California Backtracks on Its Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Program

[Updated September 17, 2015]

 

California’s praiseworthy effort to curb emissions of greenhouse gases, initiated by former Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, suffered a major setback when present Governor Jerry Brown and state legislators agreed to exempt petroleum from the program.  They succumbed to intense pressure from the oil industry. 

 

To minimize further global warming and its harms we all have to limit accumulation of additional atmospheric greenhouse gases.  The oil industry campaign in California has the opposite effect, ensuring addition of more gases rather than minimizing their buildup.   We and future generations will suffer the harmful consequences.

 

Former Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, addressing a United Nations conference on the environment in June 2005, indicated his understanding that climate change is an indisputable threat.  He revealed his plans to combat global warming, stating

"Today, California will be a leader in the fight against global warming….I say the debate is over. We know the science, we see the threat and we know the time for action is now." 

Under the Governor’s leadership California enacted emissions reduction legislation, its Global Warming Solutions Act, in 2006 (read more). The Act imposes statutory limits on the annual emission rate of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) only until 2020, requiring reduction to the level of 1990 by that date.  Yet, recognizing that more drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are required in order to minimize global warming, Schwarzenegger further issued an executive order establishing the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 80% below the level of 1990 by 2050, with an interim objective of reducing emissions by 50% by 2030.  These limits are modeled after similar goals established by the European Union.

Ten years later and now no longer the governor, Schwarzenegger has not relented, stating  

“The debate is over and the time for action is now….[T]his is the challenge of our time. And it is our responsibility to leave this world a better place than we found it, but right now we are failing future generations.”

Source: Deadline.com

 

Oil Industry Lobbies for Exemption.  On September 10, 2015, however, according to a report in the New York Times, the Democratic majority in the California Senate and Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown opted to exempt oil products from the rules of the plan. They faced successful opposition from Democrats in the California Assembly.  The report stated that the legislators succumbed to intense pressure from the oil industry, including  a massive advertising and mailing campaign, to let them continue operating unhindered.

This opposition asserted, incorrectly, that the restrictions could result in gas rationing and a ban on minivans, stating, for example, “This law will limit how often we can drive our own cars”.  The photo below shows a Los Angeles, California highway during rush hour, showing how important it is to “drive our own cars”.

Clogged rush hour traffic recently on a Los Angeles, California highway.

Source: New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/us/california-democrats-drop-plan-to-force-50-percent-cut-in-oil-use.html?ref=us&_r=2

 

 

The legislation remaining after the exemption for petroleum still keeps California on target in other segments of the energy economy, including energy efficiency and providing for renewable electric power.  Nevertheless, removing petroleum, which powers automobile traffic, excludes a major contributor to total GHG emissions from the overall emission limits.

 

This represents a major setback for Gov. Brown, for he strongly supports his state’s emission reduction program.  In addition, it clearly compromises the strength of his position before international negotiators involved in finalizing a worldwide agreement on emissions reduction under the umbrella of the United Nations.
 

President Obama highlighted the damages to Alaska resulting from global warming already under way, during his visit there the week before.  In a major speech he stated
 

“[T]he Arctic is the leading edge of climate change -- our leading indicator of what the entire planet faces.  Arctic temperatures are rising about twice as fast as the global average….  Last year was Alaska’s warmest year on record….[a]nd the impacts here are very real….[Damages] could cost billions of dollars to fix.”
 

British Columbia’s carbon fee.  In contrast to the rollback of the limits on GHG emissions that California is carrying out, the Canadian province of British Columbia has implemented a revenue-neutral carbon fee.  The program went into effect in 2008.  It progressively raised the fee each year until 2012.  The fee continues in effect at that level.  It is revenue-neutral, because the increase in revenues from the fee are returned to British Columbia taxpayers by reductions in other taxes.

 

Analysis

 

The more GHGs are emitted the higher the temperature of the entire earth system becomes.  The excess heat stored in the atmosphere, reflected in higher long-term global average air temperatures as well as in the total excess heat energy stored in the oceans (about 90% of the total heat), is directly related to the total excess burden of CO₂ and other GHGs that accumulate in the atmosphere.  These GHGs originate from humanity’s use of fossil fuels to provide our energy.  CO₂ emitted into the atmosphere remains there undiminished for centuries.  As long as we continue to emit excess GHGs into the atmosphere the total heat content of the air + oceans will continue to increase. 

 

This is the reason that it is essential to minimize annual rates of GHG emissions, ultimately reaching near zero annual emissions.  Only then will the total heat of the air + oceans stabilize at a new, higher value governed by the higher level of GHGs then prevailing.  So the faster humankind succeeds in reducing annual GHG emission rates to near zero, the less will be the increase in the new stabilized global average temperature.
 

