Daily Archives: May 26, 2010

New EIA Report on Energy/Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Posted on by
Reply

The U.S. Energy Information Agency released its latest report on energy trends, International Energy Outlook 2010, yesterday, and several aspects of the analysis are extremely foreboding from the perspective of climate change:

  1. Under a business as usual scenario, world energy consumption is projected to grow by 49% from 2007 to 2035, with 84% growth for non-OECD States v. 14% in OECD States;
  2. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are projected to rise from 29.7 billion metric tons in 2007 to 33.8 billion metric tons in 2020, and 42.4 billion metric tons in 2035, or 43%;
  • By 2035, the emissions of non-OECD States are projected to be double those of OECD States;
  • Assuming no new climate policies in the interim, projected global increases in in carbon dioxide output per capita and relatively moderate population growth could overwhelm projected improvements in energy intensity and carbon intensity.
    1. The share of electricity produced from renewable energy sources increases from 18% in 2007 to 23% in 2035, increasing at an average rate of 3% annually; however, the second fastest growth source is coal-fired generation, growing at an annual average of 2.3%.

    Of course, as the study emphasizes, these projections assume no changes in energy or climate change policy. In many ways, they emphasize, however, the transformative changes that are necessary to avoid pretty frightening business as usual scenarios. The projections also could afford instructors the opportunity to discuss equity issues associated with burgeoning future emissions from developing countries.

    Implications of Copenhagen Pledges

    Posted on by
    Reply

    There is an excellent new potential reading on the Copenhagen Accord for climate change law and policy classes in a recent issue of Nature, Rogelj & Meinshausen, Copenhagen Pledges are Paltry, 464 Nature 1126-28 (2010) (subscription required). The authors analyze the likely implications of the pledges made by UNFCCC parties under the Copenhagen Accord.

    Among the key take-aways of the analysis:

    1. Present pledges are likely to lead to emissions of 47.9-53.6 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2020, about 10-20% higher than today’s levels;
    2. The pledges of most countries are extremely tepid: The lower end of the EU pledge would lead to smaller annual reductions through 2020 than what occurred on average of the past 30 years. The U.S. pledge translates into a mere 3% reduction below 1990 levels. The least ambitious end of China’s pledge tracks the business as usual scenario. Japan and China are the only two developed countries to make pledges consistent with the 2C goal;
    3. Even if emissions are halved by mid-century, there will be only be, at best, a “flip of the coin” chance of meeting the Accord’s goal of not exceeding a 2C temperature increase;
    4. Under the most pessimistic assumptions (assuming maximum used of banked emissions and surpluses from land use, land-use change and forestry), potential 2020 emissions from developed countries could be 6.5% above 1990 levels, substantially above projections if no additional mitigation measures were taken. Under the more optimistic scenario, without according land-use credits and using surplus allowances, results in emission of developed countries falling by 15.6% by 2020, far exceeding an emissions pathway to the 2C target;
    5. Given the current few pledges made for 2050, the Copenhagen Accord will almost certainly miss the 2C target, and there’s a 50% chance of exceeding 3C by 2100.
    • If nations agree to halve global emissions by 2050 from 1990 levels, we will need to reduce emissions 3-3.5% annually from 2020-2050, which would require “unprecedented political will;”
    • The only way to avoid cuts of this nature post-2020 is to substantially increase pre-2020 commitments, namely a 30% reduction below 1990 levels for developed countries, and 20% below business as usual levels for developing countries.