Transcript Global Warming Policy

Global Warming Policy:
New Opportunities in a
Transformed Landscape
Presentation of Alden Meyer,
Union of Concerned Scientists,
World Environment Day Forum
June 5th, 2007
Global Warming: The Danger is
real, but so is the Opportunity
By implementing solutions to global warming, we can:
 create a substantial number of good jobs
 strengthen rural communities
 reduce vulnerability to energy price shocks
 save consumers money
 and reduce other environmental impacts
Figure: Courtesy of IPCC
IPCC: Solutions Are Available
 “Both bottom-up and top-down studies indicate that there is
substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG
emissions over the coming decades, that could offset the projected
growth in emissions or reduce emissions below current levels.”
2030 Global economic mitigation
Potential, bottom-up studies
2030 Global economic mitigation
Potential, top-down studies
Source: IPCC Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change—SPM
IPCC: Solutions Are Affordable
 The economic impacts of these mitigation strategies range
from a small overall economic benefit to a fraction of a
percent reduction in global annual GDP growth rates
 The cumulative reduction in GDP by the year 2030 would
be less than 3 percent for policies that would stabilize CO2
concentrations at around 445-535 ppm, limiting the longterm temperature rise to about 2-3˚C.
 This represents a reduction of the average annual GDP
growth rate of less than 0.12 percent.
Source: IPCC Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change—SPM
IPCC: Policies Are Needed
 “A wide variety of national policies and instruments are available
to governments to create the incentives for mitigation action.”
 “Voluntary actions may limit GHG emissions…[but] on their own,
they generally have limited impact on the national or regional level
emissions.”
 “Policies that provide a real or implicit price of carbon could create
incentives for producers and consumers to significantly invest in
low-GHG products, technologies and processes.”
 “Government support through financial contributions, tax credits,
standard setting and market creation is important for effective
technology development, innovation and deployment.”
Source: IPCC Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change—SPM
How low do industrialized country
emissions need to go?
 EU: 15-30% below 1990 by 2020, 60-80% by 2050
 California, Minnesota: 80% below 1990 levels by 2050
 New Mexico: 75% below 2000 levels by 2050
 Sanders-Boxer Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act and
Waxman Safe Climate Act: cut US emissions to 1990 levels by
2020, then to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
 President Bush’s voluntary intensity goal would result in US
emissions increasing by about 25% above 1990 levels by 2012
GHG emissions paths of
House and Senate climate bills
States With Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Targets
Reductions below BAU in 2020
0%
-10%
-20%
New York
-30%
California
Maine New Mexico
Connecticut
-40%
-50%
Arizona
Puget (WA)
Oregon
-60%
-70%
-80%
-90%
-100%
Source: Michael Lazarus, Stockholm Environment Institute – U.S.
EU
EU +
California Is Proof:
Energy Efficiency Works
Per Capita Electricity Consumption
United States
14,000
12,000
kWh/person
10,000
California
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
Source: California Energy Commission, 2005
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
US Baseline, All Sectors
Annual Carbon Emissions
2000 Carbon Emissions
~1,600 MMTCE
Electric
39%
*
*
2050 Carbon Emissions
~3,000 MMTCE
Transpo
39%
Electric
41%
Transpo
48%
Res/Com/Ind
11%
Res/Com/Ind
22%
Does not reflect terrestrial
sink of 224 MMTCE or noncarbon emissions of 372
*
*
**
BAU projection, excludes
estimated terrestrial emissions of
142 MMTCE
Renewable Energy Resources
are Abundant
U.S. technical potential:
over 5 times current
U.S. electricity use
Technical Potential
as a Percent of Total
2001 Electricity Sales
> 1,000%
101–1,000%
51–100%
•Resources included here are bioenergy, geothermal, landfill gas, solar
photovoltaics, and wind. Hydropower potentials are not included.
•Source: UCS, Plugging in Renewable Energy, 2003.
