Description
Executive summary
This proposal is designed to be both efficacious and political feasible. A thorough reading of the previous literature has revealed that a approx. 550 ppm carbon concentration target satisfies both conditions. Although the practical results are not optimal nor minimal, we believe that non-trivial unified action of any sort is desirable to nothing or ill-planned coordination
The emergence of viable alternative technologies as well as rapid economic growth economically and in scientific R&D will allow these set of targets to be achieved at realistic mitigation costs.
Team
Brief description of the role and contributions of individuals and/or organizations that played a key role in developing this proposal.
What: Actions And Impacts
Actions:
Global climate change is an issue that will require multilateral coordination amongst the nations of the world. This fact increases the complexity and dimensions of constructing an actionable plan to counter climate change. The plan must be efficacious both technically and politically.
In particular, any plan that is perceived to distribute the burden of mitigation unfairly will not be viable, irrespective of the technical merit of the plan. Therefore, it is paramount to craft an inclusive-plan of burden-sharing that is realistic.
The following plan “Lock Step” is designed to meet these two criterions. It requires that the developed world reduce emissions anywhere from 15 – 25% from 2005 base levels starting at 2016. Likewise, the rapidly developing nations of the world are required to reduce emissions from 5- 15%, with a small set of rapidly developing Asian countries allotted a 2% increase.
The rest of the world is expected to increase no more then 5% in their emissions. An examination of the literature in development and sustainability shows that these numbers are realistic.
(Percentage off 2005 base levels)
Developed Countries:
Start Year: 2016 Target: 2060
US : -20%
EU : -25%
Russia/Former Soviet: -20%
OECD Asia: -15%
Canada Emissions: -17%
Rapidly Developing Countries
Start Year: 2016 Target: 2100
China (PRC) : -15%
India : -5%
Brazil : -10%
South Africa: -5%
Mexico : -5%
Rapidly Developing Asia : 2%
Other Developing Countries
Start Year: 2020 Target: 2100
Middle East: 5%
Latin America : 5%
Africa : 5%
Other Developing Asia : 5%
Land Use
Emissions from Deforestation: .5
Sequestration from tree Growth: .5
ons and impacts
Why: Rationale for the proposal
This proposal is designed to offer the most realistic plan of action that is both technically feasible and politically viable. In the past, various legislative bodies in the developed world, including the US House and Senate, have balked at limiting carbon output, without similar or matched cuts in the rapidly developed world. Therefore, any successful plan must take this political reality into account.
A look at various carbon reduction targeting schemes reveals several things. First, the so-called Stern Plan (By Nicholas Stern) that targets a carbon concentration of approximately 430 ppm by 2050 is, by consensus of most economic planners and developers, unrealistic. Further the 50% target, which has been discussed extensively, seems to be politically unviable.
Hence, a target of approximately 25% seems to be the most feasible and practical. This will put the carbon concentration around 540 – 550 ppm. The combination of target input in the 15-region disaggregated model outputs a 546 ppm carbon concentration.
Explanation of Input-configurations:
The developed world currently contains the most innovative and well-endowed research and development infrastructure. Many shelf-ready alternatives and solutions exist. Hence, these set of nations can realistically meet 20 – 25% emission reductions. The EU-27 has already begun steps in this direction. Further, Russia and the former Soviet bloc have inherited mostly antiquated power generation infrastructure. Hence, they are further to the right on the energy efficiency curve and should expect high dividends in capital investments to their plants. Finally the United States has also begun to move towards redevelopment and investment in its infrastructure and can be expected to both lead and move with the rest of the developed world.
The most interesting analysis however, will be on the rapidly developing nations; specifically, those nations in Asia, which will have an increasingly large effect on carbon emissions moving forward. Mitigation is possible for the rapidly developing world. China could for instance reduce its emissions by 15%. According to the PEW research, China currently gets 4% of its electricity from renewable energy, not including hydroelectric (7). As can be seen in the efficiency graph, China could make solid gains just by upgrading the set of less-efficient plants. Furthermore, the central government in Beijing has demonstrated the desire to target the electric car market, and eventually replace the entire fleet of commercial cars in China from gasoline to electric. Assuming, the planned plant upgrades occur, these actions should allow the PRC to meet the 15% reduction goals.
Likewise, India is expected to cut its emissions by 5%. India is much more densely populated than China, or even the US. This is expected to compensate for the fact that India is far less developed than the PRC; which presents interesting land use factors. According to the CIA World Fact-book, 48.83% of India is composed of arable land. The corruption and red tape inherent in the Indian governments continues to stymie new infrastructure construction. This leaves the onus, of any improvements done, to the private sector, which has little interest in building a nation-wide-encompassing network of private roads. Unlike China and the US, it is unlikely that India would build a national highway system. Combined with lack of land, implies most construction will be high-density construction in large urban areas. These conditions have helped to make Delhi metro one of the only five profitable mass transit systems in the world (1).
Brazil is well-endowed with natural resources, primarily great farmland and huge offshore oil reserves. Therefore, increase in industrial emissions and deforestation, represent the two largest potential for increased carbon emissions. On the other hand, it has a developed ethanol industry, with most cars able to run on both types of fuel. Since 30% of transportation fuel supply is either ethanol or biodiesel (7), Brazil can easily increase this number by ratcheting up its domestic sugarcane production. Furthermore, Brazil can also use these fuels in ships and airplanes, allowing a decrease in sectors that other countries are not able to accomplish at the moment. The PEW research survey states that 9% of electricity generation is already renewable (7). The previous figure does not include the dams already on the Amazon River and its tributaries.
South Africa represents an interesting case. A huge potential can be realized by convincing South Africa to abandon liquefied-coal technologies represented primarily by Sasol. Liquefying coal employs, the Fischer-Tropsch method, which is considered one of the most polluting procedures of fuel generation. Currently, 38% of South Africa’s fuel needs are provided by Sasol. Replacing this with biodiesel should provide the requisite 5% decline in carbon emissions from this country. Further, should the South African government also decide to replace its coal-generating plants with a cleaner energy vector, this should permit South Africa to grow its private transport, electricity use, and industry to help reduce the high levels of poverty present in that country.
Lastly, the set of nations grouped together under “most rapidly developing” bucket are some of the most disparate group of countries and territories in the entire model. Included are essentially developed countries/territories (Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore), the Southeast Asian Tigers, and Pakistan. The model assumes a 2% emissions growth for the region.
It is, however, possible to have a 20% reduction in carbon emissions from these countries, with the rest of the group being allowed to increase their emissions to modernize. In particular, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore are as developed as South Korea and Japan, and likewise, could employ the both the capital and development to match those nation’s emission reduction of 20% from 2005 base levels.
The Environmental Protection Department of Hong Kong notes that electricity generation accounts for 62% of carbon emissions in the city (4). This proportion can be reduced by having Hong Kong build an indigenous solar power system, or having a greater reliance on mainland China’s electric grid, as well as using its renewable resources. Likewise, 48% of carbon emissions from Singapore come from electricity generation (5). Combined with Taiwan, there is a huge potential for cuts here.
At the moment, Pakistan’s prospects and development are similar to India, approximately 20 years ago, with respect to urban overpopulation and poverty. The existence of the insurgent elements in the Northwest Province is also hindering development. Should these situations change, and India become more expensive due to rising standards of living, it is possible that Pakistan could become the “new India.” Under these scenarios, Pakistan’s carbon emissions are expected to increase as wel
(1) http://www.hindu.com/2007/09/24/stories/2007092457210400.htm
(2) http://www.slate.com/id/2152036/?nav=ais
(4) http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/climate_change/elec_gen.html
(6) http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/air-traffic-in-india-continues-upward-trend/105671/on
(7) http://www.pewglobalwarming.org/cleanenergyeconomy/pdf/PewG-20Report.pdf
How: Feasibility of proposal
A combination of traditional technologies like solar and nuclear power with shelf-ready technologies like biodiesel can be employed in most of the developed and rapidly developed world (US, EU-27, OECD Asia, China, India etc.). For the rest of the world, current generation technologies could be utilized to wean them from traditional bio-mass sources which will free up labor and drastically increase efficiency. We anticipate that many of these exported technologies to be less carbon intensive or entirely carbon-neutral at the time of adaption.
By:
