Transcript Climate Change and Economic Adaptation: the View from Alaska

Implications for Alaska of Emerging
National and International Climate Policy
Matthew Berman
Institute of Social and Economic Research
University of Alaska Anchorage
January 20, 2010
According to the Gallup Poll, 39 Percent of Americans believe in
evolution.
According to the Pew Research Center, 36 percent of Americans
believe there is solid evidence of global warming, caused by
human activity.
Belief in global warming is
waning in the U.S.
Source: Pew Research Center for People and the Press, measured October 2009
Concrete Actions Adopted at the December 2009
Copenhagen Climate Meeting (COP-15)
Three Consensus Issues at the December 2009
Copenhagen Climate Meeting (COP-15)
• Climate – 2°C Warming from present is the appropriate
policy target for international mitigation efforts
• Equity – Richer nations should do more to reduce GHG
emissions than poorer countries and are obligated to
provide financing for adaptation
• Trade and economic activity – Carbon leakage
associated with varying emissions policies among
nations must be addressed
Unfortunately, the parties could not agree on a plan for
addressing any of these issues, due to continuing
intransigence of the United States and China.
U.S. Congress’ Approach to Addressing the Three
Consensus Issues (based on signals from HB 2454)
• Climate – 17 percent emissions cut by 2020, including
offsets. IPCC says insufficient to meet the 2°C target,
even if met entirely with domestic emissions cuts
• Equity – We’ll make an 83 percent cut by 2050 (You bet!).
Free emissions allocations to coal-burning utilities.
• Trade and economic activity – Free emission
allocations to “energy-intensive and trade-intensive
manufacturing industries” and maybe impose tariffs on
non-participating nations. Smaller allowance handouts for
petroleum refining, but no tariff protection from imports.
Implications for Alaska
• Climate – It is going to get warmer – a lot warmer
• Equity – If Congress ever does anything, Alaskans will
take a hit (especially rural Alaskans).
• Trade and economic activity (based on HR 2454)
– Relative price of natural gas will rise relative to oil
– Alaska’s main industries – oil and gas extraction, commercial
fisheries, tourism, air cargo, mining – will all face significant cost
increases
– Costs will rise for Alaska petroleum refineries
Alaska, like much of the Arctic, is getting warmer!
(and this is just a preview of what’s to come)
Temperatures increased by 3-5° F over
much of Alaska in the last half of the
20th Century. Winter temperatures
increased by as much as 10° F.
Effects of Climate Change for Alaska Communities
• Environmental change has consequences for
infrastructure, economic activity and livelihoods
• Effects felt most strongly in communities that depend on
renewable resources for livelihoods.
• Effects highly localized. Focus on a few regionally
significant changes.
Several villages have to be
moved from barrier island
locations due to coastal
erosion from reduced sea ice
protection from fall storms.
Cost: $100-150 million per
community.
Photo: Native Village of Shishmaref, courtesy of Luci Eningowuk
Melting permafrost reduces useful life and
increases design costs of infrastructure.
One estimate of cost increase just
through 2030: $3.6 to $6.1 billion,
mostly from repair and reconstruction of
remote water and sewer systems,
airports, roads, and harbors (Larsen et
al., 2007).
Solid permafrost and freshwater ice the key to
environmentally friendly, low-cost, and safe surface
transportation in a land without roads.
•
Ice road season steadily decreasing across Alaska’s North Slope. Replacing
seasonal ice roads with permanent roads costs $3.5 - $4 million per mile.
Source: cost estimate of $350-400 million for 102 mile road to from Prudhoe Bay to Nuiqsut. "Cost Estimates for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and F."
Alpine Satellite Development Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix J. Anchorage: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, BLM, 2005.
•
Late freeze-up of
rivers makes travel
dangerous for village
residents.
Prudhoe Bay, 2006. hoto by Subhankar Banerjee
Impacts to Livelihoods from
Changes in Marine Environments
• Commercial fisheries – providing food for the world and
supporting Alaska’s coastal communities
• Subsistence fisheries and marine mammal harvests –
sustaining cultures, putting food on the table, and
providing extra cash in rural Alaska
Bering Sea Pollock: America’s Largest Fishery
($1 billion per year)
Fish are moving northwest towards Russia as waters warm
and sea ice melts earlier.
Distribution of harvests in 1993
Distribution of harvests in 2007
Source: NMFS Alaska Region, Fisheries
Observer Program
Marine mammals
dependent on sea ice are
rapidly losing habitat
Walrus provide important
source of supplemental
income from sale of ivory
carvings as well as food for
Northwest Alaska
communities.
Ecological Consequences of Ocean Acidification
Poorly Understood
What is known bodes ill for Alaska fisheries
Pteropod (butterfly snail): major
food source for many coldwater
marine fish – up to 50% of pink
salmon diet – is highly
vulnerable to acidification.
Benefits of Climate Warming for Alaska
• Benefits for industry: longer operating season for marine
transportation and increased arctic shipping
Benefits of Climate Warming for Alaska
• Benefits for households and local businesses: reduced
heating costs, greater local food production
Warming over the next
40 years is expected to
reduce heating degreedays by 10%, saving
Alaska households
$200-400 annually.
(Based on data from Saylor, Haley,
and Szymoniak, 2008)
Denali Highway Cabins & Tours
HC02 Box 7292 Paxson, AK 99586
Climate Impacts Summary
• For four out of five Alaskans – those living in or near urban areas
and Southeast Alaska – the benefits of warming likely exceed the
costs.
– Little infrastructure at risk
– Big savings in heating bills
– Enhanced economic opportunities and quality of life
• Climate change brings significant risks for the one of five Alaskans
living in remote communities in Western and Northern Alaska
–
–
–
–
Marine ecosystem changes affecting livelihood systems
Infrastructure damage from coastal erosion and permafrost melting
Savings in heating costs not enough to offset environmental costs
Even so, on a day to day basis, concerns about environmental change will be
dwarfed by issues such as the market prices of fish and the cost of gasoline.
The cost of an illness includes the cost of measures taken to treat it.
If global warming is a cancer, then mitigation measures are the
chemotherapy.
Alaska is one of the world’s most fossil-fueldependent society.
• Per-capita carbon dioxide emissions exceed three times the U.S.
average, and 14 times the world average.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption and
Flaring of Fossil Fuels
70
Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the
Consumption and Flaring of Fossil Fuels
50
40
30
20
10
0
25
Metric tons per person
Metric tons per person
60
64.9
19.8
20
15
9.1
10
19.8
5
4.6
9.1
4.6
0
United
States
United
EU
States
EU
China
4.5
1.2
China
India
Source: U.S. Energy Information Agency, 2006 estimates
Source: U.S. Energy Information Agency, 2006 estimates
1.24.5
India
World
World
Alaska
Why are Alaska emissions so high?
• Alaska uses less coal but much more oil and gas per
person than the nation.
Per-capita Energy Consumption, 2007
Million Btu per person
600
546
476
500
400
Alaska
United States
300
200
100
134
75
79
19
0
28
19 8
3 11
Hydroelectric
Other
renew ables
0
Coal
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Nuclear
Energy Source
Source: U.S. Energy Information Agancy
Why are Alaska emissions so high?
• Alaska residential and commercial energy consumption is similar to
that of other Americans, but per-capita industrial and transportation
consumption is much greater.
Per-capita Energy Consumption, 2007
600
523
Million Btu per person
500
400
Alaska
368
United States
300
200
100
80
72
92
108
97
61
0
Residential
Commercial
Source: U.S. Energy Information Agancy
Industrial
End-Use Sector
Transportation
High petroleum industry and transportation energy use
leads to high per-capita greenhouse gas emissions
Alaska Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Source
Metric tons CO2 equivalent per person, 2005
Agriculture, 0.1
Electricity
Production, 4.8
Residential &
Commercial, 5.9
Waste
Management,
1.5
Industrial
Processes, 0.5
Other
transportation,
9.1
Commercial
aviation, 19.5
Source: Roe et al. (2007)
Oil and gas,
32.5
Methane from
fossil fuel
production, 4.5
Buried in the “Other Transportation” category are Alaska’s
main (supposedly) sustainable industries:
Commercial Fishing
Buried in the “Other Transportation” category are Alaska’s
main (supposedly) sustainable industries:
Tourism
Rural Alaska subsistence livelihoods are
completely dependent on the two-stroke engine.
• Small scale, transportable
• Simple technology – can be repaired in the Bush
• Terrible fuel economy
Our fair share of global CO2 emissions: 4.5 tons per year
(3 tons in 2050 because world population will be 50 percent larger)
What will one ton of CO2 buy in Alaska?
• Production and shipping of about 10 barrels of Alaska
crude oil
• One round trip from Anchorage to Seattle on a
commercial flight
• Harvest of 450 sockeye salmon assuming 300 hp, 2.56l/d/hp (Tyedmers
2001), 1500 fish/day, based on average figures from ADF&G Bristol Bay management reports
• 7 hours heli-skiing with Chugach Powder Guides
assuming A-star helicopter @ 45 gph, share with 5 clients
• One family halibut charter day 350hp 2-stroke, 39gph, 20 miles @ 25mph,
or 400hp 4-stroke @ 25gph, 30 miles out
• One hunting trip per month by snowmachine from a rural
Alaska village, 50 miles round trip assuming 2-stroke engine, average
fuel economy of ten miles per gallon
The cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will fall
heavily on Alaska’s lower income rural residents.
High fuel prices in 2008 provide a window to such a future.
Annual Cost of Heating Fuel as a Percentage of
Household Income, May 2008 Prices
Households with income $28,715 and below
62%
61%
38%
32%
average
median
20%
Kenai and Mat-Su
Source: Saylor et al. (2008)
20%
Mid-size and roaded
Remote rural
Why should Alaskans should support
greenhouse-gas mitigation?
• Adaptation to warming will be relatively painless for the vast majority
of Alaskans (and pleasurable for some)
• The costs of mitigation are very high.
• The rational (cost-benefit) argument for climate policy will be lost on
most Alaskans (as on most Americans)
• Cutting greenhouse gas emissions to a level that would actually
control climate change would be like undergoing chemotherapy to
treat someone else’s cancer.
On the other hand
• Adaptation to climate change will be exceedingly painful for the
world’s rural poor.
• The case will increasingly be made that the developed countries and
especially the United States is responsible for these impacts. We
may face trade sanctions from Europe and Japan. We will start
getting blamed for environmental disasters in vulnerable nations,
and accused of genocide.
Is this the legacy we want to leave
to our grandchildren?