This reality is why the action of California’s legislature is disappointing, indeed counterproductive.  The continued unconstrained emission of CO₂ from burning gasoline and other petroleum products slows the needed reduction in GHG emission rates, resulting in a higher stabilized global average temperature.
 

California’s economy alone contributes about 1/7th of America’s entire economic activity, as of 2014; its proportional energy economy likewise is comparable since the various sectors of the economy provide the demand for energy use.  For this reason any backtracking in California’s ambitious program to reduce its emissions rate is a serious, and irreversible, setback.
 

Evidence of the devastation wrought by man-made global warming is already apparent in California.  Its multi-year drought has critically affected its agricultural productivity, and triggered forest wildfires that are more extensive than in past decades.  Droughts typically arise when rain and snowfall are less than expected.  But the current drought is more severe because of the excessive heat that worsens the dry conditions.  It is unconscionable that oil industry interests seek to perpetuate the activities that lead to California’s extreme drought.

[Update] Valerie Trouet and colleagues published a detailed analysis of precipitation in the Sierra Nevada mountains of eastern California online in Nature Climate Change in September 2015.   They focused on the annual mountain snowfall that on melting provides much of the water resources for the state, going back to 1500 C.E.  They found that the water originating as snowfall in the winter of 2015 was the least for the entire 515 year period examined.  The likelihood of such a low snowpack having occurred in the past is estimated at once in every 3,100 years, which points out the extreme nature of this year’s minimum.  In view of projected worsening of man-made warming in the Sierra Nevada, the authors fear “major future impacts” on the region’s water storage ability.
 

The self-serving exemption from GHG emission limits by the oil industry enhances its short-term financial gain, but also contributes to long-term worsening of global warming, with all its harmful and damaging effects on the world’s population.  Even so the companies’ executives and shareholders, and their progeny, will be affected to the same extent as others around the world will be.  This select group of individuals can’t build biosphere domes over their homes and places of work to protect them from harm.  Their own actions will come back to harm them and their children. 
 

This notion has been poignantly underscored by President Barack Obama, who said in his State of the Union address on January 28, 2014 : 
 

“Climate change is a fact.  And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.”
 

Conclusion.  The damaging effects of global warming are already upon us, and are made worse by our continued use of fossil fuels, and other GHG-producing activities.  All peoples of the world have to coalesce around positive steps to minimize further emissions and stabilize the heat added to the earth system.



 

© 2015 Henry Auer



Review: “Climate Change Policy Failures” by Howard A. Latin

Summary.  This post reviews the new book “Climate Change Policy Failures: Why Conventional Mitigation Approaches Cannot Succeed” by Prof. Howard A. Latin.  Prof. Latin begins by reviewing the past decade or more of legislative activity in the U. S. concerned with abating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, finding the drafts to be ineffective (none were enacted into law).  More generally, he characterizes the gradual approach to abatement currently prevalent both nationally and internationally as being “too little, too late”, and being “back-loaded” toward later decades.  This is ineffective because GHGs would continue to accumulate, building up ever higher levels in the atmosphere and worsening the warming of the planet.  Additionally, the book details the failures at the international level to agree on world-wide abatement policies, over more than two decades.

Instead, the book calls for innovative measures to “decarbonize” our energy economy by deploying replacement technologies, starting right away.  Prof. Latin suggests 1) setting up an independent Clean Technology Commission to select promising replacement technologies to pursue; 2) implementing a progressively increasing carbon tax to fund the investments identified by the Commission; 3) imposing economy-wide regulation of fossil fuel use in those industries responsible for most GHG emissions; and 4) requiring public disclosure of GHG emission rates by emission sources.

Prof. Latin has written a compelling book setting forth the reasons for immediate or early action to abate further emissions of GHGs, and has presented a comprehensive plan on how to go about this task.  “Climate Change Policy Failures” is strongly recommended to policymakers, to researchers and commentators, and to the interested public.

(Readers preferring not to delve into details may wish to pass directly to this reviewer’s Assessment, which appears below, following the exposition of the book’s features.)

 Introduction.

Many books have been published on global warming, including policy approaches to combating the worsening warming of the earth by man-made greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Howard A. Latin, Professor of Law at Rutgers University, has written a book on this topic, entitled “Climate Change Policy Failures: Why Conventional Mitigation Approaches Cannot Succeed” (“Policy Failures”; see Note 1).  The book presents a cogent argument on the urgency of embarking on mitigation efforts.  Setting forth this rationale in itself performs a valuable service.  His statement of the problem, while not original with the author, is all too frequently overlooked in reporting on global warming, and justifies the provocative title that Prof. Latin has chosen for his book.

