Archive for the ‘United States’ Category

Some post-Paris diplomacy

President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met last week for their first formal bilateral meeting since the latter was elected. With the success of the Paris Agreement behind them, the two leaders made their first steps together towards implementation with the announcement of a number of actions. A greater focus on methane emissions figured high on the list of things to do, but perhaps even more important than this was the recognition that co-opoerative action is required to implement the provisions within the Paris Agreement that are aimed at carbon market development. The joint statement released during the meeting made a very specific reference to this work;

Recognizing the role that carbon markets can play in helping countries achieve their climate targets while also driving low-carbon innovation, both countries commit to work together to support robust implementation of the carbon markets-related provisions of the Paris Agreement. The federal governments, together and in close communication with states, provinces and territories, will explore options for ensuring the environmental integrity of transferred units, in particular to inform strong INDC accounting and efforts to avoid “double-counting” of emission reductions.

The reference here is to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which allows for “internationally transferable mitigation outcomes” (ITMO) between Nationally Determined Contributions. Article 6 also establishes an emissions mitigation mechanism (EMM) which could well support the ITMO by becoming, amongst other things, a standardised carbon unit for transfer purposes. These are the sorts of areas where considerable thought will be required over the coming months.

The statement represents a big step forward for the United States and for the further development of carbon markets. The USA was amongst the very first countries to release its INDC, within which can be found the statement;

Use of markets:
At this time, the United States does not intend to utilize international market mechanisms to implement its 2025 target.

This was not a big surprise at the time. It was still early days for the resurgent political interest in the importance of government implementation of carbon pricing and therefore the supporting role that international carbon markets can play in helping optimise its use. But a great deal has happened in a year (the USA released its INDC on March 25th 2015), topped off with Article 6 in the Paris Agreement. This time last year that looked like an almost impossible dream, although several of us in the carbon pricing community dared to talk about it.

But perhaps it is the developments in North America itself that have raised the profile of cross-border carbon unit trade with the respective national governments. Although the California-Québec linked cap-and-trade system got going in 2014, it wasn’t until 2015 that Ontario showed a sudden interest in joining the system. At the April 2015 Québec Summit on Climate Change, Ontario announced its intention to set up a cap-and-trade system and join the Québec-California carbon market. The following September, Quebec and Ontario signed a cooperation agreement aimed at facilitating Ontario’s upcoming membership in the Québec- California carbon market. To add to this, during COP21 Manitoba announced that it would implement, for its large emitters, a cap-and-trade system compatible with the Quebec-California carbon market. Québec and Ontario then committed in Paris to collaborate with Manitoba in the development of its system bysigning a memorandum of understanding tothat effect.

Others US states and Canadian provinces may join, with Mexico also looking on in interest. This could in turn lead to a significant North American club of carbon markets; perhaps one even starting to match the scale and breadth of the 30 member EU ETS. Clubs of carbon markets are seen by many observers as the quickest and most effective route to widespread adoption of carbon pricing. The Environmental Defence Fund based out of New York has written extensively on the subject with their most recent paper being released in August last year.

With parts of the USA members of a multi-national club of carbon markets, the Federeal government is then effectively bound to build their use into their NDC thinking. There may be a significant flow of units across national borders, which will make it necessary to account for them through Article 6 and the various transparency provisions of the Paris Agreement.

But most importantly there is the economic benefit of doing this; a larger more diverse market will almost certainly see a lower cost of carbon across the participating jurisdictions than would otherwise have been the case. This could translate into a lower societal cost for reaching a given decarbonization goal or open up the possibility of greater mitigation ambition.

Carbon pricing in 2015

  • Comments Off on Carbon pricing in 2015

Perhaps more than any other aspect of the climate agenda, carbon pricing took a major step forward in 2015. This was supported by many initiatives, but most notably by the creation of the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition under the auspices of the World Bank. This in turn encouraged a variety of private sector interventions, such as the mid-year letter on carbon pricing from six oil and gas industry CEOs to the UNFCCC. All these actions urged governments to implement carbon pricing policies within their economies as the principle mechanism for advancing climate change action.

In terms of real policy developments, the January 2016 map (below) doesn’t look radically different to the January 2015 map, but a number of important changes took place;

  1. China confirmed the implementation of a nationwide ETS, with a proposal that would see such a system up and running over the coming 2-3 years.
  2. The fledging California-Quebec linked market is likely to see both Ontario and Manitoba join on the Canadian side.
  3. Alberta announced its intention to implement a comprehensive carbon tax from 2017.
  4. The US Clean Power Plan has elements within it that could (but not a given) lead to widespread adoption of a trading model, which in turn implies a carbon price developing in the US power sector.
  5. India again doubled its coal tax in the middle of the year, now at 200 Rupees per tonne of coal. While not a strict carbon price, it will have a similar impact. However, the level is very modest (<$2 per tonne CO2), even compared to the current low price of coal (~$40 per tonne).
  6. The aviation industry is moving closer to a voluntary carbon pricing system.
  7. South Africa moved forward with its carbon pricing legislation.
  8. The EU introduced the Market Stability Reserve as a mechanism to begin to manage the allowance surplus in the EU ETS.

The year ended with what may become the most important element of all, Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. While this doesn’t mention carbon pricing at all, it nevertheless provides fertile ground for its development through international trade of allowances and various other carbon related instruments. It also seeks to create a new global mechanism to underpin emissions reductions and promote sustainable development.

2016 will need to build rapidly on these developments if a government implemented carbon price based approach is to become the global model for reducing emissions. The ambitious goal of the Paris Agreement will need much wider and faster uptake of carbon pricing policy than is apparent from the charts below.

Carbon pricing 2016

Carbon pricing 2015Carbon pricing 2014

Carbon pricing 2013

Will the Clean Power Plan deliver effective emission reductions?

  • Comments Off on Will the Clean Power Plan deliver effective emission reductions?

August 3rd saw the Obama Administration release its long awaited Clean Power Plan. The plan partly underpins the current US COP21 INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contribution) to reduce emissions by 26-28% by 2025 compared to 2005. It also indicates that by 2030 the power sector emissions in the USA will be 32% lower than 2005 levels, which presumably is the beginning of the next phase of their national contribution. However, this plan if for electricity only, consumption of which represents a bit less than a quarter of final energy use in the USA.

Much of the media attention was on the proposal for existing power plants, but the rule comes in two parts; one for existing sources and a second one for new sources. For existing facilities the emphasis is on the near term (i.e. through to 2030), with the rule focussed more on portfolio transition than radical adjustment. As has been seen in recent years, the US is already on a journey of portfolio change, with significant retirement of older coal fired power stations underway and much greater utilization of surplus natural gas power generation capacity. This has been largely driven by the development of shale gas, which came at an opportune time given the age of the coal fired fleet. Back in 2010 I posted the two charts below, which contrast the ageing coal fleet (median build year around 1970-1975) with the relatively new natural gas infrastructure (median build year around 2000). The whole process has quickly and efficiently reduced emissions across the United States – a phenomena also seen in the UK in the 1990s as North Sea natural gas overwhelmed the older coal based infrastructure.

US Coal Fleet

US coal generation capacity

US Natural Gas Fleet

US natural gas generation capacity

The US journey of substitution continues today, but augmented by considerable solar and wind capacity. The new rule for existing plants encourages that transition to continue, focussing on energy efficiency in coal fired power plants (Building Block 1), continued substitution of coal by natural gas (Building Block 2) and a further push on renewables (Building Block 3). But the rule puts significant near term emphasis on renewable energy development rather than further encouraging the further uptake of natural gas. In fact, through the use of a crediting mechanism (Emission Rate Credits) within the EPA rule, the efficient displacement of coal by natural gas is curtailed, possibly even leading to a similar outcome as experienced over recent years in the EU, a higher overall energy cost and some coal growth. This happened in the EU because of near term renewable energy policies bringing more distant and costly projects forward, which in turn supressed the carbon price and the otherwise successful switching away from coal to natural gas that the carbon price was driving at the time.

In any plan to manage power sector emissions, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is almost certainly a long term requirement, so it should be encouraged from the outset. In the case of the existing source rule, there is no particular steer towards CCS. Although CCS is mentioned about sixty times in the 1,500 page document, there is a significant caveat; cost. While the rule makes several references to the cost of CCS, this is much more in the context of retrofit of facilities that have limited remaining shelf life. Although CCS is critically important over the longer term, it doesn’t make much economic sense to retrofit old facilities with the technology and as can be seen above, the new build coal fleet is relatively small.

But CCS does come into the picture when looking at the construction of new coal fired power plants. These will operate for up to fifty years, well into the period when the USA may want to reduce national emissions to very low levels, yet still make use of the vast fossil fuel resources that is has at its disposal. The EPA rule finds that the best system for emission reduction (BSER) for new steam units is highly efficient supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) technology with partial carbon capture and storage (CCS). In such cases, the final standard is an emission limit of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh‐gross, which is the performance achievable by an SCPC unit capturing about 20 percent of its carbon pollution. This offers some opportunity for CCS to develop in the near term, depending of course on the rate at which older coal fired power stations are displaced and new ones are proposed. That in turn may be hampered by the Emission Rate Credit mechanism. A flaw in the thinking on ERCs (and also for much of the push towards renewable energy as a means of dealing with atmospheric CO2) is the assumption that a tonne of CO2 not emitted now by generating electricity from renewable energy or improving efficiency equates to a lower eventual concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.  This may not be the case, a point I discuss at some length in my e-book, Putting the Genie Back. Given that both geographical (used elsewhere) and temporal (used later) displacement of fossil fuel is a reality, the actual offset of CO2 by using renewable energy is dependent on the future energy scenario. By contrast, a tonne of CO2 stored is over and done with. Renewable energy should certainly be encouraged, but not at the cost of pushing CCS out of the picture.

The USA is now heading towards an electricity mix that consists of efficient natural gas generation, some legacy coal, renewables, some nuclear and possibly coal with CCS. It has taken a long time to get to this position and doubtless there will be challenges ahead, but the direction appears to be set. However, I will always argue that a well implemented emissions trading system could have achieved all this more efficiently, at lower cost and therefore with less pain, but at least for now that is not to be (or is it – there are a legion of trading provisions within the rule).

More steps towards Paris

  • Comments Off on More steps towards Paris

At the end of last week (May 15th) Canada submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to the UNFCCC, becoming the 37th state to do so (including 28 countries within the EU). The three key points of the Canadian INDC submission are:

  • An emissions reduction pledge of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 (the US has pledged a target of 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025);
  • The reduction will be economy-wide and will cover all GHGs recognized under the UNFCCC;
  • Canada “may also use international mechanisms to achieve its target, subject to robust systems that deliver real and verified emissions reductions.”

This means that substantial progress is being made towards a good coverage of INDC submissions by the time of the Paris COP, although many eyes will now be turning to the emerging economies (e.g. China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Chile, Saudi Arabia etc.) for the real signal with regards tackling global emissions. Mexico has made a good start in that regard.

In just two weeks the national negotiators will meet again, this time in Bonn, to continue their deliberations in the lead up to COP21. But is the process in good shape?

Compared to this time in 2009 with the Copenhagen COP looming, I think it is in better shape. Although there are many details to be agreed, the negotiators at least know what it is they are trying to agree on; a relatively lean framework within which can sit the collection of INDCs from all countries for scrutiny and review. It has taken many years to get to this point and the process is far from complete, but the task at hand is now clear even though many will argue that it won’t be sufficient to deliver the goal to limit warming of the climate system to less than 2°C. At least there is thematic consensus which I don’t think existed in May 2009; was it to be top down or bottom up, what would happen to the Kyoto Protocol, should there be a global goal on temperature rise? These and many other questions were still in play.

Looking back on some of my first year of blog posts which were written in 2009, it was all very different.

  • Many eyes were on the deliberations of the US House of Representatives and the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade Bill, with every expectation that the USA would take the lead on establishing a carbon price. Today, those eyes are on the world’s largest emitter, China, as it proceeds with its carbon pricing provincial trials and expansion to a nationwide system.
  • It wasn’t until the June 2009 UNFCCC meeting that the team from the Oxford University Department of Physics first presented their new thinking on a global carbon emissions limit of 1 trillion tonnes over the industrial era; now negotiators are actually considering the concept of net-zero emissions and therefore an end date to the ongoing accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
  • The British government produced a first of its kind report on the idea of global carbon trading. In some respects not much has changed, but the discussion has matured and the likes of the World Bank are now taking this concept forward. A linked market even exists between California and Quebec.
  • In July 2009 I came across the first electric vehicle charging stations in London and met a person who was taking delivery of the seventh Tesla in the UK. In 2014 there were 15,000 EV and PHEV newly registered and right now on AutoTrader there are 10 used Tesla cars for sale!!
  • The UNFCCC negotiations were operating on two tracks, the Kyoto Protocol (KP) and Long term Cooperative Action (LCA), with no real sign of them coming together.
  • There was little consensus on climate finance; today the Green Climate Fund has been established and there is an active process underway to start disseminating the initial developed country funding.
  • There was little sign of targets and goal setting from the major developing countries; today China has indicated a plateau in emissions by around 2030 and other countries are following their lead.

In hindsight it isn’t surprising that all of these issues were not resolved by the following December. The goals for Paris may not be as lofty as those for Copenhagen, but at least from the perspective of a mid-year review they appear more achievable. It’s been a few months since I have added a piece to my “Paris Puzzle”, but it is perhaps timely to do this now.

Jigsaw May 2015

The last days of March have seen the start of submissions of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) to the UNFCCC. The United States, Switzerland, European Union, Mexico and Russia have all met the requested deadline of the end of Q1 2015. As is expected and entirely in line with the UNFCC request, the INDCs focus on national emissions. After all, this is the way emissions management has always been handled and reported and there is no sign of anything changing in the future.

As was to be expected, the United States submitted an INDC that indicated a 26-28% reduction in national emissions by 2025 relative to a baseline of 2005. This is an ambitious pledge, and highlights the changes underway in the US economy as it shifts towards more gas, backs out domestic use of coal, improves efficiency and installs renewable generation capacity. So far the USA national inventory indicates that the 2020 target is being progressively delivered, although it will be interesting to see whether this trend changes as a result of the sharp reduction in oil prices and a couple of summer driving seasons on the back of that.

US 2020 and 2030 Reduction Target

My own analysis in 2011 (see below) was that the USA would come close to its 2020 goal, but may struggle to meet it. The different overall level of emissions in the charts is the result of including various sources (e.g. agriculture) and gases, or not.

US 2020 Goal with 2010 data

Direct emissions represent just one view of US emissions. Some would argue that the national inventory should also include embedded emissions within imported products, but this introduces considerable complexity into the estimation.

Another representation of US emissions which is perhaps more relevant to the climate issue is the actual extraction of fossil carbon from US territory. As the climate issue follows a stock model, the development of global fossil resources and subsequent use over the ensuing years is a measure that is closer to the reality of the problem. The larger the resource base that is developed globally, the higher the eventual concentration of carbon dioxide that the atmosphere is likely to reach. This is because the long-term accumulation will tend towards the full release of developed fossil fuel reserves simply because the infrastructure exists to extract them and as such they will more than likely get used somewhere or at some time. This isn’t universally true, as the closure of some uneconomic coal mines in the USA is showing; or are they simply being mothballed?

A look at US carbon commitment to the atmosphere from a production standpoint reveals a different emissions picture. Rather than seeing a drop in US emissions since 2005, the upward trend that has persisted for decades (albeit it a slower rate since the late 1960s) is continuing.

US emissions based on extraction

In the case of measured direct emissions, reduced coal use is driving down emissions. But for the extraction case, additional coal is now being exported and the modest drop in coal production is being more than countered by increasing oil and gas production. Total carbon extraction is rising.

While there is no likelihood that national emission inventories will start being assessed on such a basis, it does nevertheless throw a different light onto the picture. In a recent visit to Norway it was interesting to hear about national plans to head rapidly towards net-zero emissions, but for the country to maintain its status as an oil and gas exporter. This would be something of a contradiction if Norway was not such a strong advocate for the development of carbon capture and storage, a strategy which will hopefully encourage others to use this technology in the future.

A sense of scale for 2015

  • Comments Off on A sense of scale for 2015

The year 2014 saw this blog grow to become an e-book, which looked at the huge challenge of limiting warming to a global 2 °C temperature rise. The book is available on Amazon, here (or in the USA, here).

