Welcome to the Welcome to the

EBC SeminarEBC Seminar Global Climate Global Climate

Change - A PrimerChange - A Primer Sponsored by:Sponsored by:

Global Climate Change –Global Climate Change –

A Primer A Primer ModeratorModerator

John BewickJohn BewickPresidentPresident

Compliance Management, Inc.Compliance Management, Inc.

Climate Change: The Climate Change: The Planetary Experiment Planetary Experiment

Prof. Daniel SchragProf. Daniel Schrag

Harvard UniversityHarvard University

How Good Are Climate How Good Are Climate Forecasts? Forecasts?

Prof. Ronald G. PrinnProf. Ronald G. Prinn

Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyMassachusetts Institute of Technology

What Will It Take to What Will It Take to Manage the Risk?Manage the Risk?

Prof. Henry D. JacobyProf. Henry D. Jacoby

Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Understanding What Needs to Be Done

EBC Global Climate Change Seminar

12 September 2006

Henry D. JacobyJoint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

MIT Integrated Global System Model (IGSM) Version 2

CO2 Emissions, No Policy

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

GtC

Reference

PopulationEcon. GrowthDirtier Fuels

Drivers

CO2 Concentrations

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Year

pp

mv

EPPA Reference

Pre-industrial 275 ppmv Possible target

2X preindustrial

CO2 Emissions, 550 ppmv

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

GtC

Reference

550 ppmv

6-9 GtC

Scale of The Challenge• For 1 GtC reduction in 2050

– 1000 MW electrics with CO2 capture (800)– 1000 MW nuclear stations (700)– 1 MW wind turbines (1 million)– Double fuel economy of cars (2 billion)

. . . None economic & accepted today . . .

• To achieve any target now discussed– Price (& regulatory) penalty on CO2 emissions– Technology advance to lower the cost of low-

CO2 energy supply and use of energy services . . . Only policy involving BOTH will work . . .

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100Year

Ex

ajo

ule

s/Y

ea

r

Energy Reduction from ReferenceNon-Biomass RenewablesNuclearCommercial BiomassCoal: w/ CCSCoal: w/o CCSNatural Gas: w/ CCSNatural Gas: w/o CCSOil: w/ CCSOil: w/o CCS

Transport

Buildings

Industry

Global Primary Energy: 550 ppmv

Coal

Gas

Oil

Bio-mass

CCS

Nuc

Penalty on Carbon Emissions

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Year

$/to

nn

e (2

000$

)

550 ppmv

Current ETS price

$2.50/gal gas tax

Can We Afford to Take Stabilization Seriously?

• Could rich nations afford it?– GDP loss– Jobs (aggregate employment)

• Could poor nations?• Winners & losers

– Coal industry & regions, and railroads (lose)– Forestry and agriculture (win)– Wind, biomass, solar, efficient tech’n (win)– Domestic oil & gas (depends), OPEC (lose)– Auto manufacturers (depends)

Not

Progress To a Global Regime• Need a regime architecture: a unifying

structure to guide potential agreement– The metaphor– Examples in environment, trade, etc.

• Complexities of this “commons” problem– 20 or so rich AND poor countries matter– An economic as well as environmental issue – Many emissions & land use contribute– Continuity over century and more– Parties are sovereign nations

The Climate Regime

No CO2 obligation

+ leakage

Independent action

Compliance details

Tightening limited without U.S.

US & Australia

Ratifying parties

Lack incentive to

commit

?

Framework Convention on Climate Change

Kyoto Protocol

1st 2nd2005 2008 2012

(Non-Annex B)

(Annex B)

Lessons Learned the Hard Way

• A common view of international process(1) Agree on the structure for negotiations(2) Negotiate commitment levels & measures(3) Nations implement control measures

• For an issue like climate change the process begins the other way around– Nations only agree to a potentially costly

commitment if confident they can meet it– Binding agreements follow (not lead)

domestic commitment

U.S. Federal Picture• No direct action on greenhouse gases

– Keep climate off the political agenda

• Support of indirect measures– Voluntary programs– Subsidies (e.g., biomass, solar, hybrid cars)– R&D and commercial demonstration– Regulatory reform (e.g., nuclear)– International technology cooperation

• Proposals in Congress, but no action yet

Democrat

Republican

2004 Election

Action at the State Level

California80% by 2050

(AB-32)

Oregon75% by 2050

N. Mexico 75% by 2050

Regional cap & trade

(in electrics)

Arizona 50% by 2050

Renewable Portfolio Standards(Requirement that generators purchase a minimum

percentage of supply from qualified renewable sources)

Mandatory

Goal

Standards

Possible Developments by 2012• Federal

– Cap-&-trade system– Carbon tax– Put CO2 under the Clean Air Act– Tighter CAFE standards– Portfolio standards– Subsidies to renewables– Subsidy to capture and storage

• States and cities– Actions– Pressures on federal measures

LikelyNot likely?

UnlikelyContinuedLikely

In some

Definitely

Likely

Senate Cap-&-Trade Proposals• Now being formulated

– McCain Lieberman– Bingaman– Feinstein– Jeffords, Kerry, others

• Alternative designs– Transport fuel included, or not– Electrics and heavy industry– Electric utilities only

• Issues of permit allocation

ETS

Cap-&-Trade Designs

Transport fuel

Ind. & comm.

Electric power

Government

Households, agriculture, small entities

McCain-Lieberman,

Feinstein(up)

(dn)

(dn)

(dn)

Bingaman (upstream)

When?

What Next? A Personal View• For years to come: a climate “favela”• Serious discussions only after two nations

start independent, domestic action– The US

• Beyond R&D, subsidies and voluntary measures• Processes are under way . . . And the timing?

– China• Some action and contingent commitments• Are processes under way? . . . And the timing?

• The timing is bad for achievement of 450 or 550 ppm stabilization levels

How to Get Up In the Morning• A century-scale problem• Understanding risks and policy effects is important • Public knowledge is ratcheting up slowly• Lesser achievements in GHG control do matter

2000-2100

CHANGE

WITHOUT

POLICY750 ppm

STABILIZATION550 ppm

STABILIZATION

>6.8 F (3.8 C)

global warming

>10 F (5.6 C)

Alaska warming

>2 feet (0.6 meter)

sea level rise

1 in 10

1 in 3

1 in 6

1 in 29

1 in 4

1 in 20

< 1 in 250

< 1 in 250

< 1 in 250

NOTE: Values are preliminary and for illustration purposes only

EBC SeminarEBC Seminar Global Climate Change – Global Climate Change –

A PrimerA Primer

Thank you for Thank you for Attending Attending

EBC SeminarEBC Seminar Global Climate Change – Global Climate Change –

A PrimerA Primer Thanks to our SponsorThanks to our Sponsor