The Non-Regulatory Alternatives to GHG Regulations –

1. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy The Non-Regulatory Alternatives to GHG Regulations – Geo-politics, Geo-economics and Geo-engineering Session C - Thursday, October 18,2007, 10:45 am– 12:15 pm Outlook for and Impact from Potential GHG Emission Regulations David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D., Senior Energy and Environmental Fellow Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy

2. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy The Environmental Challenge • Global Temperature Rise • The Cataclysmic Results of Warming

3. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy The Environmental Challenge Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix? Mr. Gore: I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. Source: http://techgnostic.newsvine.com/_news/2007/03/15/615696-gore-appropriate-to-have-an-over-representation-of-factual-presentations

4. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy What are the Risks • Preventable Catastrophic Effect - massive ocean level rise • Unpreventable Effects - coral reef loss • Reversible Effects - Tundra melt

5. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy • The Strategic Response • We need to prevent catastrophic effects. • If we fail to avoid the changes that threaten global civilization, the other effects become moot.

6. 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

7. Rapid, Irreversible and Massive Effects The Larsen Ice Shelf.

8. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Florida in 30 Years

9. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy The Fatal Policy Conceit Exclusive Reliance on Reducing Greenhouse Gases will prevent catastrophic events. It will not.

10. 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)

11. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Catastrophic Effects • Greenland Ice Sheet will melt at +2ºC • +2ºC Temperature rise at 440 ppm • Current levels: 445 ppm CO2 Flannery – IPCC http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/10-09-2007/9896000bd89c6bb9.html

12. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Why Will We Fail To Reduce Greenhouse Gases in Time?

13. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Congressional proposals are too little too late.

14. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy

15. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Key Nations Can’t or Won’t Help

16. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy China, India, Indonesiaand African nations said they won’t follow the cartel and limit CO2 production until they have significantly increased their economic development.

17. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy The McKinsey Global Institute projects that from 2003 to 2020, the number of vehicles in China will rise from 26 million to 120 million, average residential floor space will increase 50 percent and energy demand will grow 4.4 percent annually. Even with "best practices"energy efficiency, demand would still grow 2.8 percent a year, McKinsey estimates. – The Washington Post (August 15, 2007)

18. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Rejects Binding Greenhouse Gas Limits – International Herald Tribune (August 17, 2007)

19. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Bryan Walsh of Time Magazine thinks that “as long as [China and India] send out signals that they're unwilling to consider substantial global-warming action — especially anything that could result in mandatory targets on emissions — even green Democrats in Congress will have a difficult time defending carbon controls at home

20. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Key States Can’t or Won’t Help

21. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy The Current Virginia Energy Plan will fail to produce an 80% reduction in CO2 by 2100.

22. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Virginia Energy Plan - 2007

23. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy People Won’t Reduce their Energy Enough.

24. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy

25. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy It Costs Too Much

26. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy

27. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Geo-Engineering The Non-Regulatory Alternative

28. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy “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.

29. 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

30. 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 geo-engineering strategies might be needed. National Academy of Science Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: (1992)

31. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy “The very best would be if emissions of the greenhouse gases could be reduced so much that the geo-engineering 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

32. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Wall Street Journal Thinking Big on Global Warming By FRED C. IKLE AND LOWELL WOOD October 15, 2007; Page A22Mankind's current energy system evolved during the 20th century as an offspring of the Industrial Revolution. It may take almost as long to replace this system with the novel energy sources and distribution networks that future generations will need. This huge transition would be greatly facilitated if geo-engineering options are developed and tested to provide a safe breathing space without a massive global-warming crisis.

33. 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? YES NAS 1992 Response -

34. 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? YES NAS 1992 Response -

35. 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? We Don’t Know NAS 1992 Response - Caldeira 2006 - Apparently no significant local climate changes, and no harm from particles

36. 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.

37. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Hansen, J. et al., (2005) “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications”, Science 308, 1431.

38. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy • Stratospheric reflecting aerosols • Controlled scattering of incoming sunlight by airborne • microscopic particles (residence time ~ 5 yrs) • Dielectrics – e.g., ~100 nm sulfate aerosol-spherules – annual mass (~1 MT) & cost (~$1 B) – E.g., lofted by a ‘wing’ of ~6 high- altitude cargo aircraft • Metals – e.g., “UV chaff,” metallised micro-balloons – low annual mass (~0.05 MT) & cost (~$0.2 B) • Resonant scatterers – e.g., coated dye molecules – annual mass (~0.5 MT) and cost (~$1 B) • Lowell Wood et al, Lawrence Livermore Lab

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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

42. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy So, what should we do about Greenhouse Gas Reduction • We need to move to non-carbon energy. • We can take 300 years to do so. • We probably should not bankrupt the family in the mean time. • We should balance environmental goals against other social and economic goals, including growth in the economy, an aging population, health care, national security, and an abundant supply of chocolate.

43. 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): 22-25. 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.

44. 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: 245-284. 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.

45. 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, near-term 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.

46. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy The Non-Regulatory Alternatives to GHG Regulations – Geo-politics, Geo-economics and Geo-engineering Session C - Thursday, October 18,2007, 10:45 am– 12:15 pm Outlook for and Impact from Potential GHG Emission Regulations David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D., dwschnare@cox.net Senior Energy and Environmental Fellow Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy