The International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2010 was released this week. Among the take-aways of the Executive Summary that are germane to climate change courses, based on the Agency’s “New Policies” central scenario for energy use and GHG emissions:

1. World energy demand is projected to grow by 1.2% annually through 2035, slightly lower than the Current Policies scenario, which sees a 1.4% annual increase; fossil fuels still accounts for over half of total primary energy demand;
2. The use of renewable energy sources triples under the New Policies Outlook, meeting 14% of primary energy demand by 2035, up from 7% currently. Renewable energy could a third of electricity production by 2035, but this requires a very substantial increase in government support;
3. The commitments made under the Copenhagen Accord put the world on pace to stabilize GHG emissions at 650ppm, resulting in temperature increases of more than 3.5C in the long term;
   • By contrast, stabilizing atmospheric concentrations at 450ppm, which provides a reasonable prospect for avoiding temperature increases of more than 2C would require reducing emissions from 35GT to 22 by 2035. This would necessitate a “far reaching transformation of the global energy system,” including oil demand peaking in 2020 at only 4 million barrels/day above current use in 2020, and declining substantially thereafter, and coal demand reverting to 2003 levels by 2035. Renewable energy would have to reach 45% of global energy generation also. Other assumptions include a 50% increase in nuclear power, advanced vehicles comprising 70% of the transportation market by 2035, and big increases in the use of biofuels;
4. Under the scenario of stabilizing emissions at 450ppm, the tepid commitments of Copenhagen now translate into an increase in expenditures required after 2020 of more than $1 trillion and global GDP could be reduced by 1.9% in 2030 instead of 0.9% with more ambitious commitments;
5. Countries must meet the top of the ranges for emissions reductions, or reductions in emissions intensity for there to be a plausible chance of not passing the 2C threshold;
6. Cutting the $312 billion in annual fossil fuel subsidies would reduce energy demand by 5% in 2020, and GHG emissions by 5.8.

The Executive Summary is 18 pages and suitable for undergraduate or graduate-level courses; it provides an excellent overview of the nexus of energy use and GHG emissions, the daunting challenge we face in not exceeding the 2C threshold, and some potential policy options that could prove critical in the years ahead. There’s also some excellent graphs for Power Point presentations.

Some of you teaching a climate change course this semester are undoubtedly discussing the implications of the takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives by the GOP. Here’s an interesting tidbit for the mix: Representative John Shimkus (R. Illinois), who is seeking the chairmanship of  the House Energy & Commerce Committee, recently stated that we don’t have to worry about climate change because, citing the Bible (actually, brandishing it in a hearing) that God promised after the flood that he would never again destroy the world. Of course, it’s cold comfort that Representative Joe Barton (R. Texas) is also vying for the position, also a climate change denier and the apologist to BP for the alleged “shakedown” that compelled it to pay for the clean up effort. Just some grist for the mill in discussing the future of U.S. climate policy.

Last week, I hosted the 12th Annual Northeast Florida Environmental Summit at Florida Coastal School of Law.  Presenters offered various perspectives on the theme “Environmental Disasters:  Linking Law, Science, & Policy.”  Several of the presentations may be of interest to readers of this blog, and I’ll highlight them in a series of posts complete with links to the video recordings. 

Jim Chen has already beaten me to the punch with a post on Jurisdynamics featuring his excellent keynote address opening the Summit, “Disaster and Its Dimensions: Legal responses to distortions of time and space.”  Regardless, there is more to say . . .

Professor James  May delivered a very engaging presentation on constitutional issues in recent climate change litigation, such as Comer v. Murphy Oil USA.  The talk, titled  Courting Disaster: Constitutional Climate Litigation, takes on the question of the courts’ role in addressing climate-related disasters.  In a presentation that is both interesting to experts and accessible to non-lawyers, Jimmy challenges recent invocations of political question doctrine and prudential standing to avoid tort cases seeking redress for injuries related to climate change.  He argues that the Supreme Court should accept certiorari in these cases because, among other reasons, courts are our mechanism for resolving civil disputes and the disputes underlying these cases arise from perhaps the most important issue of our day.

Also included in the video is a presentaiton by Carl R. Nelson, an attorney with Fowler White Boggs P.A.  This presentation, titled Oil Pollution Act Litigation:  Recovery of Purely Economic Losses, provides an insightful discussion of liability issues connected with oil spills, based on Nelson’s experience heading the legal team that litigated the 1993 Tampa Bay oil spill.