27–50%
Renewable energy costs
are falling
Levelized cost of energy in constant 2005$1
Source: NREL Energy Analysis Office (www.nrel.gov/analysis/docs/cost_curves_2005.ppt)
1These graphs are reflections of historical cost trends NOT precise annual historical data. DRAFT November 2005
Renewable Energy Expected
From State Standards
50,000
45,000
40,000
Cuts 2020 CO2 emissions by 94 MMT – the
equivalent of taking 15.5 million cars off the road,
or planting 22.6 million acres of trees
Megawatts
35,000
30,000
25,000
CA
NV
AZ & NM
WA
CO & MT
TX
MN
IA & WI
MD
PA
DC & DE
20,000
15,000
NJ
10,000
NY
CT & RI
MA
ME
5,000
0
2000
HI
2005
2010
2015
2020
National RES Would Cut
Carbon Emissions Even More
Clean Energy Blueprint
 20% RES by 2020
 Public benefits fund
 Tax credits for renewables,
efficient buildings
 Increased R&D for RE & EE
 Net metering and
interconnection standards
 Combined heat & power
(CHP) incentives
 Building codes and efficiency
standards
 Industrial efficiency
measures
Power Plant Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Carbon Emissions Reduced Sharply
By Clean Energy Blueprint Policies
Reduce CO2 emissions by 67%
from 2020 business-as-usual
Save consumers $440 billion
Billion 1999$
Multiple Benefits of
Clean Energy Blueprint Policies
Stimulate over $60 billion in new
rural investment
Renewable Energy vs. Fossil Fuel Jobs
(20 percent by 2020 RES)
Reduce natural gas use 31%
400,000
355,390
300,000
Jobs
Reduce Sox & NOx emissions 55%
Create more new jobs than BAU
200
180
Incremental Costs
160
Energy Bill Savings
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020
197,910
200,000
100,000
0
Renewables
Fossil Fuels
A Comprehensive Suite of
Clean Vehicles Policies
 Light Duty Vehicle fuel economy standards
 Hybrid vehicle incentives
 Smart growth policies
 Flex-fuel and fuel cell vehicle requirements
 RD&D and incentives for sustainable biofuels, clean
hydrogen, and renewable electricity and batteries
 Renewable fuel standard and fuel tax incentives
 Medium/heavy duty fuel economy standards, incentives
Highway Vehicle Global Warming Pollution
(million metric tons of carbon equivalent)
Clean Vehicles Savings:
Annual Carbon Emissions
%
Reduction
vs. BAU
1,200
1,000
800
65% reduction
vs. 2000
by 2045
600
Car and Light Truck
(LDV) Efficiency
38%
Smart Growth
10%
LDV Alternative Fuels
Or Hydrogen
400
MDV & HDV Efficiency
Alt Fuels
200
Remaining Highway Vehicle
Carbon Emissions
2005
21%
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
6%
11%
Clean Vehicles Policies
Save Money and Oil, Create Jobs
Oil Savings:
– 2.3 million bpd in 2015
– 4.7 million bpd in 2025
500,000
Increased U.S. Employment
Through 2025:
– $2.5 trillion first COST
– $8.5 trillion (@$2/gallon)
lower fuel COSTS
– $6 trillion net SAVINGS
National
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
National
150,000
100,000
50,000
Auto Ind.
Auto Ind.
2015
2025
Clean Energy Policies Can
Reduce Costs of GHG caps
 Price-based approaches alone (whether cap-and-trade or
carbon tax) don’t address pervasive market failures
 Cost of carbon reductions can be reduced through addition
of clean technology standards and other measures
 EIA 2003 analysis of McCain-Lieberman bill projected costs
of $22/ton of CO2 in 2010, rising to $60/ton of CO2 by 2025
 Tellus Institute analysis incorporating oil savings, renewable
fuels and electricity, and other policies demonstrated
reductions in costs to $7/ton in 2010 and $15/ton in 2025
For more information on global
warming science, impacts and
solutions, go to:
www.ucsusa.org
To contact Alden Meyer:
[email protected]