The Case for Urgent Action

Prof. Latin cites several reports from late in the last decade attesting to the warming of the planet.  For example, the U. S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration reported that 2010 tied with 2005 as the hottest year in recorded human history (citing the New York Times), and that long-term warming is scientifically “unarguable” (citing many reports).

Current policy initiatives are characterized as “too little, too late”.

The U. S. has never enacted greenhouse gas legislation.  Policy Failures points out that, most recently, in 2009-2010, neither the Markey-Waxman bill in the House of Representatives, incorporating a watered-down cap-and-trade mechanism, nor the Senate’s Kerry-Lieberman bill, whose provisions resemble those of the Markey-Waxman bill, was enacted into law. [Presumably after this book went to press, however, the Obama administration issued regulations doubling the fuel efficiency of cars and imposing restrictions on emissions from new large electric generating plants.]  

Some regional climate agreements have been reached in the U. S. in recent years.  These include the Northeast states’ Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the first (if modest) cap-and-trade regime enacted in the U. S., and the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) of seven western states and four Canadian provinces.  Unfortunately the book fails to note that WCI actually fell apart shortly after its formation, leaving only California and one Canadian province in a reduction program extending to 2050.  The book further mentions that the European Union (EU) has undertaken to reduce emissions with the same goal as the state of California.

Policy Failures makes the strong, and valid, point that policies such as these suffer “the same climate policy mistakes”, namely, that they are too gradual. Their stated goals are to reduce emissions over a multi-decade interval, mostly using cap-and-trade mechanisms.  Prof. Latin believes this “consensus approach will prove ‘too little, too late’ by deferring crucial GHG reductions too far into the future….[which] would consistently be back-loaded” to later decades (emphasis in original).

“Back-loading” is inappropriate because carbon dioxide (CO₂), the most prevalent GHG, persists in the atmosphere for centuries or longer (citing the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences).  Thus GHGs that continue to accumulate during the coming decades under gradual reduction policies irreversibly increase the total atmospheric concentration of GHGs.  “At best”, Policy Failures states, “the consensus emissions-reduction programs will only slow the growth of … atmospheric GHG[s] and related climate change risks to a minimal extent” (emphasis in original).  While this would “create an illusion of climate change mitigation progress”, it would actually “wast[e] irreplaceable time and resources that could [instead be used] to implement more promising…efforts”.

Policy Failures cites an analogy by Prof. John Sterman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  Imagine a bathtub containing atmospheric CO₂.  It continues to fill up higher as long as the faucet delivers more CO₂ than is removed by the drain.  The best we can hope for realistically in the foreseeable future is to stabilize the bathtub at a new, higher, level of CO₂ because emissions are essentially irreversible.  Natural processes that remove CO₂ are inadequate to pull all the added, man-made GHGs out of the atmosphere.  (The technology of carbon capture and storage, which would store excess CO₂ underground, is still in the experimental stage.)

The need for GHG-free replacement-technologies.

Instead of the gradual policies, Prof. Latin argues strongly that the U. S., and other emission-intensive nations of the world, need to “decarbonize” our energy economies, i.e., to develop ways of obtaining energy that eliminate the release of CO₂ and other GHGs into the atmosphere; this must be done “[n]ow, today, not tomorrow”.  Otherwise, under the “back-loaded” consensus approach, the world continues to emit GHGs and accumulate them in the atmosphere, leading to worsening global warming and its attendant climate harms.   In addition, Prof. Latin declares that rapid transition to carbon-free replacement technologies is the only way for developed countries to respond to the aspirations of developing or less affluent countries without continuing to degrade the climate in ways that adversely affect them. 

Economic strategies for reducing GHG emissions.

Cap-and-trade is one system for lowering emissions.  Under it, all major emitting facilities are allotted allowances that license the release of a fixed amount, say 1 ton, of GHGs.  An administrative agency decides allotments for each period.  Ideally the emitters would pay for the allowances, frequently by auction, but at the outset in many regimes these are distributed at no charge.  Markets are set up for trading allowances, thereby establishing a price for emissions.  In addition, inefficient sources can buy offsets from operations that consume GHGs (tree farms, for example).  The market price on carbon deters fossil fuel use and motivates research and deployment of replacement energy sources. 

There are many problems with a cap-and-trade regime that make it difficult to succeed.  Emissions continue to be sanctioned according to allotted allowances.  Large corporate emitters can influence allotments such that they are improperly allocated. A large new bureaucracy is needed to administer it.  The market can wind up not valuing emissions high enough to act as a deterrent to emitting GHGs.  Offsets are difficult to regulate and properly administer. 

A carbon tax or fee can be imposed directly, and the tax or fee used in a variety of ways.  The tax increases the price of the fuel, and of any article of commerce made using the fuel, thereby discouraging use of the fuel.  This provides an incentive to commercialize and deploy replacement energy sources. 

There are many possible ways that a carbon tax can be imposed and the revenue dispensed.  One system, offered by Dr. James Hansen, a respected climate scientist who has consistently warned of the perils of global warming for decades, is his fee-and-dividend plan (see Note 2).  The carbon fee would be collected at the source at which a fossil fuel enters the economy, and its revenue would be distributed to all members of the public in equal shares regardless of usage.  Thus there is an incentive to reduce consumption in order to benefit more from the dividend.  Surprisingly, Policy Failures devotes an inordinately large amount of space to criticizing Dr. Hansen’s fee-and-dividend plan in minute detail (see the Assessment below).

Prof. Latin concludes that neither cap-and-trade nor a free-standing carbon tax regime would successfully reduce fossil fuel use and carbon emissions.

International climate negotiations are stalemated.

Policy Failures reviews international climate negotiations since the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992.  The UNFCCC includes all United Nations members, now numbering 193 nations.  UNFCCC negotiations led to the conclusion of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, under which developed countries agreed to modest reductions in GHG emissions.  The term of the Protocol expires at the end of 2012.  Developing countries were excluded from its coverage.  The U. S., although it is a developed country, rejected the Protocol and so likewise does not fall under its terms.

In recent years the annual UNFCCC conferences in Copenhagen (2009), Cancun (2010) and Durban (2011) have sought without success to conclude a new agreement to follow the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol.  The main points of contention remain those that led to exclusion of developing countries from being bound by the Kyoto Protocol.

Developing countries argue that historically the developed countries have been responsible for most emissions already produced; their per capita emissions rate is much higher than for developing countries.  The continued economic growth of developing countries, on the other hand, necessarily implies a profound increase in their per capita emissions rate as their growth continues.   They contend that it is the developed countries that should take the initiative in reducing their emissions rates.  In their view fairness requires nothing less.  

Developed countries defend the need to include all nations in climate accords now by noting that widespread recognition of the climate conundrum became prevalent only in recent decades.  They feel that the developing countries, with their rapidly growing populations and economies, cannot realistically expect developed countries, whose populations and economies are more stable, to significantly reduce their living standards in order to grant developing countries more leeway with their emissions.

These fundamental differences persist to the present.  By the time of the Durban conference in 2011, all ambition to conclude a successor to the Kyoto Protocol had been abandoned; the only development was an intention to complete negotiation of a new treaty by 2015, with an expectation that it would then be implemented by 2020.  Prof. Latin reflects the opinion of many of not being sanguine about the success of this endeavor. 

Policy Failures laments that it is hard to see how climate negotiations that have been fruitless for the past decade can reach a meaningful agreement for the coming decades as called for by the Durban plan.

Policy Failures proposes four interacting mechanisms to stabilize GHGs.

Prof. Latin proposes that the only way out of an impasse so fundamental is to devise new policies recognizing both points of view.  Significantly, he states  “[s]uccessful climate change policies must accomplish two demanding goals concurrently: eliminating as much residual GHG pollution as feasible to stabilize …[GHGs]…, and promoting greater economic and social welfare in developing countries that otherwise will continue discharging more GHGs …every year”.  He laments that world leaders continue discussions on gradually lowering the rate of emissions rather than seeking the necessary stabilization of accumulated GHGs by early deployment of decarbonizing replacement technologies. 

Current policies, he feels, will achieve neither of these objectives.  Rather, Policy Failures proposes four program steps, starting in the U. S. 

1. Set up an independent scientific, technological and economics Clean Technology Commission (CTC), as a quasi-governmental body, to assess various replacement technologies and decarbonization methods.  It would identify, support development of, and assist in deploying the most promising replacement technologies, while striving to deflect political and corporate influence.

2. Implement a progressively increasing carbon tax whose revenues will be used to fund the activities of the CTC.  The tax, once assessed at an appropriate economic level, will motivate consumers to reduce their interim use of fossil fuels.  The tax revenue should not be applied to uses not related to renewable energy such as deficit reduction, income redistribution, or a rebate or “dividend”.

3. As a complement to the carbon tax, impose new regulations to reduce fossil fuel use in those sectors of the energy economy most responsible for high GHG emission rates, using federal regulatory authority.  These regulations should be stringent enough to induce those affected to invest in replacement technologies sooner rather than later.  Policy Failures recognizes the serious and difficult political obstacles that these regulations are likely to encounter. 

4. Require public disclosure of all GHG emission rates in the U. S.  Enhanced knowledge of emissions would provide incentives for the public to lower their use of fossil fuels.

Assessment

Prof. Latin has written a cogent, compelling book setting forth the reason for immediate or early action to abate further emissions of GHGs, and has presented a comprehensive plan on how to go about this task in the U. S., if not worldwide. In summary

1. The factor determining the extent of global warming is the cumulative atmospheric concentration of CO₂ and other GHGs, not the annual rate of emissions.  Humanity is ill-advised to seek gradually to reduce the emissions rate over a period of several decades, all the while continuing to accumulate more atmospheric GHGs. 

2. Policy Failures summarizes the inability at the international level to achieve even modest progress on a worldwide accord to address global warming.  It further reviews the failed legislative efforts domestically in the U. S. to regulate GHG emission rates. 

3. Prof. Latin seeks to stabilize the accumulated GHG concentration at as low a level as possible.  Accordingly, he offers a new private-public framework to develop replacement technologies as rapidly as possible and to fund the framework with a comprehensive progressive carbon tax.  This framework abandons the “back-loaded”, gradual approach that is common policy in various settings around the world.

Policy Failures represents an important contribution to the literature on abating GHG emissions.  That said, the book would have benefited from proposals aimed at incorporating developing countries into a program for stabilizing GHG emissions.  This failing is all the more unexpected in view of the detailed presentation of the current status of international climate negotiations.  The developed countries of the world are projected to have essentially constant annual rates of emission of GHGs in coming decades.  Developing countries including China and India, on the other hand, are projected to continue their development by burning ever-larger amounts of fossil fuels and emitting more and more GHGs each year.  Stabilizing the accumulated level of atmospheric GHGs must include these countries.  Proposals for deploying replacement technologies in these countries would have rounded out the book.  Prof. Latin defended himself against a similar concern expressed by a U. N. official, stating “I do not have a realistic, comprehensive political solution today and neither does anyone else.”

The book would also have presented a stronger case for action had it reviewed the relationship between extreme weather events and the warming of the planet.  Recent scientific analyses of past climate and extreme events have clearly demonstrated causative associations between them and global warming. Also, many internet and other sources are available providing data on the large economic damages and significant societal harms inflicted by the severe weather events of recent years.  Reference to these developments would have enhanced the book.

The book is exceptionally well supported by references in the endnotes.  These cite both internet pages as well as printed sources.

A lesser concern is that Policy Failures devotes a seemingly excessive amount of attention to criticizing and rebutting James Hansen’s “fee-and-dividend” proposal.  The book did not consider other carbon tax proposals in such negative detail.  It appears to this reviewer that perceived defects in Dr. Hansen’s proposal could have been discussed more briefly and more objectively.

In summary, Policy Failures is strongly recommended to policymakers dealing with global warming at both the national and international levels, to those dealing with this issue as researchers and commentators, and to the interested public.  Its important contribution is the case made for taking immediate, bold action rather than continuing with conventional, gradual approaches to mitigation.  Its particular proposal for taking action is also useful; it will certainly serve to stimulate discussion, and hopefully, lead to enacted policy.  

 

Notes

1. “Climate Change Policy Failures: Why Conventional Mitigation Approaches Cannot Succeed”, Howard A. Latin, 2012, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore.
2. “Storms of my Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and our Last Chance to Save Humanity”, James Hansen, 2009, Bloomsbury USA, New York.

© 2012 Henry Auer

Drastically Reducing California’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050

Summary:  California’s Global Warming Solutions Act and Executive Order S-3-05 establish the goal of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases economy-wide in the state by 80% below the level of 1990 by 2050.  The California Science and Technology Council, a non-official group, issued its report, “California’s Energy Future: The View to 2050”, providing a detailed analysis of the state’s current energy landscape, and proposed bold measures to attain the 80% reduction goal.

They found that a 60% reduction was attainable using technologies currently available or ready for scale-up.  A major contributor to this goal is enhancing the energy efficiency of the economy, including fixed buildings and transportation.  Additional components include a) replacing the end use of fossil fuels with electricity and the concomitant elimination of carbon dioxide emissions using carbon capture and sequestration, b) commissioning new nuclear power plants, and c) using renewable energy sources.

CCST found, however, that attaining the full 80% reduction goal was beyond the capability of currently deployable technologies.  This requires extensive research to identify and/or implement fully innovative technologies.

Because of the ever-increasing rate of emission of greenhouse gases and the resulting increase in earth’s long-term average temperature, it is important to implement initiatives such as that in this Report.  Strong support from government funding is needed and appropriate in order to embark on such programs.

 

Introduction.  The need to curtail emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) around the world has led some nations and regions to develop ambitious programs to limit emissions in coming decades.  The European Commission has developed a plan, currently being implemented by the nations of the European Union, to limit emissions by 20% below the levels of 1990 by 2020, and by at least 80% by 2050 (see this earlier post). 

In the U. S., California enacted similar legislation, its statute AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, in 2006 (see this earlier post).  AB32 enacts statutory limits on greenhouse gas emissions only until 2020, requiring reduction to the level of 1990 by that date.  Yet, recognizing that climate scientists have determined that more drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are required in order to minimize global warming, the Governor of California at the time, Arnold Schwarzenegger, issued Executive Order S-3-05, establishing the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below the level of 1990 by 2050.  The California Air Resource Board’s Climate Change Scoping Plan envisions the bold, novel initiatives that are required to achieve this long-term objective.

California has had a long history of developing programs to conserve energy and limit greenhouse gas emissions, even before passage of AB32 and the Governor's executive order.  Starting in the 1970's, an extensive program of energy conservation (see, for example, “Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States”, prepared by America’s Energy Future, Panel on Energy Efficiency Technologies (National Academies Press, 2010))  and development of renewable energy has been put in place.  As a result, while the rest of the country continued to expand its use of fossil fuels, and of total consumption of energy, the trend for California remained relatively constant, i.e., it did not increase in tandem with the rest of the country.

The California Science and Technology Council (CCST), a non-official group of academic and government officials, recently issued a thorough analysis of the energy landscape accessible to the state, “California’s Energy Future: The View to 2050” (Summary Report, May 2011).  Its objective was to assess the nature and extent of measures needed that might be used to achieve the objectives of S-3-05.  This post summarizes the Summary Report.

CCST points out a significant hurdle in achieving the goal in S-3-05.  Between 2005 and 2050 California’s population is expected to grow by almost 50% to 55 million people.  Furthermore, assuming no major initiatives are taken to curb emissions beyond those already in place, and assuming moderate economic growth the  state will need about twice as much energy by then than at present.

The authors assessed various technologies usable in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and categorized them into four groups, as shown in the following table.

Technology Bin	Description
Bin 1	Deployed and available at scale now
Bin 2	Demonstrated, but not available at scale or not economical now
Bin 3	In development, not yet available
Bin 4	Research concepts

Source: “California’s Energy Future: The View to 2050” http://www.ccst.us/publications/2011/2011energy.pdf.

By focusing only on technologies in Bins 1 and 2, CCST established that reduction in emissions by 60% was achievable by 2050.  This goal required the following four main courses of action.

1. The building stock in the state should be “aggressively” upgraded to be as energy efficient as possible.  (Increasing the efficiency of buildings has been called “the low hanging fruit” in greenhouse gas reduction programs, summarized in this earlier post).  This includes designing new building codes that optimize energy efficiency in building construction and operation.  It also includes, to the extent possible, retrofitting existing buildings to increase the efficiency of their consumption of energy.  As part of their normal life cycle, buildings not susceptible of retrofitting at reasonable cost should be destroyed and replaced.

2. Generation of electricity should move toward operation that releases as little carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as possible, i. e., use of fossil fuels for electric power should be drastically reduced.  This includes development of renewable sources of energy such as a wind power (see this earlier post) and solar power, the use of biofuels which is essentially carbon-neutral, implementation of carbon capture and sequestration technology (CCS; see the preceding post on this blog) for fossil fuel-driven generation plants, and expansion of  nuclear power generation in the overall energy mix.  The preceding post  characterized CCS as capable of removing 80% of the CO₂ in the flue gas of power plants, while the Summary Report relies on removing up to 90% with the current state of the technology.

Non-stationary sources of carbon dioxide emissions (primarily transportation and freight), and industrial users of energy, should move away from primary (i. e., direct) reliance on burning fossil fuels, and become electrified, to the greatest extent possible.  This entails a major shift for passenger cars away from internal combustion engines toward hybrid electric or pure electric propulsion systems.  Similarly, where feasible, industrial consumers of energy  should also seek to employ electric power for their needs.

3. In order to maximize use of electricity and minimize use of fossil fuels, first, overall electric generation capacity will need to double; second, “aggressive” steps must be taken to have minimal emissions of CO₂ from this expanded generation of electricity; and third, since renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power provide electricity only intermittently while demand persists undiminished, load balancing technology will have to be developed and implemented that itself minimizes further greenhouse gas emissions. This is referred to as zero-emissions load balancing (ZELB).   It is necessary to fill in the short-term variability in supply of power by generating additional electricity using responsive generation.  Technologies useful for ZELB include pumped water storage, thermal storage, and battery storage.  In addition, digital circuitry should be installed to monitor and optimize power usage at individual sites of demand (smart-grid technology).  The Report supports a significant growth of nuclear power as a technology that emits virtually no CO₂, while recognizing that public opinion may oppose it and that current state law prohibits new nuclear plants as long as the U. S. has no plan for permanent storage of nuclear waste.

4.  Energy usage in industries and sectors where electricity is not a convenient source, such as heavy trucks, airplanes, and those needing high heat, should also be shifted to sources that avoid the net release of greenhouse gases.  Principal sources of such energy are various forms of biomass, which represent a cycling of carbon between absorbing CO₂ during growth of biomass products and release of CO₂ when the biomass is burned.

CCST visualized the concepts identified above in the following chart.

Diagram representing steps in achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. 

Source: “California’s Energy Future: The View to 2050” http://www.ccst.us/publications/2011/2011energy.pdf.

In all panels of the chart, the vertical axis represents greenhouse gas intensity, i.e., the emissions produced per unit of energy consumed.  The horizontal axis is divided between fossil fuel-derived energy (gray-green, left) and electricity (off-white, right) as the primary energy source used in a particular facility or device.  Multiplying the two directions gives the total energy, the area inside a bounded box.  The full box, surrounded by the purple line, represents the total energy projected to be used in California in 2050. 

Panel a) shows this as the starting point (BAU, business-as-usual), before measures are taken to reduce emissions. 

Panel b) shows the effect of implementing efficiency in all uses of energy (symbolized by the compact fluorescent bulb and the light gray arrows). 

Panel c) shows the effect of using more electricity, produced in ways that limit greenhouse gas emissions, and less fossil fuels (symbolized by the plug-in car and the blue arrows).  Panels b) and c) reduce energy usage, compressing the horizontal axis, and shifting the energy area to the right, toward electrification. 

Panel d) shows the effect of moving away from greenhouse gas-emitting fuels by use of biofuels or biomass for combustion (symbolized by the green leaf and the green arrow) and renewable energy for electricity (symbolized by the yellow lightning flash and yellow arrow); these lower the greenhouse gas intensity (vertical axis). 

Panel e) summarizes the results of the steps in panels b), c) and d).

CCST assessed the effects of implementing efficiency measures economy-wide, expanding the use of electricity for providing energy, reducing the use of fossil fuels or use of CCS to generate electricity with reduced emissions, and reducing use of fossil fuels in generating heat energy (items 1-4 above).  They sought to determine which ones singly, or in combinations of two, three or all four measures, were needed to achieve 60% reduction from 1990 emission levels.  None of the simulations based on only one, two, or three measures was adequate for this purpose.  Only implementation of all four technologies sufficed to achieve the desired 60% reduction.  (The reader may turn to the Report for details on the analysis leading to this conclusion.)

Significantly, however, these technologies, drawn from bins 1 and 2 in the table above, were not effective to achieve 80% reduction of emissions.  This means that major investments in research, development and deployment (RD&D) of technologies currently at a seed stage, and of entirely new technologies, have to be undertaken to attain the objective of Executive Order S-3-05.

Strategies for Attaining 80% Reduction in Emissions.  The Summary Report considers eight technologies, many of which currently are classed in bins 3 and 4, above to reach a reduction of 80%.

1. Achieve economical 100% removal of CO₂ with CCS. 
2. Totally remove use of fossil fuels with CCS from generating electricity.  This may be counterproductive if 100% capture of CO₂ were achieved.
3. Develop 100% ZELB.  This could be highly advantageous to attain the emissions goal.  Several technologies requiring extensive RD&D could potentially be applied.
4. Use of biofuels with no net GHG emissions could make a significant contribution to achieving the 80% reduction goal.  However, full life-cycle emissions may be greater than zero.  In addition, land and resource constraints in California may preclude large scale use of biofuels, even if harvested from waste and marginal land sites.
5. A significant contribution could be made by eliciting population-wide changes in behavior and life-style, including use of smaller homes and cars, greater use of public transportation, and comparable changes in the commercial realm as well.
6. Burning biomass when combined with CCS results in net negative emission of CO₂, i.e., the combined result is to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere.  This may be a more advantageous use of biomass than converting it to a biofuel.
7. Hydrogen fuel can be prepared in a few different ways, currently known.  The principal barrier to use of hydrogen is lack of adequate distribution networks, and lack of ways to incorporate hydrogen storage and release in vehicles, for example.  Furthermore, currently fuel cell technology for burning hydrogen is costly.
8. The greatest impact could be achieved by doubling the amount of biofuels.  The technology is accessible; this alternative is hindered only in its negative impact on food production.

By combining many of these technologies the Report assesses that California could actually attain a negative emissions rate, i.e., a net removal of CO₂ from the atmosphere (see Figure 9 and related discussion in the Report). 

The Report relies strongly on CCS for both the 60% reduction target and the 80% target.  Achieving the 80% target with CCS includes “reforming” natural gas (methane) to provide hydrogen gas as a fuel and CO₂ as a waste product.  The report recognizes that CCS remains an unproven technology (see the previous post).

Conclusions

CCST has presented a bold, ambitious plan to achieve 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below the levels of 1990 by 2050, in two stages.  First, a reduction of 60% is to be achieved using technologies that are currently either already operating at the commercial scale needed, or that are sufficiently developed that scaling presents no serious problem to implementation.  This stage relies heavily on increased efficiency of energy use in buildings and transportation, and on converting all primary power generation to the generation of electricity and the concomitant capture of CO₂ and its long term storage in geologically secure formations deep underground.  It is envisioned that most transportation vehicles and industrial facilities that currently use fossil fuels will be converted to use the electricity to be provided by the expanded generation capacity instead.  A considerable portion of the new electric capacity will be provided by renewable sources that operate only intermittently, such as solar and wind power.  In order to fill in the periods in which renewables are not active, the Report supports development of electric generating capability producing zero emissions of CO₂, and grid technology that responds to fluctuations in the electricity supply-demand balance.

The second stage brings California’s emissions rate down to 20% of the 1990 level.  The Report finds that this final stage is not achievable with currently-deployed energy technology.  Considerable RD&D expenditures will be needed to reach this goal because the multitude of innovations are only now being identified and developed.

The CCST Report presents a detailed analysis of the present energy landscape in California and the needs projected for the next four decades.  Its proposal to electrify energy usage as much as possible, coupled with extensive implementation of CCS and ZELB, is a bold new initiative.  The Report does not specifically address the contentious issue of pricing CO₂ emissions, other than noting that AB32 operates via a cap-and-trade regime, but does point out that large expenditures of capital are required by the program presented.

It is appropriate to offer state and federal financial incentives for programs such as this one.  Chemical & Engineering News, published by the American Chemical Society, reports on a detailed analysis by Nancy Pfund and Ben Healey of subsidies and tax incentives enjoyed historically by the energy industry.  Subsidies for oil and gas in the U. S. go back as far as 1916 in the form of drilling depreciation and depletion tax breaks.  Average annual subsidies for four energy types are shown below.  (Subsidies for the coal industry were harder to document, and were not presented.)

Source: Chemical & Engineering News, Dec. 19, 2011; http://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies.html

It is seen that for the periods shown, the average annual subsidy for oil and gas was more than 10 times that for renewables, and for nuclear, more than 7 times larger.  During the first 15 years of an industry, when its future is still tenuous, federal subsidies make a big difference for new ventures.  The research found that in this nascent period nuclear energy received 10 times as much government support as renewables, and oil and gas received 5 times as much.   Thus there is a longstanding precedent for federal support for energy in the U. S.

The CCST Report includes many areas that require further RD&D work in order to be serviceable at scale.  In view of the long history of federal support for energy development it is entirely appropriate that federal funding support be provided to aid in the implementation of this emissions reduction program..

“California’s Energy Future: The View to 2050” makes a significant contribution to developing a regime that would significantly limit greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.  It points out the feasibility of the various technologies, highlighting those needing more development, and identifying still others that are still relatively conjectural or poorly demonstrated.  It estimates broadly amounts needed for investment to realize the technologies required.  For these and other reasons the Report deserves serious consideration by policymakers and legislators, both for the state of California and as a model for a national policy.

Critically, it must always be kept in mind that reducing annual rates of greenhouse gas emissions does not have the effect of lowering the world-wide concentration of those gases in the atmosphere in the future.  Reducing emission rates merely slows the accumulation of such gases in the atmosphere.  Thus even if a program such as that presented in this Report succeeds in lowering the rate of emissions significantly by 2050, the overall accumulated concentration of greenhouse gases will still be higher than it is today.  This means that the long-term average temperature around the globe will likewise be higher than it is today, bringing with it worse extremes of weather and climate than the world is already experiencing.  Future climate conditions would not, however, be as severe as they would be under a “business-as-usual” regime in which no remedial actions were taken.  For this reason, it behooves this nation, and the nations of the world, to take concrete steps such as presented in the CCST Report at the earliest possible time.

© 2011 Henry Auer