Rediscovering the Will to Change: A New Energy Economy

Summary.  The growth of the U.S. from an agricultural society to an industrial power was driven in important ways by ambition, a positive attitude, and an ability to see opportunities and develop them.  Examples of changes that contributed to this growth include new means of transportation and communication.

As our economy grew and matured, however, unforeseen harmful effects of some activities became apparent.  Acid rain from electric generation was identified as the cause of dying forests.  Synthetic refrigerants were flagged as the cause of the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere.  Increased carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels for energy was marked as the cause of global warming and its harms. The industries in question ignored the science behind these findings, and fought the need to change their business activities.

Global warming remains an unresolved problem.  Because of the vast size of the fossil fuel industry and the major changes already brought about by global warming it needs to abandon its resistance to change.  Its business model of providing energy for a growing and developing world remains, but needs to switch to carbon-free sources and to develop new technologies.  This new model will still yield profits for the industry, and continue to provide jobs for the economy.

 

American growth.  Throughout much of our history America has been a country marked by people bent on succeeding.  An entrepreneurial spirit drove the development and widespread adoption of new devices and new technologies that dramatically advanced our economic growth and improved living conditions for our population.

Railroads.  For millenia news and articles of commerce could travel no faster than men, or their animals, could carry htem.  The advent of the industrial revolution in the early nineteenth century, however, brought coal-powered transportation; railroads crossed the landscape faster and further than had been possible earlier.  This dramatically accelerated commerce and the exchange of technologies among populations separated by large distances, improving the lives of the participants.   Coal was also the fuel used in the growing iron and steel industry that permitted forging the rails, building the bridges, and providing the skeletons for new skyscrapers rising in cities.  The force behind all this growth was the vision of the industrialists and architects who created these enterprises and buildings.

Automobiles.  Human ambitions also led to the development of the gasoline engine and its use to power individual transportation, the automobile.  This depended on newly discovered sources of liquid fuels, the petroleum deposits in Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and elsewhere.  Liquid fuels provided vastly improved convenience and independence to the consuming public, as well as to the military.  The foresight and ambition driving this change is another example of the positive attitudes of the entrepreneurs behind this growth. 

This spirit gave rise to America's exceptional industrial expansion, helped it survive the Great Depression of the 1930's, and was the spirit invoked by President Roosevelt and our military leaders to fight the war that ultimately defeated the Axis powers. 

Electronics.  A final example is drawn from the electronics industry.  Over the course of the 20th century electronics moved completely from analog to digital circuitry based on solid state transistors.  This transformation likewise was driven by forward-looking scientists and entrepreneurs.  Its growth was highly dependent on creativity and resilience, since the pace of technological advance, and therefore the competition in the industry, was very intensive.

Optimism.  These examples are cited to emphasize the "can-do" enthusiasm that has marked the growth of America over its history.   Much of our expansion was further promoted by favorable state and congressional action.  The Homestead Act drew Americans with a vision to move west and spread roots in a new setting.  Railroad expansion likewise was fostered by supportive laws.  Recovery from the Great Depression and fighting the Second World War depended crucially on the cooperation between the president and Congress.

Resisting change: Acid rain.  In more recent decades, however, interest groups have opposed the need, based on scientific findings, for changes in their operations.  In the 1970s forests in the American northeast and southern Canada began dying mysteriously.  Lakes and rivers had massive fish die-offs.  Scientists eventually traced the cause to the presence of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, strong acids when they combine with moisture, in the exhaust gas from coal-burning power plants.  The plumes from these plants became windborne and carried the acids many hundreds of miles from their sources.  The acidic moisture fell to the ground whenever it rained.  The acidity became so severe that forests could no longer tolerate it and died in vast swaths.  The same phenomenon occurred in Europe.

The solution to this malady lay in desulfurizing the exhaust gases of the offending power plants or fuel switching to low sulfur fuels.  The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposed limits on how much sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides could be emitted by the power plants.  The power companies objected vigorously to what they protested would be the great expense required to implement this remedy. 

As of 2014 EPA projected that acid emissions would fall between 54 and more than 70% from 2005 levels, with estimated health savings of $120 to $280 billion per year . The measures have been effective, as the acid rain problem has diminished significantly in recent years.

 

Depletion in the ozone content of the upper atmosphere.  Ozone, a molecule consisting of three oxygen atoms, forms by the action of sunlight on the more common oxygen molecule, consisting of two oxygen atoms.  Depletion of ozone over Antarctica was first detected in the 1980's, and grew worse each year during that region's summer.  Ozone is important because it screens out the sun's ultraviolet (UV) rays, whereas the oxygen molecule does not.  Penetration of UV increases the occurrence of skin cancer and promotes cataracts in the eye lens.

Atmospheric scientists Mario Molina, F. Sherwood Rowland and Paul Crutzen showed that man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), used in aerosol spray cans, air conditioners and refrigerators, can cause the loss of ozone when combined with the action of sunlight.  (They were awarded the Nobel Prize for this work in 1995.)  The scientists strongly recommended phasing out use of CFCs for refrigeration. 

Companies in the U. S. that made CFC's, such as DuPont and Pennwalt; chemical manufacturers in Europe; and makers of aerosol spray cans mounted intense public relations campaigns questioning the science connecting CFCs with ozone loss.  They warned of massive economic loss if they were required to halt production.  Major constraints on CFC use came with the Montreal Protocol, an agreement under the United Nations (U. N.) in 1987, which U. S. President Ronald Reagan agreed to.  It called for phasing out the use of CFCs.  By 2016, Susan Solomon (who had helped identify the problem at the time of Montreal Protocol) and coworkers reported the ozone extent over Antarctica is starting to increase, decades after the Protocol was agreed to.  They were able to link the increase to lower levels of ozone-depleting chemicals in the stratosphere.

Global warming. Ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution, economic progress and enhanced living standards have relied on the ready availability of energy sources, primarily fossil fuels.  Worldwide consumption of energy continues to increase, driven especially by policies promoting economic growth in the developing world.  As of 2010, providing energy to the world’s population accounted for about 8% of global economic activity, of which about US$4.4 trillion was for the fossil fuel share.  Yet scientists as long ago as the nineteenth century recognized that carbon dioxide (CO₂), the combustion product obtained when fossil fuels are burned, is a greenhouse gas leading to global warming. 

In recent decades scientists from around the world have warned that the growing accumulation of CO₂ in the atmosphere from human fuel use would have serious harmful effects on the earth’s living systems.  They have pointed out in a succession of reports, beginning in 1990, that the sooner we agree to limit fossil fuel use, the easier and more effective the abatement measures would be. 

In the United States, the economic power of the fossil fuel industry and the political power of naysayers have been directed against the predictions of harm from the scientific community.  Dr. James Hansen, a renowned climate scientist, had been warning of the effects of global warming for many years.  His concerns were suppressed by the administration of President George W. Bush, made possible since Hansen, employed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, was a government employee (James Hansen, “Storms of my Grandchildren”, Bloomsbury, 2009).  Fossil fuel interests have mounted an ongoing campaign to plant seeds of doubt among the public concerning man-made global warming (Naomi Oreskes and Erik. M. Conway, “Merchants of Doubt”, Bloomsbury Press, 2010).  U. S. Senator James Inhofe has published the book “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Controversy Threatens Your Future” (WND Books, 2012).  Scientists at Exxon Mobil in the 1970’s and 1980’s published research addressing the global warming issue.  At the time they recognized “Exxon's … ethical credo on honesty and integrity."  Yet by the late 1990’s, when the U. N.-sponsored Kyoto Protocol to limit further warming was being negotiated, the company reversed its policy and sought to raise doubts about the scientific basis of man-made global warming.

Discussion
 
The growth of the United States, and its westward expansion, in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is a reflection of the optimistic, “can-do” spirit that pervaded the country in those periods.  Much of this growth depended on exploitation of new scientific, engineering and technological advances by enterprises in both the private and public realms.   

In more recent times as technology has expanded, however, unforeseen harmful effects of byproducts from the use of these technologies have become apparent.  The cases described above are examples of how commercial and political interests coalesced to refuse to accept scientific realities and to reject the remedies required.  Acid rain arose from the trace levels of sulfur present in coal and oil, while the heat of combustion converted the nitrogen of the air into acidic nitrogen oxides.  Depletion of stratospheric ozone is due to the diffusion to the stratosphere of trace amounts of man-made refrigerants.  The industries in question, electric power generation and chemical manufacturers, opposed implementing the changes needed to address the problems even in the face of compelling scientific evidence.  In the end the technological fixes for these two effects were not excessive, and remedies were put in place.

Refusal to accept the scientific validity of man-made global warming is the most profound example of the “won’t change” mentality that replaced the “can-do” attitude of American growth.  Because of the fundamental importance of the global energy industry in the world’s economy, the actions of this sector have major effects on our planet’s environmental wellbeing.  Exxon Mobil’s internal research, for example, set out the compelling need for energy companies to modify their activities and limit production of fossil fuels.  Yet by the time that the Kyoto Protocol was issued in 1997, Exxon Mobil changed its policy to one of creating doubt.  In general the world’s fossil fuel companies opposed changing their operations.  Political forces also resisted change.  Whereas Europe and most of the developed countries ratified the Protocol, the U. S. never did.  Canada and Australia, which initially agreed on policies to limit CO₂ emissions, later changed course and withdrew from the Protocol. 

 

Conclusion

In the U. S. the “can-do” mindset that inspired its early expansion and economic growth has, in the cases examined here, been replaced by a “won’t change” operating principle.  This is especially important for our planet’s wellbeing, in the global warming case.  Producing carbon-based fuels comprises an important part of the world’s gross economic product, resulting in emission of massive amounts of CO₂, a greenhouse gas. 

The world’s energy demand will continue to grow as economies develop and populations increase.  The U. N.-sponsored Paris Agreement of December 2015 recognizes the absolute necessity for worldwide change in energy production.

The present situation calls for the world’s fossil fuel companies to develop new business models. Fulfilling the growing worldwide demand for energy means that there is profit to be made in this industry.  That demand must be provided, however, by technologies that do not emit CO₂.  We have to change to an energy economy that emits near-zero carbon in order to minimize further warming.  New technologies will have to be developed.  The energy industry has to abandon its fossil fuel-driven business model, and create the vast infrastructure for provision of energy from renewable sources. It has to give up its present “won’t change” mindset and adopt again a “can-do” attitude.

 
© 2016 Henry Auer

Connecticut’s First Wind Farm and the Growth of Wind Energy

Summary: The author recently participated in a tour of Connecticut’s first wind farm.  Operation of the wind farm represents the success of its campaign to gain permitting and financing, and to complete construction.

Wind generation capacity has grown dramatically, but erratically, in the U. S. in response to the cyclical operation or expiration of a series of production tax credits.  The current credit, in place for five years until the end of 2019, will provide a more stable investment and business environment for wind development.

The Department of Energy foresees major expansion of wind energy by 2030, and even more by 2050.  Wind could provide a significant fraction of U. S. demand for electricity by then.

 

On a beautiful sunny day at the end of June 2016 I joined a group of interested citizens on an organized tour of the state of Connecticut’s first wind farm.  Our guide was Gregory Zupkus, the CEO of BNE Energy, the business venture that built the farm.

At present, BNE Energy’s farm consists of two wind turbines.  Planning for a third turbine is underway.  The towers to the hub that houses the generation equipment are about 330 feet (100 m) high, and the blades are about 135 feet (41 m) long.  Each turbine, made by General Electric, can produce 2.85 MW of electricity.  The scale of this equipment is truly inspiring, as can be seen below.

 

BNE Energy wind turbine.  Some of our colleagues are visible to the right of the base.  The lower inset shows the base of the turbine, held by closely spaced rods.  The rods descend a few feet then splay out horizontally like the roots of a tree; the entire assembly is embedded in concrete.

Photos: Henry Auer 

 

 

The BNE Energy wind farm project took many years to come to fruition, including a three-year battle with local opponents of the project.  They were concerned, among other factors, about noise pollution from the rotating rotors.  This aspect of the process was concluded by a favorable decision from the Connecticut Supreme Court in 2014, allowing the project to continue. 

 

There was also opposition from activists concerned about collisions between the rotors and birds in flight.  During our visit Mr.Zupkus pointed out a person crisscrossing the meadow beneath one of the turbines.  He said this was an environmentalist looking for dead birds.  He pointed out that from the time the wind farm began producing electricity in October 2015 until our visit only two dead birds had been found by such searches.

 

The energy from this wind farm enters the local electricity grid via a feeder line that is only 1 ½ miles (2.4 km) long, a very short distance indeed.  This helped keep the cost of the project low.  The amount of electricity is enough to provide the power for the residents of nearby towns.

 

The project’s cost is US$23 million.  It benefited from a U. S. law providing a production tax credit (i.e., a credit during operation dependent on the amount of electric energy provided).  The financing was seeded by a loan from the Connecticut Green Bank, a state agency intended to stimulate public-private financing in fields that the state seeks to promote.  With that stimulus, and a long term power purchase agreement from the local electric utility company, financing was obtained from three regional commercial banks.  The loans differ in their details, but Mr. Zupkus indicated they would be redeemed at various times, the earliest being five years.  Once paid off, BNE Energy will be earning profits.

 

Developing wind energy creates new jobs.  During construction the contractors employed several dozen high-skilled workers.  Furthermore, the project promotes secondary labor demand in the fabrication of the various parts of the wind turbine installations such as steel working, manufacturing the turbine blades, and electronic controls for operation.  During operation there are far fewer job needs, as the day-to-day functioning of the turbines is largely controlled electronically.  Expansion of wind energy will obviously create many more job opportunities in the future.

 

Discussion

 

Wind Energy in the U. S.  The installed wind generation capability in the U. S. has grown dramatically, albeit by fits and starts, in the past 15 years.  This is seen in the following graphic, which shows the annual additions of new wind capacity, and the total cumulative generation capacity from 1999 to 2015:

Annual and cumulative wind-powered generation capacity.  DEEP BLUE, cumulative capacity.  AQUA and MULTI-COLORED bars, generation capacity added each year.  The arrows show dates of expiration of federal production tax credits (see text).

Source: Adapted from the American Wind Energy Association, http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5059.

