* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download SAf Science Conference
ExxonMobil climate change controversy wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Energiewende in Germany wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Views on the Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in New Zealand wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Carbon governance in England wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
B A S I C Climate Change: A Perspective from the USA National Climate Conference, BASIC Side Event Gallagher Estate, Johannesburg, South Africa October, 2005 Jonathan Pershing Climate, Energy and Pollution Program World Resources Institute http://www.wri.org WRI US Climate Related Indicators WRI 2 The US contributes the largest share of global GHG emissions… Rest of the World US (20%) Global GHG Emissions Source: WRI/CAIT, 2000 Data WRI Emissions Mix 100 % Share of Fuel Mix Renewables Hydro 75 Nuclear 50 Gas Oil 25 Coal 0 United States Source: WRI/CAIT Source: IEA Statistics WRI 4 Change over 20th Century: Annual Mean Temperature ºF WRI Million tons CO2 (from energy) US Projected Emissions 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2000 2010 2025 According to USDOE, emissions will grow about 1.4%/year, or 42% over the next 25 years WRI U.S. Climate Change Policies WRI 7 Bush Administration Climate/Energy Policy Initiatives (1) • Goal: to reduce US GHG intensity by 18% by 2012 – Equivalent to ~4% reduction relative to BaU – Total emissions increase by 31% over 1990 levels – Further measures in 2012 if target not met • Voluntary initiatives – Improve voluntary registry (provide baseline to give “credits” for real reduction; likely to require legislation) – Climate VISION Partnership (12 sectors and BRT work with EPA, DOE, DOT and USDA to reduce GHG emissions) – Climate Leaders (EPA corporate partnership with individual companies; 50 companies now participating) • Fuel economy standards for light trucks (20.7mpg 22.2mpg by 2007) • Tax incentives for GHG reductions (RE, EE and sequestration) WRI Bush Administration Climate/Energy Policy Initiatives (2) • Methane to Markets : Ministerial kickoff, November 2004 • US Climate Technology Program (CCTP) – Strategic direction and organization for about $3bn in federal spending for climate change-related technology research, development, demonstration, and deployment – Six complementary goals: (1) reducing emissions from energy use and infrastructure; (2) reducing emissions from energy supply; (3) capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide; (4) reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases; (5) measuring and monitoring emissions; and (6) bolstering the contributions of basic science to climate change. WRI Bush Administration Climate/Energy Policy Initiatives (3) • Nuclear: – Fission: Generation IV: multilateral partnership for next generation nuclear power – Fusion: $5 Bn committed in 2003 for multi-year research program • Hydrogen economy – $1.7 Bn, 5-year initiative for hydrogen fuel and “Freedom Car” • Carbon capture and storage – $1 Bn, 10-year “Future-gen” demonstration project for zeroemissions coal-based power – Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum • Including data gathering, information exchange and joint projects • 15 partner countries WRI USG Roadmap for Climate Change Technology Development and Deployment for the 21st Century Source: U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan, Draft for Public Comment – September 2005 WRI US Climate Technology Budget 900 800 700 Other Agencies 200 600 $ Million $ Million 250 US DOE 500 150 400 100 300 200 50 2004 (Actual) AID NSF NASA EPA DOT Interior DOC-NIST Fossil (incl Seq) Renewable Nuclear T&D Conservation 0 0 USDA 100 2005 (Proposed) Source: U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan, Draft for Public Comment – September 2005 WRI Proposed congressional policies • • • • • • GHG reduction GHG Reporting Supporting International Negotiations Energy Policy Appropriations Power Plants • • • • • • • Transport Hydrogen Clean Coal Carbon Sequestration Buildings Waste recycling Science/Research WRI McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act • Summary: – A bill establishing a market-driven system of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances – Cap: at 2000 levels by 2010 • Voting History: – October 2003: 43-55 – June 2005: 38 - 60 WRI Sense of the Senate (Vote 54-43) • Congress finds that— (1) greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are causing average temperatures to rise at a rate outside the range of natural variability and are posing a substantial risk of rising sea-levels, altered patterns of atmospheric and oceanic circulation, and increased frequency and severity of floods and droughts; (2) there is a growing scientific consensus that human activity is a substantial cause of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere; and (3) mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. • Sense of the Senate Congress should enact a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions at a rate and in a manner that (1) will not significantly harm the United States economy; and (2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions. -- US Senate: June 2005 WRI California Policies • Transport –Starting in 2003,10% light duty vehicles to be zero emitting –15% of buses with zero emissions by 2008 • Registry of GHGs (CCAR) • RPS: 20% by 2017 • $62 million public research program • Carbon adder ($48-25/ton – in draft) WRI Others are experimenting too • Goal: A regional cap-andtrade program initially covering CO2 emissions from power plants – Stabilize emissions at current levels through 2015 – Reduce by 10% by 2020 • Region statistics: – 9 states represent 14% US GHG emissions – 3.2% of world GHG emissions (Germany) WRI 17 Greenhouse Gas Inventories Source: Pew Climate Center WRI Climate Action Plans Source: Pew Climate Center WRI Renewable Energy Mandates Source: Pew Climate Center WRI U.S. Climate Change Mitigation Potential WRI 21 US Renewable Resources Source: U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan, Draft for Public Comment – September 2005 Geothermal WRI Proposed LNG Terminals Constructed A. Everett, MA : 1.035 Bcfd (Tractebel – DOMAC) B. Cove Point, MD : 1.0 Bcfd (Dominion – Cove Point LNG) C. Elba Island, GA : 0.68 Bcfd (El Paso – Southern LNG) D. Lake Charles, LA : 1.0 Bcfd (Southern Union – Trunkline LNG) Approved by FERC 1. Lake Charles, LA: 1.1 Bcfd (Southern Union – Trunkline LNG) 2. Hackberry, LA : 1.5 Bcfd, (Sempra Energy) 3. Bahamas : 0.84 Bcfd, (AES Ocean Express)* 4. Bahamas : 0.83 Bcfd, (Calypso Tractebel)* 5. Freeport, TX : 1.5 Bcfd, (Cheniere/Freeport LNG Dev.) 6. Sabine, LA : 2.6 Bcfd (Cheniere LNG) 7. Elba Island, GA: 0.54 Bcfd (El Paso – Southern LNG) Approved by MARAD/Coast Guard 8. Port Pelican: 1.6 Bcfd, (Chevron Texaco) 9. Gulf of Mexico: 0.5 Bcfd, (El Paso Energy Bridge GOM, LLC) Proposed to FERC 10. Fall River, MA : 0.8 Bcfd, (Weaver's Cove Energy/Hess LNG) 11. Long Beach, CA : 0.7 Bcfd, (Mitsubishi/ConocoPhillips – Sound Energy Solutions) 12. Corpus Christi, TX : 2.6 Bcfd, (Cheniere LNG) 13. Corpus Christi, TX : 1.0 Bcfd (Vista Del Sol - ExxonMobil) 14. Sabine, TX : 1.0 Bcfd (Golden Pass - ExxonMobil) 15. Logan Township, NJ : 1.2 Bcfd (Crown Landing LNG – BP) 16. Bahamas : 0.5 Bcfd, (Seafarer - El Paso/FPL ) 17. Corpus Christi, TX: 1.0 Bcfd (Ingleside Energy – Occidental Energy Ventures) 18. Providence, RI : 0.5 Bcfd (Keyspan & BG LNG) 19. Port Arthur, TX: 1.5 Bcfd (Sempra) 20. Cove Point, MD : 0.8 Bcfd (Dominion) 21. LI Sound, NY: 1.0 Bcfd (Broadwater Energy – TransCanada/Shell) Constructed A. Everett, MA : 1.035 Bcfd (Tractebel – DOMAC) Proposed to MARAD/Coast Guard 22. California Offshore: 1.5 Bcfd (Cabrillo Port – BHP Billiton) Constructed A. Everett, MA : 1.035 Bcfd (Tractebel – DOMAC) B. Cove Point, MD : 1.0 Bcfd (Dominion – Cove Point LNG) C. Elba Island, GA : 0.68 Bcfd (El Paso – Southern LNG) D. Lake Charles, LA : 1.0 Bcfd (Southern Union – Trunkline LNG) Approved by FERC 1. Lake Charles, LA: 1.1 Bcfd (Southern Union – Trunkline LNG) 2. Hackberry, LA : 1.5 Bcfd, (Sempra Energy) 3. Bahamas : 0.84 Bcfd, (AES Ocean Express)* 4. Bahamas : 0.83 Bcfd, (Calypso Tractebel)* 5. Freeport, TX : 1.5 Bcfd, (Cheniere/Freeport LNG Dev.) 6. Sabine, LA : 2.6 Bcfd (Cheniere LNG) 7. Elba Island, GA: 0.54 Bcfd (El Paso – Southern LNG) Approved by MARAD/Coast Guard 8. Port Pelican: 1.6 Bcfd, (Chevron Texaco) 9. Gulf of Mexico: 0.5 Bcfd, (El Paso Energy Bridge GOM, LLC) Proposed to FERC 10. Fall River, MA : 0.8 Bcfd, (Weaver's Cove Energy/Hess LNG) 11. Long Beach, CA : 0.7 Bcfd, (Mitsubishi/ConocoPhillips – Sound Energy Solutions) 12. Corpus Christi, TX : 2.6 Bcfd, (Cheniere LNG) 13. Corpus Christi, TX : 1.0 Bcfd (Vista Del Sol - ExxonMobil) 14. Sabine, TX : 1.0 Bcfd (Golden Pass - ExxonMobil) 15. Logan Township, NJ : 1.2 Bcfd (Crown Landing LNG – BP) 16. Bahamas : 0.5 Bcfd, (Seafarer - El Paso/FPL ) 17. Corpus Christi, TX: 1.0 Bcfd (Ingleside Energy – Occidental Energy Ventures) 18. Providence, RI : 0.5 Bcfd (Keyspan & BG LNG) 19. Port Arthur, TX: 1.5 Bcfd (Sempra) 20. Cove Point, MD : 0.8 Bcfd (Dominion) 21. LI Sound, NY: 1.0 Bcfd (Broadwater Energy – TransCanada/Shell) Proposed to MARAD/Coast Guard 22. California Offshore: 1.5 Bcfd (Cabrillo Port – BHP Billiton) 23. Louisiana Offshore : 1.0 Bcfd (Gulf Landing – Shell) 24. So. California Offshore : 0.5 Bcfd, (Crystal Energy) 25. Louisiana Offshore : 1.0 Bcfd (Main Pass McMoRan Exp.) 26. Gulf of Mexico: 1.0 Bcfd (Compass Port - ConocoPhillips) 27. Gulf of Mexico : 2.8 Bcfd (Pearl Crossing - ExxonMobil) Potential Sites Identified by Project Sponsors 28. Coos Bay, OR: 0.13 Bcfd, (Energy Projects Development) 29. Somerset, MA : 0.65 Bcfd (Somerset LNG) 30. California - Offshore : 0.75 Bcfd, (Chevron Texaco) 31. Pleasant Point, ME : 0.5 Bcf/d (Quoddy Bay, LLC) 32. St. Helens, OR: 0.7 Bcfd (Port Westward LNG LLC) 33. Offshore Boston, MA: 0.8 Bcfd (Northeast Gateway – Excelerate Energy) 34. Galveston, TX: 1.2 Bcfd (Pelican Island – BP) 35. Pascagoula, MS: 1.0 Bcfd (Gulf LNG Energy LLC) 36. Port Lavaca, TX: 1.0 Bcfd (Calhoun LNG – Gulf Coast LNG Partners) 37. Philadelphia, PA: 0.6 Bcfd (Freedom Energy Center – PGW) 38. Pascagoula, MS: 1.3 Bcfd (ChevronTexaco)) 39. Cameron, LA: 2.6 Bcfd (Creole Trail LNG – Cheniere LNG) 40. Astoria, OR: 1.0 Bcfd (Skipanon LNG – Calpine) Canadian Approved and Potential Terminals 41. St. John, NB : 1.0 Bcfd, (Canaport – Irving Oil)** 42. Point Tupper, NS 1.0 Bcf/d (Bear Head LNG - Anadarko)** 43. Quebec City, QC : 0.5 Bcfd (Project Rabaska – Enbridge/Gaz Met/Gaz de France) 44. Rivière-du- Loup, QC: 0.5 Bcfd (Cacouna Energy – TransCanada/PetroCanada) 45. Kitimat, BC: 0.34 Bcfd (Galveston LNG) 46. Prince Rupert, BC: 0.30 Bcfd (WestPac Terminals) 47. Goldboro, NS 1.0 Bcfd (Keltic Petrochemicals) Mexican Approved and Potential Terminals 48. Altamira, Tamulipas : 1.12 Bcfd, (Shell)** 49. Baja California, MX : 1.0 Bcfd, (Sempra & Shell)** 50. Baja California - Offshore : 1.4 Bcfd, (Chevron Texaco) 51. Lázaro Cárdenas, MX : 0.5 Bcfd (Tractebel/Repsol) 52. Puerto Libertad, MX: 1.3 Bcfd (Sonora Pacific LNG) WRI Natural Gas Flow Patterns in 2004 Flow (Average MMcfd) 2004 15 6100 3093 740 538 2058 1507 271 Eastern Canada 2728 1537 300 122 0 59 1590 180 752 2392 87 902 742 1089 2100 359 145 0 2166 New England 450 Everett 2058 891 453 Mid-Atlantic 0 0 3360 712 740 2685 388 841 415 107 1342 2475 2004 25 599 Cove Point Elba Island 4101 293 223 4293 1751 50 5751 1785 Baja MX 2364 Florida/Bahamas Katy 490 Altimira MX 0 6081 1232 845 Blue Lines indicate LNG Gray Lines indicate an increase Red Lines indicate a decrease 519 5248 1216 128 0 1948 1949 571 772 276 2985 108 173 318 501 255 Southern California 2680 1544 1754 0 Mid-Atlantic 4189 Northern California 2207 0 Offshore TX 379 469 2214 Lake Charles/New LA WRI Tons CO2 Eq./Mill. Intl $ Efficiency Gains Are Possible 600 500 31% 36% 58% 400 300 200 100 0 USA Source : WRI/CAIT Germany Japan France WRI Potential for CCS • Coal powers more than ½ of all US electric supply, and is responsible for 20% of US emissions • By 2030, additions to US coalbased electric generation will produce ~1000 MT of additional CO2 • Zero emissions technology, if applied across all new plants could reduce these emissions • Development of this technology could have applications around the world WRI The Private Sector Is Also Acting Chicago Climate Exchange Carbon Financial Instruments - Market Data Price : Per metric ton of CO2, November 1 - 5, 2004 Vintage Last Change Change % 2003 $1.49 -0.04 -2.61% 2004 $1.36 -0.09 -6.21% 2005 $1.35 -0.10 -6.90% 2006 $1.36 -0.09 -6.21% Volume: 44,700 metric tons CO2 WRI WRI 290 corporate facilities across 25 states & DC are buying green power State with green power/ REC purchase or project WRI Conclusions • Emissions in the US continue to rise, and policies are not keeping pace. – – – – • The executive branch is particularly slow to adopt programs, although it has begun to develop a more aggressive technology approach Congress is acting, although little new legislation has been passed State efforts are increasing, and seem likely to continue to increase Private sector commitments are increasing It is likely that US policy will shift, but significant change does not seem likely until after this Administration leaves office WRI 30