(Source: The Pew Center on Global Climate Change)

Click the image to access a summery of the report

I came across this excellent report, Aviation and Marine Transportation: GHG Mitigation Potential and Challenges, via an article on Washington Post and felt compelled to share with you all.   This report published by The Pew Center on Global Climate Change examines growth projections for emissions from both aviation and marine transportation and options to reduce those emissions.  Aviation and marine transportation combined are responsible for approximately 5 percent of total GHG emissions in the United States and 3 percent globally and are among the fastest growing modes in the transportation sector. Under business-as-usual forecasts, CO2 emissions from global aviation are estimated to grow 3.1 percent per year over the next 40 years, resulting in a 300 percent increase in emissions by 2050.International marine transportation emissions are estimated to grow by 1 to 2 percent per year, increasing by at least 50 percent over 2007 levels by 2050. Controlling the growth in aviation and marine transportation GHG emissions will be an important part of reducing emissions from the transportation sector.

According to the press release, the report explores a  range of near-, medium- and long-term mitigation options that are available to slow the growth of energy consumption and GHG emissions from aviation and marine shipping. These options include improvements in operational efficiency, improvements in the energy efficiency of engines and the design of air and marine vessels, and transitioning to less carbon-intensive fuels and transportation modes. Implementation of these options could result in reductions of more than 50 percent below BAU levels by 2050 from global aviation and more than 60 percent for global marine shipping. For these reductions to be realized, however, international and domestic policy intervention is required. Developing an effective path forward that facilitates the adoption of meaningful policies remains both a challenge and an opportunity.

“Aviation and marine shipping are two of the fastest growing modes of transportation,” said Eileen Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.  “Their greenhouse gas emissions are growing rapidly as well. To protect the climate, we need to reduce emissions across the entire economy. Aviation and marine shipping are part of the climate problem, and this report shows that they can be part of the solution.”

Aviation and Marine Transportation: GHG Mitigation Potential and Challenges also examines policy options for achieving reductions in GHG emissions from these transportation modes. The paper, authored by David McCollum and Gregory Gould of the University of California at Davis and David Greene from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, explains the challenges, examines policy efforts to date, and explores both domestic and international policy options for addressing emissions from aviation and marine transportation.

Key sections of the paper include:

• An introduction to aviation and marine transportation and a discussion of the determinants of their GHG emissions;
• An overview of current emissions trends and growth projections;
• An explanation of the technological mitigation options and potential GHG emission reductions; and
• Policy options at both the domestic and international level to achieve deep and durable reductions in emissions.

Click here to access the Pew Center’s website or click here to download the entire PDF report.

(Sources contributing to this hybrid report:  The Hill, Guardian, UK & NY Times)

Refiners Warn of ‘Staggering’ Costs, Job Losses From Senate Climate Bill

A Senate climate change proposal could add 77 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline, according to Domestic oil refiners.  A group of refiners used the possible price hike on Wednesday to launch the latest in a series of attacks against the proposal. The CEO of refining giant Valero Energy Corp. also warned today that the Senate climate legislation would give a competitive advantage to foreign refiners and cost U.S. jobs.

But Democrats on a key Senate panel shot back, saying the industry’s estimate is based on an inflated projection of the price of permits companies will have to hold to cover their carbon emissions. A cost containment mechanism will keep the price from approaching the industry’s estimate, supporters said.

The lawmakers said the bill will spur industry innovation and that will create millions of new “green” jobs. The chief complaint from refiners is that they wouldn’t get enough free pollution allowances to cover emissions they are on the hook for under the legislation. The Senate bill would give refiners 2.25 percent of the allowances available to cover emissions at their plants. But the industry is also responsible for the emissions from vehicle tailpipes.

To make up the difference, refiners would have to buy emission permits on the market created under the legislation.

Addressing the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Valero’s Bill Klesse alleged that the Senate bill and its House counterpart would create large new costs that would drive domestic gasoline and diesel production offshore, cause job loss, and reduce U.S. energy security. He spoke on behalf of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, the industry’s main trade group.

“You must remember we are a global business,” Klesse said. “You will simply be driving the carbon dioxide emissions overseas.”

Klesse said Texas-based Valero — a large independent refiner with 16 refineries in the United States, Canada and the Caribbean — would face “staggering” costs even at a carbon price of $20 per ton, he said.

For instance, he said the company’s Corpus Christi, Texas, plant would face costs of up to $92 million per year. The industry as a whole, if held responsible for its process emissions and consumer emissions of its products, would face more than $67 billion in annual costs, he said.

But EPW Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a co-sponsor of the bill (S. 1733 (pdf)), attacked Klesse’s conclusion that the bill would harm U.S. security. “The opposite is true,” Boxer said. She cited multiple analyses that conclude global climate change creates national security risks.

The bill would set up a cap-and-trade system under which facilities that produce carbon dioxide emissions must obtain permits for their emissions. Boxer said the bill includes provisions to cushion the effects on refiners. The bill provides 2.25 percent of the free emissions allowances to the refining sector.

Overall, Reicher and other backers of the congressional energy and climate efforts say the effort will increase jobs. “The job creation potential in energy efficiency is extraordinary,” Reicher said.

A major provision is the authorization of so-called border adjustments, or carbon tariffs, on imports from countries that do not adhere to emissions-cutting measures.

The provisions, a priority for lawmakers from manufacturing states, are aimed at preventing “carbon leakage,” in which energy-intensive manufacturing and jobs migrate to countries that do not impose emissions-cutting mandates.

The Senate bill also joins the House bill in providing free allowances to these trade-exposed, energy-intensive industries, although the formulas differ slightly.

The Senate plan provides these sectors with 4 percent of the cap-and-trade program’s freely distributed allowances in 2012 and 2013, rising to 15 percent in 2014 and 2015 and then phasing down after that.

The epic confrontation about how America will power the economy of the future formally got underway on October 27 amid stark warnings from the Obama administration of the costs of inaction on energy reform.

The first of three blockbuster sessions in the Senate held on Oct 27th can be held as a last heave by administration officials and Democratic leaders to advance a bill to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions before an international climate change meeting at Copenhagen, now just six weeks away.

American legislation on climate change is seen as essential to reaching a meaningful deal at Copenhagen. But the White House held up action in the Senate on a climate change bill to focus on healthcare reform. The proposed law, which now stretches for more than 900 pages, would cut America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 20% over 2005 levels by 2020 and encourage the development of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. Democratic leaders in the Senate are now struggling to advance a bill – which does not have solid support even among their own party – before the meeting in Copenhagen.

Click here to read more on this topic.

(Source: Business Standard & Green Car Congress)

Image: REUTERS/Zainal Abd Halim via Boston Globe

The international airline industry is committed to achieving carbon-neutral growth by 2020, said Giovanni Bisignani, IATA’s Director General and CEO in his State of the Industry address at the 65th IATA Annual General Meeting and World Air Transport Summit in Kuala Lumpur.

Two years ago we set a vision to achieve carbon-neutral growth on the way to a carbon-free future. Today we have taken a major step forward by committing to a global cap on our emissions in 2020. After this date, aviation’s emissions will not grow even as demand increases. Airlines are the first global industry to make such a bold commitment.

—Giovanni Bisignani

The commitment to carbon-neutral growth completes a set of three sequential goals for air transport: (1) a 1.5% average annual improvement in fuel efficiency from 2009 to 2020; (2) carbon-neutral growth from 2020 and (3) a 50% absolute reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.

To achieve these goals, the air transport industry is focusing on a cross-industry four-pillar strategy on climate change consisting of improved technology; effective operations; efficient infrastructure; and positive economic measures.

In 2009 the carbon footprint of air transport is expected to shrink by 7%. Of this, 5% is due to the recession and 2% is directly related to efficiency gains.

Bisignani said a cross industry four-pillar strategy on climate change focused on improved technology, effective operations, efficient infrastructure and positive economic measures was delivering results noting that in 2009 the carbon footprint of air transport was expected to shrink by 7 per cent.

Bisignani attributed 5 per cent to the recession and 2 per cent to efficiency gains from IATA’s four-pillar strategy.

