e.g., ~100 nm sulfate aerosol-spherules
– annual mass (~1 MT) & cost (~$1 B)
– E.g., lofted by a ‘wing’ of ~6 high- altitude cargo
aircraft
• Metals – e.g., “UV chaff,” metallised micro-balloons
– low annual mass (~0.05 MT) & cost (~$0.2 B)
• Resonant scatterers – e.g., coated dye molecules
– annual mass (~0.5 MT) and cost (~$1 B)
Lowell Wood et al, Lawrence Livermore Lab
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
The Relative Cost of GHG Reduction
and Geo-engineering
Marginal Cost per Carbon Ton Equivalent
GHG Reduction
$ 1,400.
Geo-Engineering
$
0.02
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
The Relative Cost of GHG Reduction
and Geo-engineering
Annual Per capita Cost
(world population)
GHG Reduction
$ 470.
Geo-Engineering (pv40)
$
0.003
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
The economics of geo-engineering are—there is
no better word for it—incredible.
Scott Barrett, Johns Hopkins
The geo-engineering option may be considered
costless.
William Nordhaus, Yale
Cost would not play any significant role in a
decision to deploy [geo-engineering] because the
cost of any such system is trivial compared to the
cost of other mitigation options.
Prof. D.W. Keith, University of Calgary
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
So, what should we do about Greenhouse
Gas Reduction
• We need to move to non-carbon energy.
• We can take 300 years to do so.
• We probably should not bankrupt the family in
the mean time.
• We should balance environmental goals against
other social and economic goals, including
growth in the economy, an aging population,
health care, national security, and an abundant
supply of chocolate.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
References and Readings
Anderson, S. and R. Newell (2004). “Prospects for Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies.” Annual Review of Environment and
Resources, 29: 109-142.
Ansolabehere, S., J. Deutch, M. Driscoll, P.E. Gray, J..P. Holdren, P.L. Joskow, R.K. Lester, E.J. Moniz, and N.E. Dodreas (2003). The
Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Barrett, S. (2006a) “Climate Treaties and ‘Breakthrough’ Technologies.” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 96(2): 2225.
Barrett, Scott, (2007), “The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering,” Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies
(in press, Environmental and Resource Economics).
Bodansky, D. (1996). “May We Engineer the Climate?” Climatic Change 33: 309-321.
Caldeira, K., Jain, A. K., and Hoffert, M. I. (2003) “Climate sensitivity uncertainty and the need for energy without CO2 emission,” Science
299: 2052-2054.
Carlin, Alan, 2007, “Implementation and Utilization of Geoengineering for Global Climate Change Control,” Sustainable Development Law
and Policy, 7(2): 56-8 (Winter), available at http://www.wcl.american.edu/org/sustainabledevelopment/2007/07winter.pdf?rd=1
Carlin, Alan, 2007a, “Global Climate Change Control, Is There a Better Strategy than Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions?” University of
Pennsylvania Law Review, 155(6): 1401-1497 (June), available at http://pennumbra.com/issues/articles/155-6/Carlin.pdf
Carlin, Alan, 2007b, “New Research Suggests that Emissions Reductions May Be a Risky and Very Expensive Way to Avoid Global
Climate Changes,” Working Paper No. 2007-07, National Center for Environmental Economics, USEPA, available at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/EE/epa/eed.nsf/WPNumberNew/2007-07.
Carlin, Alan, 2007c, “Risky Gamble,” Environmental Forum, 24(5): 42-47 (September/October), available at
http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/CarlinEnvForum.pdf
Cicerone, R.J. (2006). “Geoengineering: Encouraging Research and Overseeing Implementation.” Climatic Change 77: 221-226.
Crutzen, P.J., 2006, “Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?” Climatic
Change, 77: 211-219, available at http://downloads.heartland.org/19632.pdf.
Govindasamy, B. and Caldeira, K. (2000) “Geoengineering Earth’s Radiation Balance to Mitigate CO2-induced Climate Change,”
Geophysical Research Letters 27(14): 2141- 2144.
Govindasamy, B., Caldeira, K., and Duffy, P. B. (2003) “Geoengineering Earth’s Radiation Balance to Mitigate Climate Change from a
Quadrupling of CO2,” Global and Planetary Change, 37: 157-168.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Govindasamy, B., S. Thompson, P.B. Duffy, K. Caldeira, and C. Delire (2002). “Impact of Geoengineering Schemes on the
Terrestrial Biosphere.” Geophysical Research Letters 29(22), 2061, doi.1029/2002GL015911, 2002.
Hansen, James, et al., (2005), “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications,” Science, 308(5727): 1431-1435).
Hansen, James et al, (2007) “Climate change and trace gases” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 365, pp. 1925–1954
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for
Policymakers; available at http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf.
Keith, D.W. (2000). “Geoengineering the Climate: History and Prospect,” Annual Review of Energy and Environment, 25: 245284.
MacCracken, M.C. (2006). “Geoengineering: Worthy of Cautious Evaluation?” Climatic Change 77: 235-243.
National Academy of Sciences, 1992, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, “Policy Implications of
Greenhouse Warming”, pp. 433-460, available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1605.
Nordhaus, W.D. (1994). Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nordhaus, W. D. and Boyer, J. (2000) Warming the World: Economic Models of Global Warming, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1992), Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation,
Adaptation, and the Science Base. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rees, M. (2003). Our Final Hour, New York: Basic Books.
Robock, A. (2002) “The Climatic Aftermath,” Science 295: 1242-1243.
Royal Society (2005) Ocean Acidification Due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, London: The Royal Society.
Schelling, T.C. (1996). “The Economic Diplomacy of Geoengineering.” Climatic Change 33: 303-307.
Schnare, David, 2007, “Responses to Climate Change and their Implications on Preservation and Restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay”, Testimony Before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington,
D.C., Wednesday, September 26, 2007, available at
http://thehardlook.typepad.com/thehardlook/files/schnare_senate_epw_testimony_9262007.pdf.
Schneider, S.H. (2001). “Earth Systems Engineering and Management.” Nature 409: 417-421.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Stern, Nicholas (2007), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review
Sterner, T., M. Troell, S. Aniyar, S. Barrett, W. Brock, S. Carpenter, K. Chopra, P. Ehrlich, M. Hoel, S. Levin, K-.G. Mäler, J.
Norberg, L. Pihl, T. Söderqvist, J. Wilen, J. Vincent, and A. Xepapadeas (2006). “Natural Disasters and Disastrous Policies,”
Environment 48(10): 20-27.
Teller, E., Hyde, R., Ishikawa, M., Nuckolls, J., and Wood, L. (2003) “Active stabilization of climate: inexpensive, low risk, nearterm options for preventing global warming and ice ages via technologically varied solar radiative forcing,” Lawrence Livermore
National Library, 30 November.
Travis, D.J., A.M. Carleton, and R.G. Lauritsen (2002). “Contrails Reduce Daily Temperature Range.” Nature 418: 601.
Wigley, T.M.L. (2006). “A Combined Mitigation/Geoengineering Approach to Climate Stabilization.” Science 314: 452-454.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
The Non-Regulatory Alternatives
to GHG Regulations –
Geo-politics, Geo-economics
and Geo-engineering
Session C - Thursday, October 18,2007, 10:45 am– 12:15 pm
Outlook for and Impact from Potential GHG Emission Regulations
David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D.,
[email protected]
Senior Energy and Environmental Fellow
Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy