Download environmental_justice - Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy

Snapshot of Virginia’s GHG Activities
Ensuring Environmental Justice, Efficiency
and Efficacy When Developing
Virginia's Response to Climate Change
Session V - Tuesday, October 16,2007, Responses1:30 – 5:00 pm
Climate Change: GHG Inventories & Management Emerging Regulation and Responses
David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D.,
Senior Energy and Environmental Fellow
Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
A Starting Point for Evaluation of Virginia’s
Energy Plan
• Assume global warming will cause
catastrophic ocean level rise within
decades.
• Recognize the inevitability of
preventing this catastrophe through
geo-engineering at minimal cost.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
The First Three
Catastrophic Events
• Greenland Ice Sheet Collapse
• West Antarctic Ice Sheet
Collapse
• East Antarctic Ice Sheet Melt
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Time Scale of the Greenland Ice Sheet
Destruction
300 – 1,000 years IPCC (2001)
100 – 300 years Hansen (2005) IPCC (2007)
20 – 40 years Hansen (2007) Flannery (2007)
“If we have not already passed the dangerous
level, the energy infrastructure in place ensures
that we will pass it within decades [not
centuries].” James Hansen NASA (Aug. 2007)
“We passed the tipping point in 2005”
Tim Flannery
(Aus.) (Oct. 2007)
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
• Greenland Ice Sheet will melt at +2ºC
• +2ºC Temperature rise at 440 ppm
• 2005 C02 levels: 455 ppm
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
The inevitability of geo-engineering
“Preventing a planet wide meltdown
is not a goal that can be achieved with
current energy technology. We need
to admit that and start thinking about
geo-engineering."
Professor Marty Hoffert,
New York University.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
We need an alternative to the policy
myopia that sees emission reductions
as the sole path to climate change
abatement.
Jay Michaelson (JD Yale) , 1998, GEOENGINEERING: A CLIMATE CHANGE
MANHATTAN PROJECT, Stanford Environmental Law Journal
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Efforts by societies to restrain their
greenhouse gas emissions might be
politically infeasible on a global scale,
or might fail. In this eventuality, other
options may be incapable of
countering the effects, and geoengineering strategies might be
needed.
National Academy of Science
Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: (1992)
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
“The very best would be if emissions
of the greenhouse gases could be
reduced so much that the geoengineering would not need to take
place.
Currently, this looks like a pious
wish.”
Paul J. Crutzen,
Nobel Laureate for his work on the ozone hole
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
“Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming” – NAS
1992
1. Does it appear feasible that
engineered systems could actually
mitigate the effects of greenhouse
gases?
NAS 1992 Response -
YES
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
“Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming” – NAS
1992
2. Does it appear that the proposed
systems might be carried out by
feasible technical means at reasonable
costs?
NAS 1992 Response -
YES
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
“Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming” – NAS
1992
3. Do the proposed systems have
effects, besides the sought-after
effects, that might be adverse, and
can these be accepted or dealt
with?
NAS 1992 Response - We Don’t Know
Caldeira 2006 - Apparently no significant
local climate changes,
and no harm from
particles
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Caldeira (Stanford U.) concluded that shading the sunlight directly over
the polar ice cap by less than twenty-five percent would maintain the
"natural" level of ice in the Arctic, even with a doubling of atmospheric
CO2 levels. By increasing the shading to fifty percent, and the ice shelves
grow. Further, the restoration happens fast. Within five years, the
temperature would drop by almost two degrees, stabilizing the ice, saving
the polar bears and the Inuit population, and demonstrating the efficacy of
planetary engineering for 1/36th the amount appropriated to assist in
recovery of the hurricane flooding disaster in New Orleans.
Because the aerosols are launched only
over the Arctic, there is little danger of
directly impacting humans. As well, the approach is
incremental and can be expanded or shut down at will so that
temperature effects dissipate within months, returning the region to its
"natural" state.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
The Relative Cost of GHG Reduction
and Geo-engineering
Marginal Cost per Carbon Ton Equivalent
GHG Reduction
$ 1,400.
Geo-Engineering
$
0.02
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
The Relative Cost of GHG Reduction
and Geo-engineering
Annual Per capita Cost
(world population)
GHG Reduction
$ 470.
Geo-Engineering (pv40)
$
0.003
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
The economics of geo-engineering are—there is
no better word for it—incredible.
Scott Barrett, Johns Hopkins
The geo-engineering option may be considered
costless.
William Nordhaus, Yale
Cost would not play any significant role in a
decision to deploy [geo-engineering] because the
cost of any such system is trivial compared to the
cost of other mitigation options.
Prof. D.W. Keith, University of Calgary
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
With the inevitable use of
geo-engineering to prevent
catastrophic ocean level rise
understood,
Lets turn to some background on
Environmental Justice
Only then can we examine what do
we do about greenhouse gas
emissions?
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Who are Virginia’s
Minorities and Poor?
Virginia Families Below the Poverty Line
Below
Above
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Virginia Family Racial
Demographics
White
Black
Hispanic
Virginia Families in Poverty
White
Black
Hispanic
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Virginia Families in Poverty
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Married
Single Woman Head
of Household
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Virginia Woman Single Head of
Household in Poverty
White
Black
Hispanic
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Percent of Virginia Families in Poverty
Earning less than half the Poverty Level
60%
40%
20%
0%
White
Black
Hispanic
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
2007 HHS Poverty Guidelines
Persons In Family or
Household
Poverty Level
1
$10,210
2
13,690
3
17,170
4
20,650
SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 15, January 24, 2007, pp. 3147–3148
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
The Relative Cost of GHG Reduction
and Geo-engineering
Annual Per capita Cost
(world population)
GHG Reduction
$ 470.
Geo-Engineering (pv40)
$
0.003
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Environmental Justice Goal
No segment of the population, regardless
of race, color, national origin or economic
status, suffers disproportionately from
adverse human health or environmental
effects, and all people live in clean, healthy,
and sustainable communities.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Environmental Justice Policies
• Ensure those who live with environmental
decisions have every opportunity for
participation in the making of those
decisions.
• Craft regulations to ensure the distribution
of human health, social, and economic
impacts of rules and programs do not fall
disproportionately on minorities and the
poor.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Practical Environmental Justice
-I• When developing regulatory alternatives,
conduct and publish for public comment
“Environmental justice assessments” –
comprehensive analyses of the potential
disproportionately high and adverse
impacts arising from a proposed activity
that will fall upon minorities and the poor.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Practical Environmental Justice
- II • Balance social programs to ensure
sustainability of the community, the
culture and the civilization.
• Do not impose impacts whose costs make
the benefits of the action irrelevant.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Practical Environmental Justice
- III • Do not allow adverse environmental
impacts to fall disproportionately on those
least able to respond.
• Impose only affordable costs, in the
context of all social needs.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Evaluation of the Virginia Energy Plan
Overall Score
-- 
The Plan is practical, realistic, fair,
economic and honest. It accounts for
those who most need environmental
justice while addressing the public
concern about global warming.
If fails to the degree that it poses as a
solution to global warming.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Evaluation of the Virginia Energy Plan
Affected People
Participation
-- 
Only 2 of 35 represented the people directly
affected by the plan. There were several
environmental organizations, but their
interests conflict with the pocket book
interests of the poor.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Evaluation of the Virginia Energy Plan
Proportionality of
Impacts
-- 
• Low-income weatherization
assistance
• Fraud protection
• Increase consumer education
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Evaluation of the Virginia Energy Plan
Cost-efficiency and
Affordability
-- 
• Industry-implemented efficiency/
conservation/demand management
(cost-efficiency required)
• Objective validation of efforts
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Evaluation of the Virginia Energy Plan
Reliance on Market and
Market-based Incentives -- 
• Expanded Energy Star approach that
shows energy use of products
• Education and promotion of
voluntary, rather than regulatory
programs.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Evaluation of the Virginia Energy Plan
Environmental Justice
Evaluations
-- 
• Any portfolio of electric energy
conservation activities should be
evaluated for cost effectiveness. Virginia
should use a mix of the Total Resource
Cost Test, Societal Test, Utility/Program
Administrator Test, Participant Test, and
Rate Impact Measure Test.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Evaluation of the Virginia Energy Plan
Balancing of
Social Programs
-- 
• Increase tax-benefits for consumer
investments in energy efficiency
contingent on acceptable revenue
impact.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Evaluation of the Virginia Energy Plan
Why Not Five Stars?
• Transit oriented development – doesn’t actually
work.
• Higher density for LEED projects – transportation
effects not included, and competitive programs.
• Conservation easements – has nothing to do with
energy and increased density in wrong place.
• Subsidize tipping fees for waste to energy projects
– these should pay for themselves.
• Hybrids on HOV – work best at lowest speeds.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Evaluation of Executive Order 48
(2007)
Rating: 
• A mixture of cost-effectiveness and
green-washing with good management
diluted by political correctness.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Evaluation of Executive Order 48 (2007)
Aggressively pursue:
• all energy-savings activities whose costs are
recoverable in one fiscal year, such as use of
screw-in fluorescent and other highefficiency lighting in place of incandescent
bulbs and other less efficient lights;
Rating: 
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Evaluation of Executive Order 48 (2007)
Aggressively pursue:
• Renovations of existing buildings consistent
with LEED (including the use of Virginia
forest products with alternate certifications)
Rating: 
(Only if cost-effective)
Evaluation of Executive Order 48 (2007)
Actively Pursue:
• Energy Star requirements
Rating: 
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Evaluation of Executive Order 48 (2007)
Aggressively pursue:
• Purchases of renewable energy.
Rating: 
(Only if cost-effective)
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Evaluation of Executive Order 48 (2007)
Actively Pursue:
• Every Agency Energy Manager for
an agency or institution with energy
costs exceeding $1 million shall be
certified as an energy manager by
the Association of Energy Engineers
by June 30, 2008.
Rating: 
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Snapshot of Virginia’s GHG Activities
Ensuring Environmental Justice, Efficiency
and Efficacy When Developing
Virginia's Response to Climate Change
Session V - Tuesday, October 16,2007, Responses1:30 – 5:00 pm
Climate Change: GHG Inventories & Management Emerging Regulation and Responses
David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D.,
Senior Energy and Environmental Fellow
Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
References and Readings
Anderson, S. and R. Newell (2004). “Prospects for Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies.” Annual Review of Environment and
Resources, 29: 109-142.
Ansolabehere, S., J. Deutch, M. Driscoll, P.E. Gray, J..P. Holdren, P.L. Joskow, R.K. Lester, E.J. Moniz, and N.E. Dodreas (2003). The
Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Barrett, S. (2006a) “Climate Treaties and ‘Breakthrough’ Technologies.” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 96(2): 2225.
Barrett, Scott, (2007), “The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering,” Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies
(in press, Environmental and Resource Economics).
Bodansky, D. (1996). “May We Engineer the Climate?” Climatic Change 33: 309-321.
Caldeira, K., Jain, A. K., and Hoffert, M. I. (2003) “Climate sensitivity uncertainty and the need for energy without CO2 emission,” Science
299: 2052-2054.
Carlin, Alan, 2007, “Implementation and Utilization of Geoengineering for Global Climate Change Control,” Sustainable Development Law
and Policy, 7(2): 56-8 (Winter), available at http://www.wcl.american.edu/org/sustainabledevelopment/2007/07winter.pdf?rd=1
Carlin, Alan, 2007a, “Global Climate Change Control, Is There a Better Strategy than Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions?” University of
Pennsylvania Law Review, 155(6): 1401-1497 (June), available at http://pennumbra.com/issues/articles/155-6/Carlin.pdf
Carlin, Alan, 2007b, “New Research Suggests that Emissions Reductions May Be a Risky and Very Expensive Way to Avoid Global
Climate Changes,” Working Paper No. 2007-07, National Center for Environmental Economics, USEPA, available at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/EE/epa/eed.nsf/WPNumberNew/2007-07.
