Global Warming Solutions Research Articles

The Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act: A Very Shy Statute

When the Massachusetts legislature unanimously passed the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) in 2008, the legislation was hailed as a groundbreaking and potent law that elevated Massachusetts to climate change leader status. However, while the law gave state agencies broad authority to make significant reductions in commonwealth greenhouse gas emissions, those state agencies have retreated from the GWSA's most powerful provisions. Undeniably, Massachusetts has made real greenhouse gas emissions cuts since 2008, but the ability of current programs to meet the GWSA's ambitious goals is becoming increasingly unlikely.

Climate Engineering/Geoengineering Research

As the subjects of global warming and climate change gain greater acceptance by society as a whole, the more interest students, faculty, and other researchers will have in accessing information on climate engineering solutions to counter or solve this problem. Simple definitions and background information for climate engineering and its various processes are scarce in reference materials. However, there are numerous books and news articles on the subjects concerning the possible solutions for global warming and climate change. This article examines research for climate engineering/geoengineering in the form of journal articles and gives highlights of some useful resources.

How California’s carbon market actually works

Almost 10 years ago, California’s legislature passed Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 set the most ambitious legally binding climate policy in the United States, requiring that California’s greenhouse gas emissions return to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The centerpiece of the state’s efforts—in rhetorical terms, if not practical ones—is a comprehensive carbon market, which California’s leaders promote as a model policy for controlling carbon pollution. Over the course of the past 18 months, however, California quietly changed its approach to a critical rule affecting the carbon market’s integrity. Under the new rule, utilities are rewarded for swapping contracts on the Western electricity grid, without actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Now that the Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, many are looking to the Golden State for best climate policy practices. On that score, California’s experience offers cautionary insights into the challenges of using carbon markets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

California’s energy and climate policy: A full plate, but perhaps not a model policy

California is a leader among states in its efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32), the state has set itself on a course to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. In addition to its cap-and-trade program, California aims to accomplish this objective via a large assortment of complementary and overlapping policies. To a significant degree, cap-and-trade is a market-based “dessert” that follows a multicourse menu of other regulatory initiatives aimed at cutting emissions. The reduced cost-effectiveness, political costs, and regulatory costs associated with this approach make it unlikely to form a suitable model for states in which political commitment to climate action is more limited or regulatory capacity is not as great as in California.

Nuclear power is no solution to global warming: real hope lies in energy efficiency and renewable energy

The threat of global warming has sparked intense world interest over how greenhouse gases that cause climate change should be reduced. The discussion has included debate over whether a revitalisation of nuclear power can contribute to the solution. The authors argue that, at least in the United States, nuclear power is the least effective option available due to its high cost and long lead time for implementation. Further, they argue that a cost–effective hybrid of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and natural gas technologies could reduce coal and oil use by over two–thirds in the electric, industrial and commercial sectors of the US economy by the year 2000.

Macroeconomic Impacts of the California Global Warming Solutions Act on the Southern California Economy

We evaluate the potential regional macroeconomic impacts of a set of ten greenhouse gas mitigation policy options intended to enable the Southern California Association of Governments to comply with the State's greenhouse gas reduction targets. The Regional Economic Models, Inc. Policy Insight Plus Model, was applied in the analysis by carefully linking technical and microeconomic aspects of each mitigation option to the workings of the regional economy. We took into account key considerations, such as how investment in mitigation options would displace ordinary private business investment and the time-phasing of renewable electricity generation. Our results indicate that the combined ten mitigation policy options could create an annual average employment gain of 21 thousand jobs over the entire planning period from now to 2035, but could also have a negative net present value impact of $17 billion in regional GDP. In the paper, we explain this and other anomalies. Sensitivity analyses of key assumptions and parameters for the Renewable Portfolio Standard indicate that the results are robust. They also provide policy-makers with insights into how to improve the macroeconomic impact of this major policy option.

Beyond AB 32: Post-2020 Climate Policy for California

California is beginning the process of considering possible next steps for the State’s climate policy beyond the 2020 emission target mandated in the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (“AB 32”). As it proceeds along this path, it is very important for the State to consider the international, national, and in-state realities and consequences of its actions.Internationally, California’s intent to address global climate change should be considered in the context of three key factors. First, California, currently representing less than one percent of global GHG emissions, an amount that will surely decline with time, itself can do very little directly to address the problem. Meaningful action will require the participation of all major emitting countries, including more meaningful action nationally by the United States. Second, current negotiations are seriously fragmented due to severe challenges reaching consensus. Nations are pursuing domestic policies of greatly varied stringency and credibility. These efforts are less than needed to address the climate problem, in part, due to a basic challenge of the “global commons”: although the costs of actions are incurred by the jurisdiction taking action, the benefits of those actions – the reduced risk of climate change – are spread globally. Third, the Air Resources Board (ARB) has indicated that the State should aim to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels, a level of reductions that is consistent with scientific guidance on the actions needed to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations if achieved throughout the world. Within the State, the changes in infrastructure, equipment, and behavior that would be needed to meet this 2050 goal would be both broad and deep. The costs to achieve such targets are unknown, given the many technology uncertainties, but would likely be very significant. Thus, pursuing these targets, without reciprocal commitments from other nations, would likely impose large costs without achieving comparable benefits.

Implications of Policy Interactions for California's Climate Policy

California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) requires that the State lower its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. To achieve this ambitious goal, California’s Air Resources Board (ARB) has developed an AB 32 Scoping Plan that includes multiple policies and programs targeting different sectors and energy uses. Although these diverse policies and programs are typically approached and analyzed as if they were independent of one another, in fact, interactions among these policies and between AB 32 policies and federal policies can have very important consequences for environmental effectiveness as well as economic performance.Interactions between policies are most problematic when two conditions occur: first, a state policy creates more stringent requirements that overlap with a “broader” state or federal policy (“overlap criteria”); and, second, the broader federal or state policy provides flexibility to meet requirements through adjustments across sectors or states (“flexible policy criteria”). These flexible policies can include quantity-based policies (such as, cap-and-trade) and policies that average performance (such as, renewable portfolio standards or renewable fuel standards.)In the context of the AB 32 Scoping Plan, two types of interactions pose the greatest concern. The first is the interaction between the GHG cap-and-trade program and other AB 32 policies that regulate sources covered by the cap-and-trade program. For example, emissions from transportation fuel combustion are regulated by both the cap-and-trade program and by the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which mandates reductions in the GHG-intensity of transportation fuels.When state-level policies overlap with cap-and-trade, the complementary policies will generally fail to create any additional emission reductions. With a binding cap-and-trade system in place, aggregate emissions will equal the cap whether or not complementary policies are implemented. While complementary policies may shift emissions among sources or sectors covered by the cap, aggregate emissions will remain unchanged.

A novel ethanol dehydration process by forward osmosis

Bioethanol, one of the alternative energy sources, has drawn increasing attention as a potential solution of energy crisis and global warming. However, the current ethanol dehydration processes are still energy intensive. In this study, the feasibility of ethanol dehydration by forward osmosis (FO) was systematically investigated using a commercial cellulose triacetate membrane containing a dense film (active layer) and a porous substrate. The results showed that water can be removed from ethanol solutions to potentially produce an ethanol solution of 90wt%. The ethanol concentration and membrane orientation have significant impact on the membrane performance in term of membrane flux, reverse salt flux and forward ethanol flux. For instance, higher total fluxes and lower reverse salt flux when the active layer faces the draw (salt) solution instead of the porous substrate. However, the forward ethanol flux is significantly high in both of the orientations, being 1420–2249gh−1m−2 at the 75% ethanol feed concentration. The membrane durability study over the 30days of exposure in 30% and absolute ethanol solutions indicates that the membrane performance deteriorates which is caused by the membrane active layer undergoing chemical modification. The results provide a general proof of concept and scientific understanding into the FO dehydration process and FO membrane development.

An Introduction to California's Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Program

Even though climate change will require a global solution, the efforts of individual nations and sub-national governmental units have become increasingly important for demonstrating leadership in creating effective regulatory programs and possible solutions. California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also referred to as A.B. 32, and the associated greenhouse gas emission trading program are one set of such efforts. With A.B. 32, the state of California has created one of the most comprehensive and complex climate change programs in the world – a legally binding set of mandates for the state government to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 that is implemented in part by a highly sophisticated GHG trading system. Although a number of years have already passed since A.B. 32’s first enactment, the highest-profile regulatory action, the emission trading program, also referred to as a cap-and-trade system, became effective only recently. This short essay is designed to provide an introduction to the basic aspects of the California Global Warming Solutions Act as well as the GHG Emission Trading Program. In particular, the essay will touch on the scope of the emission trading program’s carbon cap and what sources are covered, the cap decline by 2020, carbon allowances and offset-credits as well as related allowance banking issues, reporting and compliance processes, and linkage with other emission trading systems.

Use of local greenhouse gas inventories to prioritise opportunities for climate action planning and voluntary mitigation by agricultural stakeholders in California

To meet the mitigation targets set by California's Global Warming Solutions Act there is a need for locally adapted greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory methods and policy principles that help rural communities prioritize opportunities for agricultural GHG mitigation. Here, inventory methods prescribed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and local activity data on agricultural land uses and inputs were used to conduct an inventory of agricultural emissions for a rural county in California for 1990 and 2008. Total emissions from agriculture in Yolo County were found to decline by 10.4% during this period, due to a reduction in irrigated cropland acreage, a shift towards crops which require less N, and a reduction in N rate for some crops. Average emissions per hectare of urban land were >70 times more than our estimate for irrigated cropland. This suggests that policies which protect farmland and encourage ‘smart growth’ may help curb future emissions. Opportunities also exist to reduce emissions through voluntary, incentive-based, and market-driven initiatives which promote the adoption of innovative agricultural practices. To be effective, local policy makers must work closely with agricultural stakeholders to anticipate and adapt to the practical tradeoffs and co-benefits of new climate policies.

Energy and Environmental Impact on the Biosphere Energy Flow, Storage and Conversion in Human Civilization

The present review describes the role of different energy regimes throughout the human history and their environmental impact. The appearance of Homo sapiens and the development of primitive human civilization can be narrated by different energy regimes throughout the centuries. Getting the energy that humans needed for their needs affected directly the environment in many different ways. Some energy sources have a greater impact than others. Energy is lost to the environment during any energy transformation, usually as heat. Environmental historian can describe human history, from the discovery of fire (the most important human invention) by the primitive man and the development in four different energy regimes over the last ten thousand years. The first two divisions, gatherer-hunters (1.5 million to 10,000) and pre-industrial agriculture, cover many centuries until 1750. The third period deals with an industrial world up to 1950, and the fourth period covers the developments in the post industrial society, between 1950 and the 21<SUP>st</SUP> century. Energy usage divides periods of socio-ecological human history. In each period, human energy sources and consumption changed significantly, providing a point of no return. Until the 1700s, however, agriculture continued to rely on energy directly related to the sun and stored in organic systems. After 1750, humans developed new ways of thinking about nature, as well as new kinds of energy systems based on coal and the production of steam. New energy systems (petroleum, natural gas, hydroelectric) allowed a dramatic increase in human populations but at the same time polluted quite heavily damaging the environmental balance with nature. Those increases changed dramatically after 1950 and caused the doubling of the population and the multiple energy use for transport and electricity. Are nuclear energy and renewable energy sources the future prospects for a sustainable development in energy use by humans? Is the “Third Industrial Revolution” the future solution for global warming? These are hard questions with great implications on the future of the planet, its ecological balance and inevitably for the human civilization.

Racing climate change: Collaboration and conflict in California's global climate change policy arena

Media accounts routinely refer to California's Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, as “landmark” climate change legislation. On its surface, this label is an accurate reflection of the state's forward-thinking stance across many environmental issues including pesticides, toxic substances, solid waste, and air quality. For all its promise, however, AB 32 can also be considered a low point in the landscape of conflict between state environmental regulators and California's environmental justice movement. While the legislation included several provisions to address the procedural and distributive dimensions of environmental justice, the implementation of AB 32 has been marked by heated conflict. The most intense conflicts over AB 32 revolve around the primacy of market mechanisms such as “cap and trade.” This article examines the drivers and the manifestations of these dynamics of collaboration and conflict between environmental justice advocates and state regulators, and pays particular attention to the scalar and racialized quality of the neoliberal discourse. The contentiousness of climate change politics in California offers scholars and practitioners around the world a cautionary tale of how the best intentions for integrating environmental justice principles into climate change policy do not necessarily translate into implementation and how underlying racialized fractures can upend collaboration between state and social movement actors.

Consequences of accelerated Global Warming on nature and economy and the remedies for Global Green Economy

Abstract: Global warming is the problem of 21st century for the globe. The root cause of problem is heavy oil consumption, deforestation, CO2 emission due to human and industrial activities and the rising threats of globalization like terrorism etc. This paper will address the impact of global warming on the Industries, human resource and the flora and fauna. The human resource has made a significant change in the current environment with the collective use of industries and the other GHG (Green House Gases) causing disturbance in the environment. In addition, the human resource is thinking on this issue, as it has become a global issue. There have been initiatives taken on Global Scale when Kyoto protocol agreement was signed which is in continuation till 2012. There have been further initiatives when the Ministers from across the global met at Copenhagen but at the end of the end there have been no discrete plans for Global Warming. Though it is a problem but how certainly can we manage this is more important. Global warming solutions can reduce the amount of heat-trapping gases that we emit into the atmosphere. Among the solutions, is a model G2I3 addressed in this paper and the role of every Individual which can make a great impact on the environmental problems.

Three Lingering Design Issues Affecting Market Performance in California's GHG Cap-and-Trade Program

California’s GHG cap-and-trade program is a key element of policies designed to achieve the goal of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Throughout the process of implementing its GHG cap-and-trade program, ARB has shown an admirable willingness to continue discussions to refine and improve the program’s design. Although the program has now entered its first compliance period and has already undertaken its first allowance auction, there is still opportunity for further refinement of a program that will be in effect through 2020. In this spirit, we recommend that ARB consider modifications to three program elements – the Allowance Reserve, offset programs, and holding limits – that would improve program performance without compromising environmental performance. The cap-and-trade program has important consequences both within and outside California. Within California, design of an effective cap-and-trade program will help to lower the economic cost of meeting AB 32’s ambitious emission targets. However, in terms of addressing the climate change problem, California’s greatest impact may come not from the actual emission reductions achieved by the state, but by the leadership it provides on climate policy. As other countries and states watch California’s policy outcomes, they will draw important lessons about which policies can help achieve policy objectives with limited economic disruption, and whether such commitments should be pursued. By developing policies that achieve environmental goals while minimizing economic risks, California can provide a positive example for other jurisdictions considering similar climate commitments.

The Dormant Commerce Clause and California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard

California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), enacted as part of the State’s pioneering Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), purports to regulate the amount of carbon emissions associated with fuels consumed in the state. Part of this scheme involves assigning numeric scores to vehicle fuels reflecting the amount of carbon emissions associated with their production, transportation, and use. The scores are part of a “cap-and-trade” scheme to lower the state’s total amount of carbon emissions associated with fuel use. Out-of-state industry groups brought a challenge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging that the LCFS violated the “dormant Commerce Clause” of the United States Constitution. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California agreed with the Plaintiffs, and issued a preliminary injunction. On October 16, 2013, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. This Note describes the background of the dormant Commerce Clause and its application in previous environmental regulations. It then analyzes the arguments on both sides of the challenge to California’s LCFS, and suggests a course of action for California and other states going forward to comply with the Constitution in this developing area of law. Finally, this Note discusses the application of dormant Commerce Clause doctrine to the scenario of global climate change, and the relevance of global warming as a critical issue that states can be allowed to regulate, especially when the federal government has not.

Status Review of California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard

The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is a performance-based regulation adopted in California in 2009 that requires regulated parties (e.g., oil producers and importers to California) to reduce the carbon intensity (CI) of their fuel mix by at least 10% by 2020. It sets declining annual targets, starting slowly with a 0.25% reduction in 2011 and increasing to 10% reduction by 2020. This regulation contributes to California’s overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction goals under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).This is the second in a series of periodic status reports of California’s LCFS. Each report will provide updates on LCFS compliance and markets, and address selected special topics. The reports review data, analyze trends, and identify potential challenges, but avoid making predictions. This second report addresses the following topics: Credits and deficits; Carbon intensity of fuels; Credit trading and credit prices; Federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) and implications for LCFS feedstocks; Issues that affect compliance (special topic).

이산화탄소 전환 기술의 현황

At present, global warming and depletion of fossil fuels have been one of the big issues which should be solved for sustainable development in the future. CCS (carbon capture and sequestration) technology as the post reduction technology has been considered as a promising solution for global warming due to increased carbon emission. However, the environmental and ecological effects of CCS have drawn concerns. There are needs for noble post reduction technology. More recently, CCU (carbon capture and utilization) Technology, which emphasizes transforming carbon dioxide into value-added chemicals rather than storing it, has been attracted attentions in terms of preventing global warming and recycling the renewable carbon source. In this paper, various technologies developed for carbon dioxide conversion both in gas and liquid phase have been reviewed. For the thermochemical catalysis in gas phase, the development of the catalytic system which can be performed at mild condition and the separation and purification technology with low energy supply is required. For the photochemical conversion in liquid phase, efficient photosensitizers and photocatalysts should be developed, and the photoelectrochemical systems which can utilize solar and electric energy simultaneously are also in development for more efficient carbon dioxide conversion. The energy needed in CCU must be renewable or unutilized one. CCU will be a key connection technology between renewable energy and bio industry development.

PM2.5 co-benefits of climate change legislation part 1: California’s AB 32

The Scoping Plan for compliance with California Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006; AB 32) proposes a substantial reduction in 2020 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from all economic sectors through energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other technological measures. Most of the AB 32 Scoping Plan measures will simultaneously reduce emissions of traditional criteria pollutants along with GHGs leading to a co-benefit of improved air quality in California. The present study quantifies the airborne particulate matter (PM2.5) co-benefits of AB 32 by comparing future air quality under a Business as Usual (BAU) scenario (without AB 32) to AB 32 implementation by sector. AB 32 measures were divided into five levels defined by sector as follows: 1) industrial sources, 2) electric utility and natural gas sources, 3) agricultural sources, 4) on-road mobile sources and 5) other mobile sources. Air quality throughout California was simulated using the UCD source-oriented air quality model during 12 days of severe air pollution and over 108 days of typical meteorology representing an annual average period in the year 2030 (10 years after the AB 32 adoption deadline). The net effect of all AB 32 measures reduced statewide primary PM and NOx emissions by ~1 % and ~15 %, respectively. Air quality simulations predict that these emissions reductions lower population-weighted PM2.5 concentrations by ~6 % for California. The South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) experienced the greatest reductions in PM2.5 concentrations due to the AB 32 transportation measures while the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) experiences the smallest reductions or even slight increases in PM2.5 concentrations due to the AB 32 measures that called for increased use of dairy biogas for electricity generation. The ~6 % reduction in PM2.5 exposure associated with AB 32 predicted in the current study reduced air pollution mortality in California by 6.2 %, avoiding 880 (560–1100) premature deaths per year for the conditions in 2030. The monetary benefit from this avoided mortality was estimated at $5.4B/yr with a weighted average benefit per tonne of $35 k/tonne ($23 k/tonne–$45 k/tonne) of PM, NOx, SOx, and NH3 emissions reduction.

Negotiating climate legislation: Policy path dependence and coalition stabilization

AbstractThis article investigates the nature of policy path dependence through analysis of climate policy formation in the United States. In 2008 the US Congress attempted to pass the Lieberman–Warner bill, a comprehensive climate and energy package that would have capped greenhouse emissions and established a nationwide cap and trade program. In the same year, California successfully enacted the Global Warming Solutions Act. This article explores the circumstances of both cases and raises the question of why legislation at the state level was successful and took such a divergent form from legislation at the federal level. The divergence of these cases is used to highlight the nature of coalition formation and policy path dependence in the legislative process. Explanations of policy tend to gravitate toward either the generalizability of game theoretic approaches or the empirical depth of case studies. This article suggests a combined approach that uses case studies to analyze the positions and motivations of actors and to then model policy development over time. The approach examines policy through the formation and negotiation of policy coalitions. Drawing on the Advocacy Coalition Framework and omnibus analysis, the approach expands these coalition theories first by analysing legislative development at the interface of legislators and constituent interest groups, and second by adding temporal dimension to the analysis. The findings suggest that policy is path dependent in that it is negotiated between coalitions that in turn create stability in the policy process and insulate policy fields from external shocks. Policy path dependence suggests that theory alone is insufficient to predict policy outcomes; policy results depend strongly on prior policy efforts, historically and socially contingent coalitions, and the resulting framing of policy possibilities.