As we head into 2015, the opening chapter of the book perhaps provides a useful backdrop to the UNFCCC deliberations to come in the lead up to Paris. In this excerpt, I discussed the enormous scale of the global energy system;

. . . . not everyone has the opportunity to witness large-scale energy production first hand, so perhaps a few examples will help. In the hour or two that you might spend with this book, a lot will happen in the world. It’s become a very busy place powered by a lot of energy. Just to keep up with current energy demand, the next two hours will see;

  • Four VLCCs (Very Large Crude Carrier) of oil loaded somewhere in the world. That’s more than enough oil to fill the Empire State Building.
  • About two million tonnes of coal extracted. Much of this moves by rail, but if it were a single train it would be about 200 miles long.
  • 800 million cubic metres of natural gas produced, which under normal atmospheric conditions would cover the area enclosed by London’s M25 to a depth of about a foot; i.e. after half a day everyone in London would be breathing natural gas.
  • 8-10 cubic kilometres of water passing through hydroelectricity stations, or enough water to more than fill Loch Ness.

Our immediate contact with this is the fuel for our cars, the electricity that lights our homes and powers our stuff and the oil or natural gas we use in our boilers. But there is more, much more. This includes the unappealing, somewhat messy but nevertheless essential chemical plants where products such as sulphuric acid, ammonia, caustic soda and chlorine are made (to name but a few). Combined, about half a billion tonnes of these four products are produced annually. Produced by energy intensive processes operating on an industrial scale, but concealed from daily life, these four products play a part in the manufacture of almost everything we use, buy, wear, eat and do. These core base chemicals rely on various feed stocks. Sulphuric acid, for example, is made from the sulphur found in oil and gas and removed during refining and treatment processes. Although there are other viable sources of sulphur, they have long been abandoned for economic reasons.

Then there is the stuff we make and buy. The ubiquitous mobile phone and the much talked about solar PV cell are just the tip of a vast energy consuming industrial system that relies on base chemicals such as chlorine, but also  materials such as steel, aluminium, nickel, chromium, glass and plastics from which the products are made. The production of these materials alone exceeds 2 billion tonnes annually. All of this is made in facilities with concrete foundations, using some of the 3 to 4 billion tonnes of cement that is produced annually.

The global industry for plastics is also rooted in the oil and gas industry. The big six plastics* all start their lives in refineries as base chemicals extracted from crude oil.

All of these processes are energy intensive, requiring gigawatt scale electricity generation, high temperature furnaces and large quantities of high pressure steam to drive big conversion reactors. The raw materials for much of this come from remote mines, another hidden key to modern life. These, in turn, are powered by utility scale facilities, huge draglines for digging and 3 kilometre long trains for moving the extracted ores. An iron ore train in Australia might be made up of 300 to 400 rail cars, moving up to 50,000 tonnes of iron ore, utilising six to eight locomotives. These locomotives run on diesel fuel, although many in the world run on electric systems at high voltage, e.g. the 25 kV AC iron ore train from Russia to Finland.

This is just the beginning of the energy and industrial world we live in and largely powered by utility companies burning gas and coal. These bring economies of scale to everything we do and use, whether we like it or not. Not even mentioned above is the agricultural world that feeds 7 billion people, uses huge amounts of energy and requires its own set of petrochemical derived fertilizers and pesticides.  The advent of technologies such as 3D Printing may shift some manufacturing to small local facilities, but even the material poured into the tanks feeding that 3D machine will probably rely on sulphuric acid somewhere in the production chain.

On that note, happy New Year and enjoy the complete book. Hopefully more will follow in 2015.

* These are, polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polystyrene solid (PS), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polyurethane (PUR)

Putting the Genie Back

The in-tandem announcement last week by the USA and China caught many by surprise, resulted in lots of applause and back slapping and then raised questions as to which country has the tougher or easier deal. A bit of simple analysis offered below may help answer that question.

In the long period between Kyoto and Copenhagen as commentators saw that the Kyoto Protocol probably wasn’t going to be sufficient to rein in global emissions, various ideas (re)appeared as to how the future reduction burden should be shared, particularly amongst countries with widely different development pathways. One idea that gained considerable prominence was known as Contraction and Convergence. In fact this idea was first proposed in 1990 by the Global Commons Institute (GCI).

Contraction refers to the ‘full-term event’ in which the future global total of greenhouse gas emissions from human sources is shrunk over time in a measured way to zero net-emissions within a specified time-frame.

Convergence refers to the full international sharing of the emissions contraction-event, where the ’emissions-entitlements’ for all countries result from them converging on the declining global per capita average of emissions arising under the contraction rate chosen.