Carlin, Alan, 2007c, “Risky Gamble,” Environmental Forum, 24(5): 42-47 (September/October), available at
http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/CarlinEnvForum.pdf
Cicerone, R.J. (2006). “Geoengineering: Encouraging Research and Overseeing Implementation.” Climatic Change 77: 221-226.
Crutzen, P.J., 2006, “Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?” Climatic
Change, 77: 211-219, available at http://downloads.heartland.org/19632.pdf.
Govindasamy, B. and Caldeira, K. (2000) “Geoengineering Earth’s Radiation Balance to Mitigate CO2-induced Climate Change,”
Geophysical Research Letters 27(14): 2141- 2144.
Govindasamy, B., Caldeira, K., and Duffy, P. B. (2003) “Geoengineering Earth’s Radiation Balance to Mitigate Climate Change from a
Quadrupling of CO2,” Global and Planetary Change, 37: 157-168.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Govindasamy, B., S. Thompson, P.B. Duffy, K. Caldeira, and C. Delire (2002). “Impact of Geoengineering Schemes on the
Terrestrial Biosphere.” Geophysical Research Letters 29(22), 2061, doi.1029/2002GL015911, 2002.
Hansen, James, et al., (2005), “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications,” Science, 308(5727): 1431-1435).
Hansen, James et al, (2007) “Climate change and trace gases” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 365, pp. 1925–1954
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for
Policymakers; available at http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf.
Keith, D.W. (2000). “Geoengineering the Climate: History and Prospect,” Annual Review of Energy and Environment, 25: 245284.
MacCracken, M.C. (2006). “Geoengineering: Worthy of Cautious Evaluation?” Climatic Change 77: 235-243.
National Academy of Sciences, 1992, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, “Policy Implications of
Greenhouse Warming”, pp. 433-460, available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1605.
Nordhaus, W.D. (1994). Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nordhaus, W. D. and Boyer, J. (2000) Warming the World: Economic Models of Global Warming, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1992), Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation,
Adaptation, and the Science Base. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rees, M. (2003). Our Final Hour, New York: Basic Books.
Robock, A. (2002) “The Climatic Aftermath,” Science 295: 1242-1243.
Royal Society (2005) Ocean Acidification Due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, London: The Royal Society.
Schelling, T.C. (1996). “The Economic Diplomacy of Geoengineering.” Climatic Change 33: 303-307.
Schnare, David, 2007, “Responses to Climate Change and their Implications on Preservation and Restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay”, Testimony Before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington,
D.C., Wednesday, September 26, 2007, available at
http://thehardlook.typepad.com/thehardlook/files/schnare_senate_epw_testimony_9262007.pdf.
Schneider, S.H. (2001). “Earth Systems Engineering and Management.” Nature 409: 417-421.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy
Stern, Nicholas (2007), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review
Sterner, T., M. Troell, S. Aniyar, S. Barrett, W. Brock, S. Carpenter, K. Chopra, P. Ehrlich, M. Hoel, S. Levin, K-.G. Mäler, J.
Norberg, L. Pihl, T. Söderqvist, J. Wilen, J. Vincent, and A. Xepapadeas (2006). “Natural Disasters and Disastrous Policies,”
Environment 48(10): 20-27.
Teller, E., Hyde, R., Ishikawa, M., Nuckolls, J., and Wood, L. (2003) “Active stabilization of climate: inexpensive, low risk, nearterm options for preventing global warming and ice ages via technologically varied solar radiative forcing,” Lawrence Livermore
National Library, 30 November.
Travis, D.J., A.M. Carleton, and R.G. Lauritsen (2002). “Contrails Reduce Daily Temperature Range.” Nature 418: 601.
Wigley, T.M.L. (2006). “A Combined Mitigation/Geoengineering Approach to Climate Stabilization.” Science 314: 452-454.
Thomas Jefferson
Institute for Public Policy