1 / 24

Global Warming Policy: New Opportunities in a Transformed Landscape

Global Warming Policy: New Opportunities in a Transformed Landscape. Presentation of Alden Meyer, Union of Concerned Scientists, World Environment Day Forum June 5 th , 2007. Global Warming: The Danger is real, but so is the Opportunity.

nyx
Download Presentation

Global Warming Policy: New Opportunities in a Transformed Landscape

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Global Warming Policy:New Opportunities in a Transformed Landscape Presentation of Alden Meyer, Union of Concerned Scientists, World Environment Day Forum June 5th, 2007

  2. 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

  3. Figure: Courtesy of IPCC

  4. 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

  5. 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 long-term 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. GHG emissions paths of House and Senate climate bills

  9. States With Greenhouse GasEmissions Targets

  10. Reductions below BAU in 2020 Source: Michael Lazarus, Stockholm Environment Institute – U.S.

  11. California Is Proof: Energy Efficiency Works United States California Source: California Energy Commission, 2005

  12. US Baseline, All SectorsAnnual Carbon Emissions * ** * Does not reflect terrestrial sink of 224 MMTCE or non-carbon emissions of 372 MMTCE ** BAU projection, excludes estimated terrestrial emissions of 142 MMTCE

  13. 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% 27–50% Renewable Energy Resources are Abundant • Resources included here are bioenergy, geothermal, landfill gas, solar photovoltaics, and wind. Hydropower potentials are not included. • Source: UCS, Plugging in Renewable Energy, 2003.

  14. 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

  15. HI CA NV AZ & NM WA CO & MT TX MN IA & WI MD PA DC & DE NJ NY CT & RI MA ME Renewable Energy Expected From State Standards 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 Projected development assuming states achieve annual renewable energy targets.

  16. National RES Would Cut Carbon Emissions Even More

  17. 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

  18. Carbon Emissions Reduced Sharply By Clean Energy Blueprint Policies Power Plant Carbon Dioxide Emissions

  19. 200 180 Incremental Costs 160 Energy Bill Savings 140 120 Billion 1999$ 100 80 60 40 20 0 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 Multiple Benefits of Clean Energy Blueprint Policies • Reduce CO2 emissions by 67% from 2020 business-as-usual • Save consumers $440 billion • Stimulate over $60 billion in new rural investment • Reduce natural gas use 31% • Reduce Sox & NOx emissions 55% • Create more new jobs than BAU

  20. 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

  21. Clean Vehicles Savings:Annual Carbon Emissions % Reduction vs. BAU 38% 10% 21% 6% 11% 65% reduction vs. 2000 by 2045 Or Hydrogen

  22. Clean Vehicles PoliciesSave Money and Oil, Create Jobs Through 2025: • $2.5 trillion first COST • $8.5 trillion (@$2/gallon) lower fuel COSTS • $6 trillion net SAVINGS Oil Savings: • 2.3 million bpd in 2015 • 4.7 million bpd in 2025

  23. 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

  24. For more information on global warming science, impacts and solutions, go to: www.ucsusa.org To contact Alden Meyer: ameyer@ucsusa.org

More Related