Climate 411

New IEA Report Sets a Road Map to a Cleaner Energy Future

By Nat Keohane / Published: June 10, 2013

Today, the International Energy Agency released a special report of its World Energy Outlook, entitled Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map. The report is notable not only for its substantive conclusions – but for what it signifies.

First, the substance:

The report starts by emphasizing that energy-related CO2 emissions are a crucial driver of global warming, that they are increasing rapidly, and that as a result the world is not on target to keep concentrations of greenhouse gases below the level that would provide even a fifty-percent probability of limiting the increase in average global temperatures to two degrees – a commonly cited benchmark to prevent the worst impacts of climate change.  Standard fare, perhaps – but noteworthy nonetheless coming from the world’s leading energy authority.

A road map toward a more secure future

The key finding of the report — what makes it required reading — is the analysis of what the IEA calls its “4-for-2˚C scenario.”

The IEA identifies a package of four policies that could keep the door open to 2 degrees through 2020 – at no net economic cost to any individual region or major country, and relying only on existing, widely available technologies:

  1. Specific energy efficiency measures in transport, buildings, and industry (1.5 GT savings in 2020/49% of the total package)
  2. Limiting construction and use of the least-efficient coal-fired power plants (640 MT/21%)
  3. Minimizing methane emissions from upstream oil and gas production (550 MTCO2e/18%)
  4. Accelerating the partial phaseout of fossil fuel subsidies (360 MT/12%)

The IEA estimates that these four measures would reduce energy-related GHG emissions by 3.1 GT CO2-eq in 2020, relative to IEA’s “New Policies” reference scenario – corresponding to 80% of the reduction required to be on a 2-degree path.

Take a look at this chart, from IEA’s report, that summarizes the policies:

(Source: World Energy Outlook Special Report, 2013)

Here’s a second chart, also from IEA’s report. This one makes the key point about no net economic costs:

(Source: World Energy Outlook Special Report, 2013)

Four policies, using widely available technologies, imposing no net economic cost on any individual region or major country, that put the world in the position to make the turn to climate safety.

That’s the headline.

The cost of delay

IEA’s report also discusses the vulnerability of the energy sector to climate change, and emphasizes that delaying climate action will drive up the costs of meeting a 2 degree target later.  The report estimates that putting off action until 2020 would trim near-term investment by $1.5 trillion in the short run – but at the cost of requiring an additional $5 trillion to be spent in subsequent years.  In present-value terms, using a 5% discount rate, delay doubles the cost of action: from $1.2 trillion to $2.3 trillion.

This is an argument that we at EDF — and others — have been making for some time. But it is a crucial one nonetheless – and the IEA analysis gives some added analytical weight to the argument.

Not an oil shock, but a climate shock

These findings are especially welcome coming from IEA, a world-respected authority on energy markets and policy that was founded to facilitate international coordination among oil-consuming countries.  Indeed, the messenger may be nearly as important as the message.  What launched the IEA was the 1973-4 oil crisis.  Now, nearly forty years later, the IEA report makes clear that the real energy-related threat to economic prosperity is not an oil shock, but a climate shock.

Back to the big picture

To be sure, the four policies analyzed in this report won’t fully suffice to address climate change in the long run: indeed, much more ambition will be needed.

Under the “4-for-2˚C” scenario, the IEA estimates that world energy-related emissions will peak and start to decline before 2020 – but we’ll still need concerted action on a global scale to get greenhouse gas emissions onto a steepening downward trajectory.

Take a look at one more chart from IEA’s report:

(Source: World Energy Outlook Special Report, 2013)

Acknowledging this point, IEA’s report underscores the importance of continued innovation in low-carbon technologies in transport and power generation (including carbon capture and storage), and highlights the vital importance of a long-term carbon price.

Beyond the scope of the report, there’s much to be done outside the energy sector – in particular by curbing tropical deforestation, and promoting the spread of agricultural practices that can achieve the “triple win” of greater productivity, greater resilience to climate, and lower environmental impacts (including GHG emissions).  And all of these efforts must be carried out in tandem with the overarching challenge of promoting broad-based economic prosperity around the globe, as President Jim Yong Kim of the World Bank has repeatedly emphasized.

But the bottom line is that one of the most hopeful publications on climate change you’ll read this year has come from the International Energy Agency, of all places.  Here is a road map toward a cleaner, more secure future.  Now it’s up to us to take it.

Also posted in Economics, Energy, News, Policy / Read 1 Response

EDF Goes Back to Court to Support Climate Pollution Reductions

By Peter Zalzal / Published: May 8, 2013

Another high-profile clean air case played out yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

A three-judge panel heard oral arguments in a lawsuit filed by the state of Texas and some industry petitioners.

