7. Examination of Climate Change: Strategies to Address Climate Change

7 Strategies to Address Climate Change

How much climate change? That will be determined by how our emissions continue and exactly how our climate system responds to those emissions. Despite increasing awareness of climate change, our emissions of greenhouse gases continue a relentless rise.

Because we are already committed to some level of climate change, responding to climate change involves a two-pronged approach:

- Reducing emissions of and stabilizing the levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (“mitigation”);

- Adapting to the climate change already in the pipeline (“adaptation”).

7.1 Mitigation

Reducing climate change involves reducing the flow of heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, either by reducing sources of these gases (for example, the burning of fossil fuels for electricity, heat or transport) or enhancing the “sinks” that accumulate and store these gases (such as the oceans, forests and soil). The goal of mitigation is to avoid significant human interference with the climate system, and “stabilize greenhouse gas levels in a timeframe sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner” (from the 2014 report on Mitigation of Climate Change from the United Nations). Based on the pie charts in Section 3 mitigation efforts in those countries that emit 70% of the CO2 (China, United States, EU, India, Russia, and Japan) are most important.

7.1.1 Global Mitigation Efforts

Global mitigation efforts to mitigate GHG and CO2 emissions began in the 1990s with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change). This treaty was signed by 154 nations. The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty which extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the scientific consensus that (part one) global warming is occurring and (part two) it is extremely likely that human-made CO2 emissions have predominantly caused it. The Paris Agreement, aimed at limiting global warming to less than two degrees Celsius, and pursue efforts to limit the rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. U.S. President Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the agreement. Under the agreement, the earliest effective date of withdrawal for the U.S. is November 2020, shortly before the end of President Trump's current term. In practice, changes in United States policy that are contrary to the Paris Agreement have already been put in place.

7.1.1.1 Progress Towards Implementing Paris Agreement

The Climate Action Tracker (CAT) September 2019 update on 2100 Warming Projections shows there has only been a tiny improvement in the total effect of Paris Agreement commitments and of national policies on warming by the end of the century since the last update in December 2018, with action only inching forward (https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/).

In the absence of policies, global warming is expected to reach 4.1°C – 4.8°C above pre-industrial by the end of the century. The emissions that drive this warming are often called Baseline scenarios (‘Baselines’ in the above figure). Current policies around the world are projected to reduce baseline emissions and result in about 3.2°C warming above pre-industrial levels.

China

Increased fossil-fuel consumption drove an estimated 2.3% increase in Chinese CO2 emissions in 2018, a second year of growth after emissions had appeared to level out between 2014 and 2016.

United States

See Section 7.1.2

EU

The 2018 renewable energy and energy efficiency goals would result in emissions reductions of around 48% by 2030: in its NDC, the EU committed to emissions reductions of “at least 40%”.

Russia

While it is more than likely that Russia will achieve its INDC target, the target is so weak that it would not require a decrease in GHG emissions from current levels—nor would it require the Government to adopt a low-carbon economic development strategy.

India

India has emerged as a global leader in renewable energy, with investments in renewable energy topping fossil fuel investments. After adopting its National Electricity Plan (NEP) in 2018, India remains on track to overachieve its “2˚C compatible” rated Paris Agreement NDC climate action targets.

Japan

Japan adopted its Basic Energy Plan in July 2018, but there is no vision nor strategy on how it can go beyond its 22–24% by 2030 renewable electricity target, which is likely to be achieved with existing policies.

Mitigation efforts to date have been unable to achieve intermediate targets to meet the Paris Agreement goal to hold global average temperature increase to “well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”. The Climate Action Tracker (CAT) estimates that under current policies, the world will exceed 1.5°C of warming around 2035, 2°C around 2053, and 3.2°C by the end of the century. If governments fully achieve the emissions cuts, they have committed to, warming is likely to rise to 2.9°C – almost twice the 1.5°C limit they agreed in Paris (https://climateactiontracker.org/). Under both of these scenarios, there is a 10% chance of exceeding 4°C by the end of the century – and even up to a 25% chance based on the higher end of the current policies scenario.