Last week the USA announced reductions of 26-28% by 2025 relative to 2005 and China announced a peaking in emissions by 2030. There really isn’t enough information given to fully dissect this, but a few simple assumptions makes for an interesting observation. For starters, I have assumed that energy emissions are a proxy for total emissions, in part because energy information is so readily available whereas information on methane, other GHGs and land use is much more difficult to piece together. The second assumption is that the 2020-2025 annual rate of reduction in the USA of about 2% p.a. continues through to 2030 (i.e. a reduction of 37% in 2030 relative to 2005) and the third assumption is that China exhibits a noticeable “glide path” towards a 2030 peak, rather than extreme growth that comes to a shuddering halt. At least for energy emissions, the picture looks something like the one below, but in the language of convergence, i.e. emissions per capita.

Emissions per capita USA and China

What becomes apparent is that the USA and China appear to have adopted a “Contraction and Convergence” approach, with a goal of around 10 tonnes CO2 per capita for 2030, at least for energy related emissions. For China this means emissions of some 14.5 billion tpa in 2030, compared with the latest IEA number for 2012 of 8.3 billion tonnes, so a 75% increase over 2012 or 166% increase over 2005. It also has China peaking at a level of CO2 emissions similar to Europe when it was more industrial, rather than ramping up to the current level of say, the USA or Australia (both ~16 tonnes). By comparison, Korea currently has energy CO2/capita emissions of ~12 tonnes, so China peaking at 10 is some 17% below that.

If the USA and China stayed in lockstep after 2030 with the same reduction pathway that plays out in the USA over the period 2020-2030, that might mean 6.6 tonnes CO2 per capita by 2040, or 9.5 billion tpa for China, which is still slightly higher than the current level.

Comparing apples with oranges

The Climate Group has posted an interesting story on its website and has been tweeting a key graph from the piece of work (below) with the attached text saying “From 2000 to 2012, wind and solar energy increased respectively 16-fold and 49-fold”.

Climate Group Image

The story is headed “Wind and Solar Power is Catching up with Nuclear” and argues correctly that the global installed capacity of these two new sources of electricity are catching up with nuclear. Although the article concludes with the sobering reality that actual generation from wind and solar are still just a fraction of that from nuclear, the headline and certainly the tweets are somewhat misleading.

Both wind and solar have very low on-stream factors, something like 30% and 20% respectively in the USA, whereas nuclear is close to 90%. This means that although 1 GW of solar can deliver up to 1 GW of output, this is highly intermittent, needs considerable backup and results in an average output of only 200 MW (with a low of zero half the time). By contrast a 1 GW nuclear power station is on stream most of the time and delivers about 1 GW 24/7 throughout the year. Therefore, comparing solar or wind capacity with nuclear capacity gives little insight into the actual energy being generated, which is really the point of any comparison in the first instance. The global generating picture actually looks like this (Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014);

Generation by source

Wind, but particularly solar generation are still only a fraction of nuclear generation, even with the global nuclear turndown following Fukushima. Interestingly, both wind and solar are only rising at about the same rate that nuclear did in the 1960s and 1970s, so we might expect another 30+ years before they reach the level that nuclear is at today, at least in terms of actual generation.

The comparison of capacity rather than generation has become a staple of the renewable energy industry. Both coal and nuclear provide base load electricity and have very high on-stream factors. Depending on the national circumstances, natural gas may be base load and therefore also have a high on-stream factor, but in the USA it has been closer to 50% as it is quite often used intermittently to match the variability of renewables and the peaks in demand from customers (e.g. early evenings when people come home from work and cook dinner). This is because of the ease with which natural gas generation can be dispatched into or removed from the grid. However, natural gas is also becoming baseload in some parts of the USA given the price of gas and the closure of older coal plants.

Capacity comparisons look great in that they can make it appear that vast amounts of renewable energy is entering the energy mix when in fact that is not the case, at least not to the extent implied. Renewable energy will undoubtedly have its day, but like nuclear and even fossil fuels before it, a generation or two will likely have to pass before we can note its significant impact and possibly even its eventual dominance in the power sector.

Did the UN Summit shift the dial?