 

 

Production Tax Credit.  It is seen that the annual capacity additions (light-colored bars) surge to time-dependent maxima, than fall precipitously the following year.  These are indicated by the arrows in the graphic above, and arise as follows.  A federal production tax was enacted in 1992 but allowed to expire in December 1999; after six months it was reinstated until December 2001; after 3 months it was reenacted until December 2003; after 10 months it was again reinstated until 2009, at which time wind businesses could choose between three taxing alternatives until 2012 when the production tax credit again expired; it was renewed to expire in Dec. 2014; it was again renewed for 1 year to Dec. 2015.  “Congress giveth and Congress taketh away.” 

 

These serial enactments and expirations of production tax credits left the wind industry whipsawed, unable to plan effectively for new investment.  As a result, after the expiration of each short-term credit the graphic above shows that annual installation of new generation capacity fell dramatically. Congress finally recognized the detrimental effects of its fits-and-starts legislative actions.  Accordingly, the production tax credit was further extended at the end of 2015, made retroactive to the beginning of that year, and extended for a five year period, to the end of 2019.  The wind industry now has a stable investment environment in place sufficient for advance planning for new wind energy projects.  It is anticipated that this stable investment environment will lead to a significant expansion of installed wind energy capacity (as well as solar) by the expiration of the current tax credit.

 

The present tax credit regime, which benefits both wind energy and solar generation, is expected to result in 37 gigawatts of new wind and solar capacity—a 56-percent increase during  its 5 year duration, promoting $73 billion in new investment, and enabling as many as 8 million more households to benefit from renewable energy at competitive prices.

 

The cost of producing wind-driven electricity has been falling dramatically in recent years. The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) is an analysis of the lifetime costs involved in constructing and operating an electricity-generating facility over the projected lifetime of the facility, typically several decades.  The LCOE for wind energy has fallen about 60%   between 2009 and 2015, and is reaching a value that is competitive with fossil fuel generating facilities.  By the end of the current tax credit at the end of 2019 the continued improvement of the LCOE as time passes will certainly make wind generation fully competitive with fossil fuel generation.

 

Wind energy is projected to grow dramatically in the U. S.  The U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) projects that wind energy generation will expand dramatically in future decades.  As an example, the graphic below compares actual wind energy production by state in 2013 with an expected extent of generation in 2030.

 

Comparison of actual wind energy generation state by state in the U. S. in 2013 (inset, upper left) with a projection of wind generation capacity in 2030 (right).  GREEN circles/sectors represent land-based generation.  BLUE circles/sectors represent offshore generation.  The size of the circles is scaled to the wind power capacity in gigawatts (right panel, calibrated by the white circles at the lower right of the panel).

Source: U. S. Department of Energy, http://energy.gov/articles/new-interactive-map-shows-big-potential-america-s-wind-energy-future  

 

 

Actual generation capacity in the U. S. in 2013 was 60.7 gigawatts (GW; billions of watts), with generation occurring in 34 of the contiguous 48 states.  This provided about 4.6% of U. S. electricity demand.  By 2030, DOE projects an increase of 269% to 224.1 GW in 47 states, with a significant fraction coming from offshore generation.  By 2050 the projection climbs to 404.3 GW in all 48 states (not shown), with important contributions from offshore generation in both inland lakes and ocean sites.  This could provide as much as one-third of the electricity used in the U. S. at that time.

 

Benefits of wind energy.  DOE writes that by 2050

·        The price of wind energy is projected to be directly competitive with conventional energy technologies within the next decade.

·        Wind energy could be a viable source of renewable electricity in all 50 states.

·        Wind energy could support more than 600,000 jobs in manufacturing, installation, maintenance and supporting services.

·        Wind energy could save $508 billion from reduced pollutants and $280 billion in natural gas costs.

·        Wind energy could save 260 billion gallons of water that would have been used by the electric power sector.   

 

Conclusion

 

The manmade increase in the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere as we burn fossil fuels because no natural processes exist that remove it on the (geologically short) time scale needed to reduce global warming.  Therefore it is necessary to end further accumulation as fast as possible by actively migrating to a near zero-carbon energy economy, i.e., one that does not rely on fossil fuels to produce energy.

 

Wind-driven generation of electricity is growing dramatically in the U. S.  It is one way of moving toward zero emissions.  In recent years development of new wind facilities has responded directly to the presence or absence of the federal production tax credit.  Wind is expected to expand even further in coming decades to a point at which it can provide a large fraction of anticipated demand.  A stable federal policy supporting a production tax credit for wind (and other renewable) sources is a significant factor in the growth of wind generation until the industry becomes self-sufficient.

 

© 2016 Henry Auer

The U. S. and China Announce Joint Emissions Reductions

People in China and the U. S. feel the effects of global warming in their daily lives.  Smog in Beijing and other cities, driven in part by burning coal for electric generation, severely impacts the lives of Chinese citizens.  During the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit Nov. 11-14, 2014, China closed factories and gave workers time off in Beijing to reduce emissions while foreign officials were there.   While the average global temperature has risen worldwide since the industrial revolution began, the average temperature in China has risen even more.  The frequency of extreme weather and exceptional natural disasters such as droughts, dust storms, heavy rains, flooding and mudslides in China has risen in recent decades.  Urbanization has increased in China’s coastal cities, such as Shanghai, Tianjin and Hong Kong, making them more vulnerable to inundations from rising sea levels.

American coastal cities such as Miami Beach and Norfolk, Virginia routinely suffer high tide flooding.  According to the U. S. National Climate Assessment (May 2014),

warming has already had adverse effects across the U. S., including heat waves, droughts, wildfires, changes in availability of water, floods, ocean storm surges, extreme weather and climate events and socioeconomic effects.  Worsening of these trends is foreseen during this century.

Global warming from man-made greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as carbon dioxide (CO₂), is clearly a problem confronting all humanity, requiring the cooperation of all nations of the world to address it.  Once emitted into the atmosphere, GHGs disperse across the entire globe.  Multinational efforts to conclude a new global warming treaty are currently under way.  Nevertheless, some experts have suggested that agreements between two or a small set of nations could play an important role as well.  Along these lines the U. S. and China announced a joint agreement to address GHG emissions on Nov. 12, 2014, during the APEC summit.

President Obama and President Xi pledged that their countries would significantly reduce emissions of GHGs over the next 15 years, each in their own way.  They agreed that

• the U. S. would lower its GHG emission rates by 26-28% from the levels emitted in 2005, by 2025.  (The U. S. has already pledged to reduce emissions by 17% from the levels of 2005 by 2020.)  This requires an increasing the intended annual rate of reduction of GHG emissions from 1.2% per year up to 2020 to 2.3-2.8% per year between 2020 and 2025.

 

• China’s emission rates, which continue growing because it is adding new fossil fuel-driven electric generating plants to power its expanding economy, will reach a maximum annual rate by 2030 and possibly sooner.  China’s commitment to slow the growth of its emissions was not specified in numerical terms.  As part of this initiative China expects to increase the share of energy derived from renewable sources (solar power, wind, nuclear and hydroelectric) to 20% by the target date of 2030.

 

• The two nations agreed to extend and expand their cooperation in reducing emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, used in refrigeration, originally announced in 2013.  These substances are far more potent GHGs than CO₂.

These commitments are being made by the two countries that are the two highest-emitting nations of the world, accounting for over one-third of annual global emission rates of GHGs.  The importance of these pledges cannot be exaggerated.

• The commitments pledge major reductions in GHG emission rates by each of the two nations.

 

• The agreement was reached outside the framework of the worldwide United Nations sponsored negotiations for a universal treaty.  Those negotiations, occurring annually for many years, have been fraught with contention and disagreements.

 

• The commitments made by the two largest emitters of GHGs in the world to reduce emission rates should serve as a powerful incentive for other nations to reduce their emissions, whether individually or within the U. N. framework, to reach a meaningful agreement.

There is need for caution as well as enthusiasm in evaluating this agreement.  The U. S. White House put out a press release concerning this bilateral agreement on behalf of Presidents Obama and Xi.  This writer sought and could not find a corresponding English-language announcement on the web site of People’s Daily, the Chinese government’s newspaper, for Nov. 12, nor for Nov. 13, 2014.  However, China Daily, a non-governmental English language newspaper, did report the announcements.  If accurate, this leaves an impression that the Chinese government preferred to downplay or dissociate itself from the agreement even as President Obama embraced it.

This is not a binding agreement between parties.  As the White House wrote, the two parties separately announced goals or commitments to attain their respective targets by their respective dates.  President Obama has only two years left in office, so that most of the target conditions will have to be fulfilled by his successor(s).  A future president could just as well decide against following through on the present commitments.  He also faces a hostile Congress which may interfere with his intentions. 

President Xi heads a central government, so it may be easier for him to follow through on his commitments (see below, discussion on Five Year Plans).

The agreement imposes very different constraints on the two governments.  The American commitment is for numerically stated, and verifiable, reductions in emission rates.  The Chinese commitment, however, fails to specify a numerical standard for the extent of its reduction in emission rates.  The announcement states only that China will reduce the growth rate of its annual emissions until a maximum rate is achieved by 2030, or perhaps earlier.  Presumably China’s emission rate will actually begin falling after 2030, but this also is not stated.  (A common objective among climate scientists and policymakers, in order to keep the world’s global average temperature rise below 2ºC (3.6ºF), is that global emission rates have to be cut by 80% or more by 2050 below early 21^st century levels.)

China’s Five Year Plans (FYPs) have already programmed in significant changes.  China’s national development is set forth in successive FYPs, which are assembled by China’s central government.  According to the report “Delivering Low Carbon Growth – A Guide to the 12th Five Year Plan”,  the proportion of energy provided by non-fossil fuel sources is to be 11.4% in the 12^th FYP (2011-2015) and 15.0% in the 13^th FYP (2016-2020).  So it is seen that much of the goal in November’s bilateral agreement is already planned, leaving an additional 5% of total energy to be provided by non-fossil fuel sources in the ten years leading to 2030 in order to reach the specified 20% objective.

China Daily reported that the bilateral agreement used earlier language that has always distinguished between developing and developed countries.  The wording was first presented in the U. N. Framework Convention on Climate Change twenty years ago, namely, that nations of the world address climate change “on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”.   This phrasing reflects the concerns that “the developed countr[ies] should take the lead in combating climate change” and that the “specific needs and special circumstances of developing countr[ies]…should be given full consideration”.  

China Daily reported that in the bilateral agreement "the two countries are committed to reaching an ambitious 2015 agreement that reflects the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of different national circumstances.”  In other words, developing countries such as China continue to stress equity in insisting that they be given the same opportunity to develop, using fossil fuels for energy, that industrialized countries have benefited from for more than a century.  At the same time they point to the responsibility of those developed countries now to limit their emissions because of their advanced economic status.  These attitudes stress hindsight or past history.

Developed countries such as the U. S., on the other hand, presumably consider equity as supporting a policy that, since developing countries are now the ones expanding the world’s burden of atmospheric GHGs, they should bear the “differentiated responsibility” of constraining their emissions. Whereas China was an impoverished developing country in the early 1990s, it is now the world’s largest emitter of GHGs and a powerful economic force.  One can legitimately question whether developed countries still have to acknowledge “differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” of flourishing countries such as China.

Conclusion

U. S. President Obama and China’s President Xi announced bilateral objectives of differing scope and timing to place their nations on paths toward significant reductions in GHG emission rates.  The joint objectives mark the first time the two nations of the world with the highest emission rates agree on the importance of mitigating emission rates; the result will be highly significant for the climatic health of our planet.  Citizens of both countries, indeed of all the world’s nations, will benefit from this undertaking.  It creates an important incentive for achieving agreement on mitigating emissions worldwide, resulting from U. N.-sponsored negotiations over the coming year.

© 2014 Henry Auer

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Part 3: Mitigation of Climate Change

Summary.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued Part 3 of its Fifth Assessment Report, “Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change”, on April 13, 2014.  Part 3 reviews recent historical results on the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases.  It then presents extensive modeling results projecting possible gas levels by 2100 under various emission scenarios.

The scenarios show that global action to reduce emissions to date have been insufficient to achieve a desired goal, that of limiting the world’s average temperature increase to 2ºC (3.6ºF) above the level before the industrial revolution began.  This means that the world will have to invest in mitigation more intensively.  Only certain stringent scenarios suffice to meet this objective; other more lenient ones yield higher greenhouse gas levels that result in a temperature rise higher than the goal.

If we picture the world’s energy economy as a supertanker with high inertial momentum, early intervention by one or two tugs to slow the tanker and steer it to its terminal would have been sufficient.  But now it grows late, and many tugs working at full power will be needed to bring the tanker to its terminal without a collision.

The world has to coalesce around the common objective of reaching agreement on effective mitigation goals and strategies in order to stay within the 2ºC limit.

Introduction

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  The IPCC has issued four previous Assessment Reports (ARs) beginning in 1990; they are summarized here.  The last of the three parts of the Fifth Assessment Report (5AR), Part 3, “Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change”, was released on April 13, 2014 and is discussed here.  This post is based on its Summary for Policymakers (SPM).  (Part 1 of 5AR, “The Physical Science Basis”, was released on September 30, 2013, reported on here.  Part 2, “Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability”, was released on March 31, 2014, and is described here).

The IPCC Assessment Reports carry great weight among climate scientists and policymakers around the world.  Each part is assembled by a large group of researchers who are specialists in their respective fields, drawn from many UN member states.  The draft reports are subjected to two rounds of scientific review and approval by selected governments before being released (see Details at the end of this post.)  This process assures the most rigorous scientific validity and forms a sound basis for policy development.

Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Concentration in the Atmosphere

SPM defines mitigation as “a human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases”.  (A source emits GHGs into the atmosphere and a sink removes them from the atmosphere).

Trends in Recent Annual GHG Emission Rates. The cause of short-term  warming of the earth system is the increase in atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) brought on by human activity associated with the industrial revolution.  This includes largely the burning of fossil fuels that emit the GHG carbon dioxide (CO₂), as well as increases in other sources of CO₂ and other GHGs as well.  This is shown in the graphic “Historical Trend of Manmade GHG Emissions” (see Details), presenting rates of emission of important GHGs from 1970-2010.  These have increased critically in recent years: average emissions increased by 1.3% per year in the three decades from 1970 to 2000, but became more drastic, 2.2% per year, between 2000 and 2010.  This increase in the annual emission rate is foreseen to continue unabated in the absence of meaningful mitigation measures.

Projected Increases in Annual GHG Emission Rates to 2100.  SPM summarizes climate models that were used to project future emission rates assuming a wide range of final GHG concentrations accumulated by the year 2100.  The worst of these, the “baseline”, assumes no significant mitigation measures will be taken.  The baseline leads to more than 1,000 parts per million CO₂ (ppm; volumes of CO₂ in 1,000,000 volumes of air) by then.  A graphic showing the projected trends under several emission scenarios is shown as “Projected Emissions Trajectories to 2100” in Details.  The increases shown are due to population growth, and, especially from sharp increases in energy-using economic activity.

Projected Temperature Increases.  The baseline is foreseen to produce a long-term global average temperature increase above pre-industrial times of 3.7 to 4.8ºC (6.7 to 8.6ºF); currently the temperature has increased by about 0.6 to 0.7ºC (1.1 to 1.3ºF).  (The full range of projections from the 5% to the 95% confidence level is much wider, showing the temperature could reach a higher average temperature: 2.5 to 7.8ºC).

The models for the most stringent mitigation measures are intended to keep the long term global average temperature from exceeding 2ºC (3.6ºF) above the pre-industrial level by 2100, corresponding to a GHG concentration of 450 ppm.

Mitigation Measures Are Needed to Keep Temperature Below the 2ºC Goal.  SPM evaluates how successful the various emission scenarios would be in achieving the 2ºC goal by 2100.  This builds on the modeling described above and shown in the graphic “Projected Emissions Trajectories to 2100”.  It concludes with high confidence that worldwide mitigation steps in place or pledged today are insufficient to attain the 2ºC goal, and that delaying further, more stringent mitigation strategies beyond 2030 would make it more difficult to put them in place.  This would also have the effect of reducing the range of mitigation choices available to reach the 2ºC goal.   Failure to keep the emission rate in 2030 below the required level would require “much more rapid scale-up of low-carbon energy over” 2030-2050, and “higher transitional and long term economic impacts”.  Because infrastructure installations underlying the energy economy have long service lifetimes, continuing a “business-as-usual” expansion of GHG-producing facilities “may be difficult or very costly to change, reinforcing the importance of action for ambitious mitigation”.  Compared to emission rates for 2010, successful mitigation pathways are modeled to reduce emissions by 90% between 2040 and 2070, and may even turn negative (i.e., become GHG sinks) by 2100.

Improvements in efficiency of energy infrastructure components as well as changes in human behavior that lead to reduced energy demand are needed to achieve the required reduction in emission rates.  If fossil fuel use were to continue, it would have to be coupled with carbon capture and storage (or sequestration; CCS), which is not yet considered to be a proven available process (please see these two posts).

National and regional mitigation policies already in place have modest results.  Cap-and-trade (market) mechanisms for reducing emissions, according to SPM, have mixed success because of loose caps or caps set too leniently.  Fuel taxes have the long-term result of reducing emission by 0.6 to 0.8% for a 1% increase in purchase price.

International efforts to constrain emissions at the global level are under way.  Negotiations to follow up on the expired Kyoto Protocol are in progress; the intention is to conclude a binding worldwide treaty by 2015 and for it to become effective in 2020.  The Protocol crucially excluded developing countries from coverage, retaining only developed countries under its terms.

Analysis

Global warming is truly a global issue, one that confronts each and every one of us on our planet.  Humanity’s emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels for energy, and of other gases as well, warm the entire earth.  This is a truly global problem, because one nation’s emissions do not affect only its territory; they are dispersed into the atmosphere and contribute to warming the entire planet.

Total accumulated GHG levels in the atmosphere, not annual emission rates, are what determine the extent of increase in the long-term global average temperature.  On the time scale of the next several human generations, CO₂, the principal GHG, persists in the atmosphere once emitted (after about 30% is consumed by photosynthesis and by dissolving into the oceans; certain other GHGs are spontaneously lost over shorter times).  For this reason, as long as humanity continues to emit CO₂ the world’s average temperature will continue to increase.  Reducing the annual GHG emission rate to near zero only has the effect of minimizing the extent by which the world’s temperature will increase.  A zero emission regime can never return the atmosphere to a lower temperature that prevailed in earlier decades, for the next several human generation times.

Imagine a supertanker loaded with oil (representing the world’s energy economy) leaving port after loading.  Its engines have to work hard to reach cruising speed (representing the world’s expanding energy economy).  When it reaches its port, it has to slow down and navigate to the terminal (representing the need for mitigation).  One or two pilot tugs could meet it far from the terminal and help slow it down, navigating through the twisting channel to the terminal (representing minimal effort expended over a long time to achieve the result).  But if the tugs meet the supertanker only at the last minute, more tugs working at their highest power are needed to slow the ship and guide it to the terminal (representing intense effort applied late to prevent a collision).

A Stitch in Time.  The IPCC has been urging the world to migrate away from use of fossil fuels, and invest in renewable energy, since its first Assessment Report in 1990.  At that time, extreme weather and climate events were not yet prevalent, so reducing greenhouse gas emissions then could well have minimized the need to remedy future damage; the presumed emissions reductions would have kept the world’s temperature increase low enough that extreme weather and climate events would have been less severe.  SPM shows, however, that that opportunity has been largely, but not irretrievably, lost. 

The urgings in successive assessment reports to begin meaningful emission reductions reflect perfectly the meaning of the old saying, “a stitch in time saves nine”.  In other words, early repair of a (tailoring or climatic) defect involving minimal effort avoids the need for later extensive repair of the worsening defect that was left untended.

The prominent climate scientist Thomas F. Stocker concluded in 2013   “…every year counts….  [The longer] the starting time of [a global mitigation program] is delayed, the [more] low [limiting temperature] targets are progressively lost.  The door for these climate targets closes irreversibly.”

SPM is a clarion call for action, sooner, not later.  Internationally, and at the national and personal level, the people of the world have to coalesce around this objective, and work with good will to achieving success.

Details

Significance of IPCC Assessment Reports.  5AR, like its predecessors, is produced by hundreds of experts from around the world, and is subjected to review by other experts and by appropriate governmental bodies before it is approved and accepted for release.  Technical details in Part 3 of 5AR are based primarily on peer-reviewed journal articles and reports produced by renowned nongovernmental organizations or government agencies.  The exhaustive review assures that the released report both represents the current state of scientific and technical expertise, on the one hand, and the points of view of governments of the IPCC, on the other. 

The steps involved in preparing the reports are summarized here , including details for Part 3:

1. Governments and organizations nominate authors, who are then selected by the organizers of the Working Group (here called a “Part”)
2. 449 coordinating lead authors, lead authors, contributing authors and review editors from over 58 countries were selected to prepare a first draft of Part 3, considering over 10,000 references to the scientific literature;
3. The first draft was reviewed by 1,530 other experts who considered 16,188 comments provided by 602 expert reviewers from 58 countries;
4. 939 individuals prepared a second draft;
5. The second draft was reviewed by 469 expert reviewers from 53 countries, and by 24 governments, who provided 19,554 comments;
6. The final draft of the Summary for Policymakers was prepared by representatives of 37 governments, considering 2,573 comments; and
7. The final draft was approved and accepted by all 195 member nations of the IPCC, and released.

As a result of this thorough drafting and review process, the ARs are rigorously objective.  The reader cannot seriously believe that the ARs offer prejudiced or directed findings or opinions. Indeed, the approval and acceptance process likely leads to consensus positions on unresolved or contentious issues while minimizing the importance granted outlying results or evaluations.

Historical Trend of Manmade GHG Emissions

 

Annual emission rates from 1970 to 2010 of GHGs in gigatonnes (billions of metric tons) per year measured as equivalents to the warming potential of CO₂.  ORANGE, CO₂ from burning fossil fuels; RUST ORANGE, CO₂ from forest loss and land use changes; LIGHT BLUE, methane (CH₄); DARK BLUE, nitrous oxide (N₂O), which arises from agriculture and other human activities; and BLACK, fluorine-containing carbon compounds frequently used in refrigeration.

LEFT PANEL shows annual emission rates, with numerical amounts and percentage of each category shown every 10 years.  The horizontal bars in the UPPER PORTION of the LEFT PANEL show that emissions increased by 1.3% per year from 1970 to 2000, but became more drastic, 2.2% per year, between 2000 and 2010.

RIGHT VERTICAL BARS give the values for 2010 with “I-beam” error bars shown, for, left to right, the total annual emission, and the emissions for fluorine-containing carbon compounds, nitrous oxide, methane, CO₂ from forest loss and CO₂ from fossil fuels.

Source: IPCC AR5 Part 3 SPM; http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf

 

Projected Emissions Trajectories to 2100

 

 

Projected annual GHG emission rates.  Historical data are shown to 2010.  Projections proceed from 2010 to 2100.  Annual rates can continue rising or can curve downward, approaching minimal-to-zero emission rates by 2100. 

 

Two principal types of scenario are shown.  The solid black lines labeled with various RCP values show models for given values of excess heating of the earth system due to GHG levels. RCP8.5 (uppermost line) represents continued emissions unconstrained by meaningful mitigation measures, whereas RCP2.6 (lowest line) represents a highly stringent mitigation scenario.

 

The six colored bands show models for given ranges of atmospheric GHG gases (as CO₂ equivalents) foreseen by 2100, ranging from more than 1,000 ppm (GRAY band; minimal mitigation measures) at the top to a range of 430-480 ppm (LIGHT BLUE band; stringent mitigation measures) at the bottom.

 

Source: IPCC AR5 Part 3 SPM; http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf

 

© 2014 Henry Auer