7.1.2 United States Mitigation Efforts

Pursuant to the Paris Agreement, the United States pledged (in 2015) to reduce GHG emissions by 26%-28% by 2025 compared to 2005 levels. In addition, pursuant to the Copenhagen Accord, the United States pledged (in 2009) to reduce GHG by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a final rule for CO2 emissions from existing fossil-fuel-fired electric power plants on October 23, 2015. On June 19, 2019, EPA issued the final Affordable Clean Energy rule (ACE) – replacing the prior administration’s overreaching Clean Power Plan with a rule that restores rule of law, empowers states, and supports energy diversity. The ACE rule establishes emission guidelines for states to use when developing plans to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) at their coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs). In this notice, EPA also repealed the CPP.

8.1.2.1 Progress Towards Implementing Paris Agreement

The US has made some progress to date with CO2 emissions now either leveling out or slightly increasing in recent years.

Among the emission sectors only the electricity has accomplished any lasting reduction below 2005 levels.

All other sectors have increased slightly or remained the same. Despite the introduction of electric vehicles (Sales of plug-in passenger cars achieved a 2.1% market share of new car sales in 2018, up from 1.3% in 2017, and 0.86% in 2016. The US EV market share was 1.8% in 2018) and fuel efficiency standards little progress has been made in the transportation sector.

For the 2005-2017 timeframe total electricity generation and cost remained relatively constant, generation capability increased by about 10% and CO2 emissions decreased by 14%. Because these emission reductions were achieved without any increase in costs to the consumers a false sense security may have developed that climate change mitigation could be achieved with minimal cost.

Electricity generation CO2 emissions decreased primarily because natural gas, which produces about 50% less CO2 per kilowatt-hour than coal (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45453.pdf), and wind generation replaced coal generation.

The following table shows the change in generation and generation capability (capacity) between 2005 and 2017.

Generation was reduced from higher CO2 sources (Coal and Petroleum & Other Gas) 22.5% and increased from lower CO2 sources (Natural Gas, Nuclear, Hydro, Wind and Solar) by 22.3% (0.2% difference due to rounding errors). There are two drivers of this shift in electricity generation, one economic and the other governmental policy. The economic driver accounted for 14.5% of the increase in lower CO2 sources while the policy driver accounted for 7.8% of the increase.

Economic

As the price of natural gas decreased and the amount increased,

the cost of electricity produced by natural gas decreased such that it was competitive with coal.

The average national cost and the cost varies significantly through out the US such that the cost of producing electricity using natural gas was less then coal in many parts of the US. This led to the closing of a number of coal units and building of new natural gas units.

Wind and Solar Policy

Changes in annual capacity additions for wind in the United States are often explained by changes to tax incentives. The U.S. production tax credit (PTC), which provides operators with a tax credit per kilowatthour of renewable electricity generation for the first 10 years a facility is in operation, was initially set to expire for all eligible technologies at the end of 2012 but was later retroactively renewed. The high level of annual capacity additions in 2012 was driven by developers scheduling project completion in time to qualify for the PTC. Similarly, the increase in annual capacity additions for wind scheduled for 2019 is largely being driven by the legislated phaseout of the PTC extension for wind.

Under the PTC phaseout, the amount of the tax credit decreases by 20 percentage points per year from 2017 through 2019. Facilities that begin construction after December 31, 2019, will not be able to claim the PTC.

To meet the Paris Agreement target of a 26-28% reduction from 2005 levels by 2025, the US will need to reduce energy-related CO2 emissions by 2.6% on average over the next seven years — and faster if declines in other gasses do not keep pace. That’s more than twice the pace the US achieved between 2005 and 2017 and significantly faster than any seven-year average in US history.

For the past five years, Rhodium has provided an independent annual assessment of US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and progress towards achieving the country’s climate goals (https://rhg.com/research/taking-stock-2019/). Given the current state and federal policy landscape and range of potential energy market dynamics on the horizon, they find that the US is on track to reduce emissions 13% to 16% below 2005 levels by 2020. Looking ahead to 2025, the US is on track to achieve reductions anywhere from 12% to 19% below 2005 levels absent major policy changes.

