Snapshot of Virginia’s GHG Activities

1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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)

5. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy • Greenland Ice Sheet will melt at +2ºC • +2ºC Temperature rise at 440 ppm • 2005 C02 levels: 455 ppm

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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)

9. 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

10. 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 -

11. 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 -

12. 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

13. 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.

14. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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?

19. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Who are Virginia’s Minorities and Poor?

20. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy

21. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy

22. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy

23. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy

24. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy 2007 HHS Poverty Guidelines SOURCE:  Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 15, January 24, 2007, pp. 3147–3148

25. 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

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Evaluation of the Virginia Energy Plan • Proportionality of • Impacts --  • Low-income weatherization assistance • Fraud protection • Increase consumer education

34. 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

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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 high-efficiency lighting in place of incandescent bulbs and other less efficient lights; Rating: 

41. 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)

42. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Evaluation of Executive Order 48 (2007) • Actively Pursue: • Energy Star requirements Rating: 

43. Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Evaluation of Executive Order 48 (2007) • Aggressively pursue: • Purchases of renewable energy. Rating:  (Only if cost-effective)

44. 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: 

45. 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

46. 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.

47. 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.

48. 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.