The UN Climate Summit has come and gone and leaders from many countries have made announcements, pledges or at least offered moral support. But are we any better off as a result? Reflecting on the last few days of meetings, events, panels and speeches in New York, I would have to argue for the “yes” case. As such, it contributes another piece to the Paris jigsaw.

UN Climate Summit Jigsaw

Although nothing that was formally pledged or offered is likely to make a tangible difference to global emissions in the medium term, one subject has resurfaced in a major way that can: carbon pricing. While there was still a focus on efficiency and renewable energy at many events, the need to implement policy to put a price on carbon dioxide emissions came through loud and clear. In recent months this has been led by the World Bank and they were able to announce in New York that 73 countries and some 1000 companies have signed their Statement, Putting a Price on Carbon, which is an extraordinary result for just a few months of concerted effort.

Given that this was a UN event rather than a national event, the focus naturally shifted to the global story, with an emphasis on how the Paris 2015 agreement might accelerate the shift to carbon pricing and a carbon market that operated globally. The International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) held a number of events around the city outlining its ideas on how this might happen.

Its kickoff was an event on Monday afternoon, the day before the Summit, where a team led by Professor Rob Stavins of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University presented new work on linking various carbon emission mitigation approaches. The work suggests that such linkage could be the foundation mechanism behind a globally networked carbon market and can be found in summary here. It illustrates how even quite different approaches to mitigation might link and then deliver the economic benefits associated with a larger more liquid market.

But if this approach is to be adopted, the big question that would still need to be addressed is how the Paris agreement might actually facilitate it. IETA offered some thinking on is, with an outline proposal that even included some basic treaty text to enable such a process. Given that the 2015 agreement will almost certainly be structured around INDCs, or Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, the text proposal needed to embrace this concept and work with it, rather than attempting to impose a carbon price or carbon market structure by diktat. The basic reason for trading in a market is to exchange goods or services and optimise revenue and / or lower costs as a result, so the text simply suggested that parties (nations) could be offered the ability to exchange and transfer mitigation effort (INDCs) should they (or companies within their economies) wish to do so, but requires that it be recorded in some form of carbon reduction unit. The proposal by IETA is as follows;

Cooperation between Parties in realizing their Contribution

  1. Parties may voluntarily cooperate in achieving their mitigation contributions.
  2. A unified international transfer system is hereby established.

a.  A Party may transfer portions of its defined national contribution to one or more other Parties through carbon units of its choice.
b.  Transfers and receipts of units shall be recorded in equivalent carbon reduction terms.

There could be many variations on this theme, but the idea is to establish the ability to trade and require a carbon unit accounting of it if and when it takes place. Of course many COP decisions will be required in years to come to fully flush this out.

What was interesting about this proposal was the reaction it got from those closer to the negotiating process. Rather than simply acknowledging it, one meeting in New York saw several people debating the wording as if the formal negotiation was underway. I understand that this was exactly the reaction IETA were looking for and hopefully it bodes well for the development of market mechanisms within the Paris outcome.

There were of course other themes running through the various events. The new business coalition, We Mean Business, was actively marketing its new report which attempts to make the case that emission reduction strategies in the business sector can deliver returns on investment approaching 30%. This is a rather misleading claim in that it is primarily focussing on efficiency improvements in certain sectors, which of course factors in the local cost of energy, but particularly electricity. There is no doubt that reducing electricity consumption can lead to improved competitiveness and growth, hence a very attractive ROI, but this is very different to a real reduction in emissions that actually delivers benefits globally. This is a major theme of my recent book. The problem with such claims is that they shift attention away from the much more difficult task of actually reducing emissions to the extent that cumulative atmospheric carbon dioxide is impacted; such reductions require real heavy lifting as delivered through the use of carbon capture and storage.

Overall, It was an interesting week, framed by 300,000 demonstrators on Sunday and a plethora of world leaders speaking at the UN on Tuesday. Just maybe, this was the start of something meaningful.

A huge turnout in New York

I am in New York for Climate Week, which includes the UN Climate Summit on Tuesday. Sunday saw an enormous turnout for the People’s Climate March as can be seen from a few of my pictures below.

Climate march 1 (small)

Climate march 2 (small)

Climate march 3 (small)

Climate march 4 (small)

Climate march 5 (small)

Climate march 6 (small)

Climate march 7 (small)

Climate march 8 (small)

Climate march 9 (small)

Climate march 10 (small)