The 2018 elections swept climate-progressive leaders into a handful of state legislatures and governors’ offices across the US. Many of these elected officials have announced plans to dramatically expand clean energy (The Green New Deal), adopted new climate policies, and established long-term emission reduction goals. The Democratic candidates for President have also promulgated aggressive plans to advance clean energy. These developments could make a significant dent in emissions in the future. However, the majority of these announcements will not meaningfully impact emissions before 2025, thus doing little to help the US meet its 2020 and 2025 climate commitments.

7.1.3 Nuclear Power

7.1.3.1 Closure of Existing plants

In May 2019 the International Energy Agency (IEA) issued its first report addressing nuclear power in nearly two decades. With nuclear power facing an uncertain future in many countries, the world risks a steep decline in its use in advanced economies that could result in billions of tons of additional carbon emissions. (https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2019/may/steep-decline-in-nuclear-power-would-threaten-energy-security-and-climate-goals.html)

Nuclear is the second-largest low-carbon power source in the world today, accounting for 10% of global electricity generation. It is second only to hydropower at 16%. For advanced economies – including the United States, Canada, the European Union and Japan – nuclear has been the biggest low-carbon source of electricity for more than 30 years and remains so today. It plays an important role in electricity security in several countries.

However, the future of nuclear power is uncertain as ageing plants are beginning to close in advanced economies, partly because of policies to phase them out but also as a result of economic and regulatory factors. Without policy changes, advanced economies could lose 25% of their nuclear capacity by 2025 and as much as two-thirds of it by 2040, according to the new report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System (https://www.iea.org/publications/nuclear/).

The lack of further lifetime extensions of existing nuclear plants and new projects could result in an additional 4 billion tons of CO2 emissions.

Even the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS - One of my favorite antagonist groups that consistently took positions opposite of my own on safety issues in testimony before the NRC) has published a report in which they say “If the current situation continues, more nuclear power plants will likely close and be replaced primarily by natural gas, causing emissions to rise.” The UCS recommends a robust, economy-wide cap or price on carbon emissions and a low carbon electricity standard. However, they fudge there recommendation for financial support of nuclear plants “Policymakers considering temporary financial support to avoid the early closure of nuclear plants should couple that support with strong clean energy policies, efforts to limit rate increases to consumers, and rigorous safety, security, and performance requirements.” (https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-dilemma)

Many opponents remain implacable, however. Anti-nuclear campaigning has been a foundational shibboleth for groups such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, which point to disasters such as Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011 as evidence that the sector should be shut down. The Sierra Club, the country’s oldest and largest environmental group, is debating whether to halt its longtime position in support of shuttering all existing nuclear-power plants earlier than required by their federal operating licenses. The Environmental Defense Fund is similarly deciding to what extent it should adjust its policy, potentially lending its support to keeping open financially struggling reactors. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/14/closing-nuclear-plants-risks-rise-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-report-warns) Very few new nuclear plants, meanwhile, are set to come online soon because of market conditions, so the debate has focused largely on the fate of existing reactors. Most major environmental groups remain opposed to creating new nuclear plants, instead preferring renewable electricity.

7.1.3.2 Near-term Mitigation

As discussed in my blog on the evaluation of US mitigation strategies, near term climate change and nuclear power are inextricably tied together. Considering the magnitude of new electrical generation required and the fact that there will only be 30 years to achieve zero CO2 emissions if we are to meet the 2050 zero CO2 goal, the only sufficiently mature zero emission technologies are wind turbines, solar panels and nuclear power.

Can environmental groups be expected to support Nuclear Power? Steven Pinker is a cognitive psychologist, linguist, and author of Bill Gates’ two favorite books discusses his doubts in Enlightenment Now because of climate change polarization. Pinker acknowledges the Republican Party’s science denial also blaming liberals for the policy stalemate, telling Ezra Klein:

there is implacable opposition to nuclear energy in much of the environmental movement ... There are organizations like Greenpeace and NRDC who are just dead set opposed to nuclear. There are also people on the left like Naomi Klein who are dead set against carbon pricing because it doesn’t punish the polluters enough ... the people that you identify who believe in a) carbon pricing and b) expansion of nuclear power, I suspect they’re a tiny minority of the people concerned with climate …

