Weathervane

IEA Energy Outlook: Capped and Uncapped Futures Could Vary Greatly

Tiffany Clements — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:54:00 GMT

According to the International Energy Agency’s long-term energy outlook, the worldwide recession will curb energy demand in 2009 but that trend will quickly get back on an upward swing, rising to 40 percent over 2007 levels by 2030.

IEA analysts assume with business-as-usual practices, worldwide demand for fossil fuels will account for 77 percent of overall demand growth by 2030. Moreover, electricity demand will increase 76 percent, requiring the addition of generating capacity five times greater than that of current capacity in the United States.

IEA officials also calculated another scenario in World Energy Outlook 2009 to find what type of energy shift the world would need to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gasses (GHGs) at 450 parts per million, a number that translates into a 2°C temperature increase — the target agreed upon by leaders of the world’s largest economies last year. Business-as-usual projections put global temperatures on a path to increase as much as 6°C.

Analysts say the 450 ppm goal can be met through a mix of cap-and-trade programs, multinational agreements and considerable funding for adaptation and mitigation technology to lower atmospheric concentrations of GHGs. Meeting the goal of 450 ppm, according to IEA analysts, will require the additional investment of some $10.5 trillion in the global energy sector between 2010 and 2030.

More details from the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2009 can be found here. Environmental Capital’s Keith Johnson unpacks more of the numbers here and Joe Romm delves into the story at ClimateProgress.

Tiffany Clements is managing editor of Weathervane.

Tuesday's Reads

Tiffany Clements — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:35:00 GMT

WSJ: The International Energy Agency released its World Energy Outlook today. According to the agency’s projections, a global plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions could sharply curb worldwide crude oil demand leading to a growth in demand on the order of just four million barrels a day by 2030.

WaPo: Great Britain has made a commitment to its nuclear energy future. Government officials announced plans Monday to build 10 new plants that will come online by 2018.

WSJ: The Environmental Protection Agency submitted its findings regarding the threat greenhouse gases pose to human health to the White House, continuing on its path toward emissions regulation.

Guardian: If countries can get close to sealing an international deal, President Obama says he may pay a visit to next month’s COP-15 in Copenhagen to tip the scales toward success. Meanwhile, the president is en route to Asia where he will meet with Chinese leaders and is expected to make some progress on bilateral climate talks, in Reuters.

And the Senate Finance Committee will take up the Kerry-Boxer bill today. But some are wondering if members of the committee are already too well acquainted with the needs of the energy industry, NYT from Greenwire.

Did we miss something today? Let us know, leave a comment or email clements@rff.org.

Copenhagen's Call to Leadership

Tiffany Clements — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:52:00 GMT

The Obama Administration finds itself in a unique moment leading up to the United Nation’s annual Conference of Parties (COP-15) — a meeting to create a global climate treaty that picks up where the Kyoto Protocol will leave off in 2012 . The president has been explicitly supportive of efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions but he also faces unprecedented economic conditions and slow-moving domestic action on the issue.

With only four weeks until the conference, RFF Researchers Nigel Purvis and Andrew Stevenson offer their take on what President Obama could do personally and what tools he could authorize his negotiators to employ as they work to craft a deal that addresses the needs of the United States within the context of the global community.

Read Purvis and Stevenson’s “U.S. Leadership in Copenhagen,” for more on balancing the delicate demands of domestic and international communities while making progress in the battle against climate change.

Nigel Purvis is president of Climate Advisers and a visiting scholar at Resources for the Future. Andrew Stevenson is a research assistant at Resources for the Future.

Making Sense of Lowered Deforestation Emissions Projections

Tiffany Clements — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:21:00 GMT

Research published this month in Nature Geoscience indicates that downward revisions to estimates of past deforestation rates (a smaller numerator) and an increase in overall global greenhouse gas emissions (a larger denominator) may have squeezed the percentage of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from deforestation down from 20 percent to about 12 percent. The report also highlights the central role of less-widely known peatland degradation in this total — suggesting that a more comprehensive land management approach building on the UN’s REDD program should be the focus of international forest policy negotiations.

The study — carried out by a global group of researchers led by Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam — addresses each of the three estimates of global deforestation rates included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, the source of the oft-cited 20 percent figure. First, country-level UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) deforestation surveys used for estimates have recently been revised downward. Second, global satellite monitoring data used in other estimates has been extended outward to 2005 and its projections remain below those based on FAO data. Third, estimates of carbon emissions from forest fires, primarily concentrated in Southeast Asia, have also been lowered. Combine these trends with a bump in energy-related fossil fuel emissions, and voila, deforestation suddenly seems to be a smaller piece of the greenhouse gas pie.

The authors say reducing fossil fuel emissions remains the key to global climate stabilization, although they concede that in specific countries where deforestation is the primary driver of emissions, focusing on reductions from that sector may be appropriate. It remains to be seen what impact this revision will have on efforts to agree on a global REDD framework under the UNFCCC, or the substantial tropical forest offset and set-aside provisions in U.S. climate legislation.

However, it would also be easy to draw several false conclusions from this report:

1) Global efforts to reduce deforestation have been successful, or adequate to address the scale of the emissions problem. As the authors clearly state, these changes are the product of revisions to past estimates of deforestation and increasing total emissions, not of actual declines in recent deforestation or degradation rates.

2) Estimates are too uncertain and resources devoted to this area should be reduced. Although this is an easy target for those who oppose these programs in general, it would be equally valid to draw the conclusion that the uncertainty revealed by this estimate, and highlighted by recent RFF work, is actually a call for additional resources to be devoted to this area in order to get a better handle on the scale of the problem and the right solutions. In addition, whether emissions are 12 percent or 20 percent there is wide agreement, cited in the report, that these are 12 percent of the most cost-effective reduction opportunities out there and thus may merit special attention in the short-term even with existing uncertainties.

3) Effective mechanisms for reducing emissions from land-use change are somehow secondary to or less important than transforming energy and manufacturing. Several recent papers published in Science indicate that emissions accounting policies as they relate to bioenergy may place substantial additional pressure on the world’s forests in the coming years. Increasing demand for food driven by population growth and rising affluence will also put additional pressure on the land, not to mention the impacts of climate change on agriculture or water resources. Developing a comprehensive approach to climate change and land management must be a central priority right up there with transforming the global energy sector.

Andrew Stevenson is a research assistant at Resources for the Future and regular contributor to Common Tragedies.

Monday's Reads

Tiffany Clements — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:13:00 GMT

NYT from Climatewire: After partisan rancor nearly halted progress on the Boxer-Kerry bill in the Environment and Public Works Committee, two new Senate committees — Max Baucus’s Finance and Jeff Bingaman’s Energy and Natural Resources — will have their turns to tackle climate and energy legislation.

WSJ: Why some companies prefer the efficiency of cap-and-trade markets to Environmental Protection Agency regulation.

Guardian: A profile of one negotiator working to ensure the developing world is heard at international climate negotiations. And from Reuters, with targets and pledges swirling around international talks, how can all these promises be monitored and measured?

WSJ: The president of Westinghouse says renewable energy sources simply don’t provide enough juice to provide abundant, low-carbon power to the U.S. economy. Aris Candris says nuclear energy can help the U.S. make up the difference between demand and low-carbon supply.

FT: The IEA is expected to weigh in on oil’s role in the global financial crisis when it releases its World Energy Outlook tomorrow.

Did we miss something today? Let us know, leave a comment or email clements@rff.org.

In Case You Missed It

Tiffany Clements — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:47:00 GMT

Inspired by Resources for the Future’s Library Blog, Weathervane is pleased to bring you a brief rundown of noteworthy reports and releases you may have missed this week.

After surveying some 289 economists, 144 of whom responded, researchers at New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity found broad consensus among economists on the question of whether climate change poses a threat and if plans to reduce emissions could have economic benefits.

A new study released this week by economists at the World Bank finds slowing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in Mexico could be done on the cheap. According to the report (PDF)—one in a series from the bank designed to explore emissions reductions potential in developing countries —Mexico could see its GHG emissions level off over the next 20 years at the cost of about .4 percent of its gross domestic product.

Carbon market research firm Point Carbon released this assessment of the senate’s Kerry-Boxer bill, naming winners and losers under the proposed legislation.

With little more than a month until the UN’s COP-15 in Copenhagen, The Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements has released this policy brief that outlines several mitigation and adaptation funding options before the world’s climate negotiators as they work to strike an international deal to combat climate change. Meanwhile, this report from World Resources Institute examines the broad range of legal considerations countries must take into account as they work together toward Copenhagen.

Did we overlook something? Let us know. Leave a comment below or email clements@rff.org.

Friday's Reads

Tiffany Clements — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:29:00 GMT

WaPo: The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee moved climate and energy legislation out of committee, despite a boycott from the Republican members. Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsay Graham —who has shown recently he’s willing to extend an olive branch across the aisle on this bill — told Politico he wouldn’t have voted for the bill that passed out of committee yesterday.

NYT: According to a new World Bank study some countries have managed to shrink their greenhouse gas emissions while growing gross domestic product.

WaPo: Environmental groups struggle to find the right spin for U.S. climate and energy legislation.

Retuers: Negotiators hope the presence of some 40 world leaders at international climate negotiations will boost odds of success at next month’s COP-15.

Did we miss something today? Let us know, leave a comment or email clements@rff.org.

Thursday's Reads

Tiffany Clements — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:32:00 GMT

NYT from Climatewire: Pressing forward without contributions from committee Republicans who have thus far boycotted the Environment and Public Works Committee’s markup of the Kerry-Boxer bill, Sen. Barbara Boxer says she may move the bill out of committee without amendments, working around procedural rules that require the presence of at least two Republicans. Meanwhile, from WaPo, Sens. John Kerry, Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman are supplementing committee process with a separate set of discussions.

WaPo: German Chancellor Angela Merkel urged Congress to take action on climate change Wednesday, telling a joint meeting there is no time to lose to inaction.

Reuters: Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern made pointed comments about developing nations and their role in international climate treaty negotiations, saying some nations are hiding behind a misreading of two texts.

Reuters: And while Stern took aim at a vague group of nations, a top U.S. climate negotiator made very pointed assertions. Jonathan Pershing says China should halve its emissions by 2050, allowing other less-developed nations to set lower, more attainable targets for themselves.

NYT from Climatewire: U.S. negotiators are walking a fine line with position on an insurance provision in the draft text of an international treaty on climate change. Some are accusing the U.S. of trying to “kill” a massive insurance program designed to help nations most vulnerable to natural disasters.

NYT: A recent survey of nearly 150 top economists found broad consensus among the group that global warming threatens the United States economy and that a cap-and-trade system of carbon regulation will spur energy efficiency and innovation.

And Al Gore makes the rounds at Comedy Central, stopping for an interview with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show and to face a formidable opponent (or two) on the Colbert Report.

Did we miss something today? Let us know, leave a comment or email clements@rff.org.

Oil Prices, Economic Stability and Climate Change

Tiffany Clements — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:34:00 GMT

While climate change is the primary reason for cutting American oil consumption, a second reason is nearly as urgent. Oil prices are inherently volatile and their violent swings repeatedly do serious damage to the American economy. This year is yet another example of this phenomenon.

The price of a barrel of oil has more than doubled since 2009 began, rising more than $40. Americans are now spending their money on oil at a rate approaching $300 billion a year more than 10 months ago. That is a number of the same general magnitude as President Obama’s recovery program enacted last February, which provides $787 billion in tax cuts and spending over several years. The difference is, of course, that the recovery money pushes toward economic growth while the increment in oil expenditures pulls in the opposite direction.

Economic strategists are watching with concern the data on consumer expenditures. One major item is the price of gasoline, which has gone up about 90 cents a gallon since last winter. Using Energy Information Administration 2008 figures, which put U.S. gasoline consumption at some 3.28 billion barrels, more than $100 billion a year is being spent to buy fuel rather than to create jobs as the administration had hoped.

Since more than half of the oil used in this country is imported, the price increase also is a factor in the country’s foreign trade deficits. Last February Americans spent $13.6 billion to import oil and oil products. In August they spent $22.4 billion to import a somewhat smaller amount. That differential represents about $100 billion a year of the United States’ current account deficit, which is now running about $400 billion a year.

In Congress, the senators who support legislation to slow climate change and reduce the use of fossil fuels are looking for allies among their colleagues who want to expand nuclear power. The senators might also look for help among those who want to protect the stability of the national economy. Failing that, the country will continue to live with the economic equivalent of a volcano that erupts at unpredictable intervals, with great damage to employment and to incomes.

More information on U.S. petroleum prices and consumption can be found at the Energy Information Administration’s website. For more on U.S. imports and exports, head over to the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s website.

J.W. Anderson is Resources for the Future’s journalist in residence.

Wednesday's Reads

Tiffany Clements — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:17:00 GMT

Politico: Climate and energy legislation has again slipped down the Senate agenda; many factors are slowing the bill's movement including a Republican boycott on the Environment and Public Works Committee, a new EPA analysis that could take at least five weeks and wide-ranging disagreements among six competing Senate committee leaders who have jurisdiction.

NYT: According to a new report from the World Bank emissions reductions goals in Mexico could be realized at a fairly low cost, some .4 percent of GDP each year for the next 20 years.

NYT from Climatewire: The Obama Administration weighs the costs of doing nothing to combat climate change.

Reuters: China is pushing ahead on carbon capture and storage, despite some uncertainty about just where the storage may be. And while China makes strides on CCS, a California-based company is poised to make a breakthrough on solar energy generation, applying for permits to build a solar farm that could store energy even when the sun isn't shining, in NYT.

NYT: Despite Congressional Research Service urging to take all specific cap and trade cost estimates with a grain of salt, the calculations continue.

NYT: Is Al Gore putting his money where his mouth is on green energy development or profiteering?

And have worldwide forestry-sector emissions been overestimated by the IPCC? Researchers from the VU University in Amsterdam think so, from FT.

Did we miss something today? Let us know, leave a comment or email clements@rff.org.

Tuesday's Reads

Tiffany Clements — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:05:00 GMT

NYT: Despite public acknowledgment from top U.N. officials that an international climate change agreement is unlikely to be struck this year, leaders from 180 nations continue work in Barcelona on a deal in the last meeting before December's COP-15. Meanwhile, officials are urging the U.S. to set 2020 targets, in Reuters.

WSJ: Sen. Barbara Boxer is expected to continue to push climate and energy legislation through her Environment and Public Works Committee today despite a boycott from committee Republicans.

NYT: Carbon market research firm Point Carbon released its analysis of the Senate's climate and energy bill, naming its winners and losers.

NYT: A closer look at coal-fired power plant emissions could find the facilities may not be carbon dioxide bad guys after all.

And the FT has a Q&A covering the basics of Copenhagen strategy for China and India.

Did we miss something today? Let us know, leave a comment or email clements@rff.org.

Ethics, Discounting and Climate Change

Tiffany Clements — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:28:00 GMT

As policymakers weigh the costs and benefits of domestic and international climate policy, one thing is clear: uncertainty plays a big part in all projections regarding the long-term impacts of climate change and its costs. Agreeing upon the appropriate discount rate for climate change has led to some contentious debate.

In this RFF Weekly Policy Commentary Cameron Hepburn delves into the discussion of discounting and global warming and takes a closer look at where ethical considerations come into play. Hepburn considers controversy over rates used to as the basis for 2006’s The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review and offers his take whether differing calculations can be rectified to produce useful policy framework.

Monday's Reads

Tiffany Clements — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:22:00 GMT

WaPo: With debate in the Environment and Public Works Committee looming, Juliet Eilperin takes a look at the uphill battle for 60 votes supporters of the Senate’s climate and energy bill face from divided Democrats and Republicans whose support is contingent upon strong nuclear provisions— if they even show up at all for a vote, in Politico.

NYT: Check out this interactive map that lays out where nuclear plants exist in the U.S. and where companies like GE and Westinghouse would like to see expanded capacity.

WaPo: Two EPA attorneys suggest Congress scrap provisions in its climate legislation that would allow polluters buy carbon offsets to meet their emissions reductions goals, saying such a system only creates the illusion of emissions reductions.

Reuters: International negotiators have gathered in Barcelona, Spain for the final series of meetings before next month’s COP-15 conference in Denmark. According to UN officials, major issues of funding and responsibilities across developed and developing nations still need to be addressed before a deal can be reached.

WSJ: Bjorn Lomborg pens this op-ed on climate change and malaria, suggesting that while there may be a tenuous connection between the two scientifically, there is certainly a connection between development and research funding to battle the problems.

Did we miss something today? Let us know, leave a comment or email clements@rff.org.

In Case You Missed It

Tiffany Clements — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:14:00 GMT

Inspired by Resources for the Future’s Library Blog, Weathervane is pleased to bring you a brief rundown of noteworthy reports and releases you may have missed this week.

The Environmental Protection Agency released its assessment of the Senate’s climate and energy bill late last Friday. According to the report, the household effects of the Kerry-Boxer bill are expected to be similar to those of the House’s Waxman-Markey bill.

Several key officials in the Obama Administration gave testimony this week before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee regarding the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. Read more from Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Jon Wellinghoff.

Deutsche Bank’s global asset management group and Columbia University’s Earth Institute have released this report regarding the best places on the planet for green investment. According to the authors, countries that adopt policies requiring utilities to purchase a percentage of their power from renewable sources at above-market prices—also known as a “feed-in tariff” —represent the safest harbors for investors looking to finance clean-energy ventures.

According to a research team at the University of Michigan, simple improvements in energy efficiency in all American homes could decrease the U.S.’s annual greenhouse gas emissions by 7.4 percent in 10 years.

The Environmental Law Institute has released, “Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002-2008.”

In “Three Pillars of Post-2012 International Climate Policy,” Sheila Olmstead and Robert N. Stavins offer a proposal for a post-2012 international global climate policy agreement. They suggest it should contain three essential elements: meaningful involvement by key industrialized and developing nations; an emphasis on an extended time path of targets; and inclusion of market-based policy instruments.

Did we overlook something? Let us know. Leave a comment below or email clements@rff.org.

Friday's Reads

Tiffany Clements — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:15:00 GMT

NYT, from Climatewire: Sen. Barbara Boxer plans to push ahead with a committee markup of climate and energy legislation early next week, despite the threat of a Republican boycott.

WSJ: A look at the fight heating up over global cooling.

Reuters: European Union leaders are working to find a fair plan to divvy up the bill for a global climate deal. EU leaders have been working against a ticking clock as the final global meeting before Copenhagen is set to get underway in Barcelona, Spain next week.

And WSJ's Keith Johnson takes carbon capture and storage's temperature. According to a new report, clean coal still has a long way to go.

Did we miss something today? Let us know, leave a comment or email clements@rff.org.