The lawsuit challenges EPA’s efforts to ensure smooth, uninterrupted permitting for large new industrial sources of climate pollution in Texas.

EDF was part of a coalition of clean air advocates that filed two briefs in the case. We filed in support of EPA, along with Conservation Law Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club.

At issue in the case are State Implementation Plans, or SIPs as they’re commonly known.

Here’s some background on the case

U.S. clean air laws require that large new industrial sources obtain construction permits providing for cost-effective modern solutions to mitigate climate pollution. The states are empowered to provide those permits – through their SIPs.

In 2010, EPA found that 13 states, including Texas, lacked the ability to carry out that requirement.

All those states except Texas worked with EPA to ensure permitting authority was in place. That allowed large new industrial sources in those states to obtain the needed construction permits.

In an August 2, 2010 letter to EPA, Texas wrote that it:

ha[d] neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring, or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions.

That brings us to the lawsuits.

Here’s a look at what happened in court yesterday

Judges Judith Rogers, David Tatel, and Brett Kavanaugh heard oral arguments.

The judges closely questioned Texas and industry petitioners about the impact of the court’s recent decision in another case that we’ve written about.

In that challenge to the Endangerment Finding, before the same court, judges upheld EPA’s first-generation climate protections.  The decision in that case said that EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act was:

unambiguously correct

In light of that earlier ruling, EPA argued that its actions were necessary to ensure that sources in Texas could get permits.

That became one of the main points of discussion during oral arguments yesterday – as the judges pressed Texas and the industry petitioners to describe how EPA’s actions caused them any injury.

What’s at stake in the case

This case is part of an extensive suite of litigation Texas has mounted to oppose some of America’s most important climate protections.

Those protections include:

  • EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and the environment
  • EPA’s Clean Cars standards, which will save consumers money, reduce pollution, and help protect our nation’s energy security
  • EPA’s requirement that large sources of greenhouse gas emissions deploy modern pollution controls

If successful in this case, the upshot of Texas’s actions would be to eliminate any authority from which new industrial sources in the state of Texas could obtain permits addressing their greenhouse gas emissions – permits which these sources need for lawful construction.

Texas is suing even though EPA has taken great pains to create a reasonable and fair process:

  • EPA has acted in the most limited, surgical fashion to ensure businesses in Texas can obtain permits consistent with the nation’s clean air laws.
  • EPA has provided federal authority only for climate pollution, and Texas is administering the balance of the requirements.
  • Even with respect to greenhouse gases, EPA has urged Texas to take delegated authority over permitting.

Unfortunately, as Texas continues to devote scarce public resources to suing over the common-sense climate protections of U.S. clean air laws, communities in Texas are already suffering from the weird weather linked to climate change – like last year’s debilitating drought.

And in an ironic twist, at the same time that Texas is using public resources to fight common-sense climate pollution standards, Texas leads the nation in wind power — a zero-emitting resource.

In 2012, wind power led the entire nation in the overall deployment of new electricity generating resources, with 13,124 megawatts.  Much of that came from the Heartland — Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado.

That means Texas is looking at a … well … Texas-sized economic opportunity – as well as an opportunity for climate progress.

What a shame they’re choosing to waste their time and money in court instead.

Also posted in Clean Air Act, News / Comments are closed

Linkage Approval Boosts Cap-and-Trade Momentum

By Erica Morehouse / Published: April 24, 2013

(This was originally posted on EDF’s California Dream 2.0 blog)

Don’t look now, but California’s cap-and-trade program is going global.

With California Air Resources Board (CARB) approving linkage between California and Quebec’s cap-and-trade programs today, these two programs will now be able to trade emissions allowances across borders starting in 2014.  CARB’s action comes on the heels of California Governor Jerry Brown’s recent decision to approve the linkage, which will increase the size of California’s cap-and-trade market by 20 percent. More importantly, linkage will boost California’s clean energy economy by creating a broader market for innovative, low-carbon technologies.  The linkage is also a shot in the arm for global efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and it sends a positive signal to other jurisdictions that are working on building their own carbon markets and might ultimately seek to join with California and Quebec.

This linkage comes at a moment when momentum for carbon market development has been building around the world. Many other regions, including Europe, Australia, South Korea, and the Northeastern U.S., have instituted or are currently developing carbon markets. Australia also announced plans last August to phase-in a linkage with the EU system starting in 2015.

California Governor Jerry Brown also recently returned from a trip to China where he signed an agreement with their Minister of Environmental Projection to help reduce air pollution and an agreement with Guangdong Province to share best practices related to cap-and-trade, clear evidence that if we want to get serious about climate change, California or one region can’t do it alone.

Before full linkage is possible, it’s often helpful for governments to develop ‘unofficial links’ in the form of partnerships to share policies, best practices, and goals. This cooperation – which California and Quebec have had since 2007 – is important and beneficial for the overall growth, rigor and integrity of carbon markets. The California cap-and-trade system uses a similar platform to the RGGI system in the Northeastern U.S., and the California system has been carefully crafted based on lessons learned from the EU ETS.

It took many steps to get to this point, but with a first joint cap-and-trade auction now scheduled for early 2014, California and Quebec are finally there. CARB’s approval of linkage is a big milestone for California and the nation, and another strong signal of California’s leadership in fighting climate change, while moving the nation further down the path to a clean energy economy.

Also posted in International, News / Comments are closed

Litigation by Coal Interests Attacks EPA’s Landmark Clean Car Standards

By Pamela Campos / Published: April 19, 2013

Yesterday, coal interests petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review and overturn the nation’s landmark climate pollution standards for passenger cars and trucks.

These Clean Car standards are already reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while driving down our dependence on foreign oil and saving American families money at the gas pump.

They are broadly supported by the U.S. auto manufacturers, the United Auto Workers, national security experts, the Consumers Union, and numerous states.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld these common-sense standards on June 26, 2012. But some coal interests want to turn back the clock on actions that the courts have already deemed “unambiguously correct.”

Yesterday, in its petition to the High Court, the “Coalition for Responsible Regulation” attacked the foundation of our nation’s Clean Car standards. (You can read more about this industry group here)

These seriously misguided legal claims attack the critical societal benefits of the Clean Car standards for model years 2012 to 2016 and a second round of Clean Car standards for model years 2017 to 2025.

Together, the Clean Car standards will almost double the current fuel economy performance of cars on American roads – to an unprecedented fleet wide average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

That increase in fuel economy will be a huge financial benefit for American families. They’ll save an average of more than $8,000 in fuel costs over the life of a new car and ensure our country will see $1.7 trillion dollars in fuel savings.

For families purchasing a model year 2025 vehicle, this will be equivalent to lowering the price of gas by approximately $1 a gallon.

The Clean Car standards will also reduce carbon dioxide pollution by more than 6 billion metric tons over the life of the program – comparable to the total emissions from the United States in 2010.

These standards will reduce oil consumption by an estimated 2 million barrels a day in 2025 – as much as half of what we import from OPEC each day.

But we won’t have to wait until 2025. We’re already seeing significant efficiency improvements.

EPA’s preliminary data for model year 2012 cars shows the largest annual fuel economy improvements since EPA first began tracking this kind of data back in 1975. And in March 2013, the average fuel-economy sticker value of new vehicles sold in the U.S. was a record-high 24.6 mpg.

All of this is happening without loss of consumer choice, as more SUVs, minivans, and pickups beat the 20 mile per gallon benchmark, and new technologies such as hybrids are more commonly available.

In other words, our automotive industry can — and is — meeting the challenging of providing fuel efficient, low emitting passenger cars that consumers want to buy.

That’s why automakers are not appealing the case.

In fact, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers – an association of 12 vehicle manufacturers including Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors – supports the clean cars standards.

Here’s what their spokeswoman, Gloria Bergquist, said when EPA’s greenhouse gas rules were upheld last summer:

Automakers are already producing almost 300 highly fuel-efficient models, so we have made a huge investment in technologies and want to sell these models in high numbers.

It’s time for these obstructionist coal interests to end the litigation. America is moving forward, together, with innovation that will strengthen our nation’s security, our economy and our environment.

(EDF’s Peter Zalzal contributed to this post)

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Clean Air Act, News, Policy, What Others are Saying / Read 8 Responses

Executive Action Critical, but not Enough to Fight Global Warming

By Keith Gaby / Published: March 29, 2013

(This blog was first posted on EDF Voices)

Image: Chuck Kennedy/White House

I received the following comment about Part 1 of this series that warrants its own blog post.

The politics of climate change is an issue The Nation has covered extensively, and I think many of our readers would wonder why Mr. Gaby, in asserting that Congressional legislation is the only means of taking serious federal action against climate change, ignores the argument (put forth by the Center for Biological Diversity, among others) that President Obama and his EPA Administrator already have the authority under the Clean Air Act to order dramatic reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Congress is one way; it is hardly the only way. And since Congress is now blocked by right-wing intransigence, and since the hour (as Mr. Gaby notes) is already very late, surely it behooves us to deploy a readier tool, no?  —  Mark Hertsgaard, environment correspondent for The Nation magazine and  author of numerous books about climate change, including HOT:  Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth. Mr. Hertsgaard is also a Fellow of the New America Foundation.

My response:

Because Congress failed to pass comprehensive climate legislation in 2010, and prospects for action in the current Congress are remote, many environmentalists have been focused on steps President Obama can take on his own. And it is true that the President has authority under the Clean Air Act to take significant action to limit greenhouse gas emissions. But while these steps are both necessary and critically important, they do not let Congress off the hook in the long run.

Why? To borrow a line from the 2012 campaign, it’s simple math.

The World Resources Institute recently studied the impact of actions the EPA could take under existing law. In Goldilocks style, they laid out three scenarios – lackluster, middle-of-the-road, and go-getter – based on the aggressiveness of EPA’s approach. Unlike the home-invading blonde of the fairy tale, WRI recommends the most aggressive approach, which would reduce emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. That’s the same level of reductions that would have been achieved by the failed congressional legislation. What’s more, this path would result in a 40% reduction in pollution by 2050.

So what’s the problem?  Well, a 40% reduction is only half of what we need to achieve to avert the worst impacts. In other words, we can’t get to a safe climate from here without action by Congress, even under the most aggressive scenario of executive action. As WRI says, “New federal legislation will eventually be needed, because even go-getter action by federal and state governments will probably fail to achieve the more than 80 percent GHG emissions reductions necessary to fend off the most deleterious impacts of climate change.”

Without that level of commitment, we also won’t see other countries achieve the reductions necessary. While about one-third of the world’s economic output is technically covered by some form of greenhouse gas emissions limit, these rules are far from enough to solve the problem. And while growth-hungry nations in Asia are starting to take steps on climate change, they will likely insist on bold action by the United States before moving as aggressively as is necessary.

The most important short term domestic priority for environmentalists should be ensuring that EPA carries out its obligations under the Clean Air Act*. That would cut billions of tons of pollution and buy us critical time in the fight against climate change. But if we are to prevent the worst impacts of artificially altering the Earth’s natural systems, we need Congress to eventually accept its responsibility to protect the nation.

*EDF economist Gernot Wagner has more details on executive actions President Obama can take to tackle climate change.

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation, News, Policy / Comments are closed

Republicans vs. Democrats: Why Washington is Stuck on Climate Change (Part 2)

By Keith Gaby / Published: March 29, 2013
(This blog was first posted on EDF Voices)

Image by DonkeyHotey/Flickr

Look at the polls: Twice as many Democrats as Republicans say that most scientists agree that climate change is occurring. But why don’t conservatives believe in climate change? For some progressives, the answer is easy: Republicans are dumb or backwards or fooling themselves. They may feel the same about me, since I don’t think it ever makes sense to write off a hundred million of your fellow Americans as fools for disagreeing with you.

It is certainly true that partisanship drives a lot of the opposition. President Obama is for it, so they are against it. Al Gore is the face of climate change, so it must be wrong. That’s an irrational approach to any issue, but it is something we all do. Democrats should try this thought experiment: If Dick Cheney were promoting an issue, calling on Americans to make it a national priority and touring the country with a fact-filled slide show, would you be willing to agree with him?

Gallup Poll

You might say it would depend on the facts he was presenting, but if I honestly ask myself the question, I know it would be very hard for me to stand on his side.

Or look at the issue of missile defense. There may be plenty of reasons to be skeptical of missile defense, but for most progressives who don’t follow the issue closely (like me), I think our opposition is rooted in the fact that President Reagan first promoted it.

Progressive are no more interested in having their cities bombed than Republicans are in having them flooded, and very few non-experts on either side really understand the complex science of either issue. But we have taken our cues from the leaders we trust, and instinctively oppose those with whom we generally disagree. (Just to be clear, I’m not arguing the relative merits of missile defense and climate action. My point is simply that tribalism and partisanship tends to color our judgment.)

So it makes sense that conservatives would start out as skeptical toward climate change. But once every major scientific organization has concluded the science is right, shouldn’t they get past that? After all, the consensus view of climate science has been endorsed by the august and stodgy National Academy of Sciences, which President George W. Bush called the “gold standard” of scientific inquiry.

It may be that a more important reason many conservatives are reluctant to accept the science of global warming is that the solutions worry them. Addressing the problem will require national policies (and international cooperation) that shift our economy towards clean energy, and the GOP generally wants less, not more, government. So conservatives are going to demand very strong evidence that the problem is real and dangerous.

Still, I believe that for most conservatives, the bar of proof is not set infinitely high. When they see a real, dangerous threat, they get behind government action. For example, Republicans support the Centers for Disease Control’s work to fight epidemic diseases and FBI efforts against organized crime. Similarly, once conservatives are convinced that climate change threatens our way of life, they will support policies to address the problem. Their solutions may be different from EDF’s, but that’s a debate the nation would benefit from having.

Next time: How to build a constructive conversation between progressives and conservatives on climate change.

Also posted in Policy / Read 1 Response