(https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/05/stop-blaming-both-sides-for-americas-climate-failures?CMP=share_btn_fb)

Pew finds substantial support for renewables (wind and solar) and that the political divide over expanding nuclear energy is smaller than for expanding fossil fuels. Some 57% of conservative Republicans, and 51% of all Republicans, favor more nuclear power plants. Democrats lean in the opposite direction with 59% opposed and 38% in favor of more nuclear power plants. As also found in past surveys, women are less supportive of expanding nuclear power than men, even after controlling for politics and education. Some 34% of women favor and 62% oppose more nuclear plants. Men are more closely divided on this issue: 52% favor and 46% oppose. Men and women hold more similar views on other energy issues. (https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/public-opinion-on-renewables-and-other-energy-sources/)

7.1.4 Carbon Capture and Storage

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a technology being developed in an attempt to slow global warming. In theory, CCS would prevent carbon dioxide produced from coal-fired power plants from reaching the atmosphere by capturing and storing it permanently underground. The scale of this proposal is remarkable, requiring the capture of tens of billions of tons of carbon dioxide from thousands of coal and gas power plants throughout the world (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5948/1647.full). While CCS technology can significantly mitigate anthropogenic GHG emissions, CCS installations are expected to impose new water stresses due to additional water requirements for chemical and physical processes to capture and separate CO2. In addition to these processes, the parasitic loads imposed by carbon capture on power plants will reduce their efficiency and thus require more water for cooling the plant. Groundwater contamination due to CO2 leakage during geologic sequestration is an additional concern when adapting CCS into power plants. There are two operational CCS units for coal plants in the world, one in Texas (240 MW) and one in Saskatchewan, Canada. The largest application is a natural gas treatment facility in Texas (https://www.iea.org/topics/carbon-capture-and-storage/).

7.2 Adaptation

Adapting to life in a changing climate – involves adjusting to actual or expected future climate. The goal is to reduce our vulnerability to the harmful effects of climate change (like sea-level encroachment, more intense extreme weather events or food insecurity). It also encompasses making the most of any potential beneficial opportunities associated with climate change (for example, longer growing seasons or increased yields in some regions).

Adaptation takes place at many levels—national and regional but mainly local—as governments, businesses, communities, and individuals respond to today’s altered climate conditions and prepare for future change based on the specific climate impacts relevant to their geography and vulnerability. Adaptation has five general stages: awareness, assessment, planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. These phases naturally build on one another, though they are often not executed sequentially, and the terminology may vary. In the United States, the Third National Climate Assessment (released in 2014) found the first three phases underway throughout the United States but limited in terms of on-the-ground implementation. Since then, the scale and scope of adaptation implementation have increased, but in general, adaptation implementation is not yet commonplace.

Four examples of climate adaptation strategies at different scales, with multiple stakeholders, and tackling different challenges are given. Each of these case studies highlights the different ways stakeholders are approaching adaptation.

• Through the creation of the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS), the Federal Government, in partnership with the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC), states, tribes, universities, and others, has improved capacity to proactively manage and respond to drought-related risks and impacts through: 1) the provision of drought early warning information systems with local/regional input on extent, onset, and severity; 2) a web-based drought portal featuring the U.S. Drought Monitor and other visualization tools; 3) coordination of research in support and use of these systems; and 4) leveraging of existing partnerships, forecasting, and assessment programs.

• In the Colorado River Basin, water resource managers, government leaders, federal agencies, tribes, universities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector are collaborating on strategies for managing water under a changing climate through partnerships like the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) and WestFAST (Western Federal Agency Support Team).

• In Wisconsin, the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science and the U.S. Forest Service, working with multiple partners, initiated a “Climate Change Response Framework” integrating climate-impacts science with forest management.

• In Cape Cod, Massachusetts, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Volpe Center worked with federal, regional, state, and local stakeholders to integrate climate change mitigation and adaptation considerations into existing and future transportation, land-use, coastal, and hazard-mitigation processes. (https://www.globalchange.gov/nca4)