“No other industry is as united and no other industry can point to such good results and progress,” Bisignani claimed.  He noted that the airlines’ commitment needed to be matched by governments. “We are ambitious, but our success will be contingent on governments acting effectively.”

“International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) must set binding carbon emissions standards on manufacturers for new aircraft. A legal and fiscal framework to support the availability of sustainable biofuels must be established.

“Governments must work with air navigation service providers to push forward major infrastructure projects such as a Single European Sky, NextGen in the US or fixing the Pearl River Delta in China,” Bisignani added.

(Source: The Brookings Institution)

The Obama administration’s move to increase vehicle fuel economy standards and reduce greenhouse gas emissions addresses the source of one-third of U.S. CO2 emissions—transportation. In this report, the authors analyze the current state of carbon emissions by metropolitan area, listing the places that emit the least per capita and proposing policy avenues to move the entire nation toward reduced climate impact.   

America’s Challenge

The nation’s carbon footprint has a distinct geography not well understood or often discussed. This report quantifies transportation and residential carbon emissions for the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, finding that metro area residents have smaller carbon footprints than the average American, although metro footprints vary widely. Residential density and the availability of public transit are important to understanding carbon footprints, as are the carbon intensity of electricity generation, electricity prices, and weather. 

Limitations of Existing Federal Policy
Numerous market and policy distortions inhibit metropolitan actors from more aggressively addressing the nation’s climate challenge. Economy-wide problems include underpriced energy, underfunded energy research, missing federal standards, distorted utility regulations, and inadequate information. Policy impediments include a bias against public transit, inadequate federal leadership on freight and land-use planning, failure to encourage energy- and location-efficient housing decisions, and the fragmentation of federal transportation, housing, energy, and environmental policies. 

A New Federal Approach
Federal policy could play a powerful role in helping metropolitan areas—and so the nation—shrink their carbon footprint further. In addition to economy-wide policies to motivate action, five targeted policies are particularly important within metro areas and for the nation as a whole:

• Promote more transportation choices to expand transit and compact development options
• Introduce more energy-efficient freight operations with regional freight planning
• Require home energy cost disclosure when selling and “on-bill” financing to stimulate and scale up energy-efficient retrofitting of residential housing
• Use federal housing policy to create incentives for energy- and location-efficient decisions
• Issue a metropolitan challenge to develop innovative solutions that integrate multiple policy areas

Click here to Read/Download Full Report

(Source: Los Angeles Times)

As the state moves to reduce the carbon footprint of fuel, an engineer hopes to build a plant in Lancaster that will convert garbage into an alcohol-based mixture.

California’s proposal “is the first time anyone has attempted, for environmental purposes, to change the content of what goes into cars and trucks,” says Mary D. Nichols, state Air Resources Board chairwoman. “It would revolutionize transportation fuel.”
 
President Obama has also called for a low-carbon standard for the nation’s $400-billion transportation fuel market. A version similar to California’s is incorporated in climate legislation pending before Congress.

But by measuring the “cradle-to-grave” effect of various fuels, the new rule would favor ethanol such as Klann’s, made from non-food sources. Even “low-carbon” corn ethanol — such as the kind produced in California using gas-fired electricity and efficient machinery — has a far higher carbon footprint than so-called cellulosic fuel from landfill waste, trees, switchgrass or sugar cane.

“This is fantastic for us,” said Klann, who uses recycled sulfuric acid to transform paper, construction debris and grass clippings into ethanol. “The paradigm is changing from oil to sustainable fuels. The ones with the lowest carbon footprint will be the winners.”

By 2020, the air board estimates, new-technology fuels along with electricity to power hybrid and electric cars would replace a quarter of the gasoline supply. And that is a critical element of the state’s sweeping plan to reduce its global warming emissions. 

Battered corn ethanol investors have mounted an intense lobbying effort against California’s proposal. Several, including Pacific Ethanol, California’s biggest, had planned to diversify from corn into cellulosic ethanol. They argue that by diminishing the value of their existing plants, the new rule also would cripple their advanced biofuel efforts. 

At issue is the Air Resources Board’s complex modeling, which would calculate each fuel’s carbon footprint not only by its “direct” emissions from drilling or planting to refining to burning, but also “indirect” emissions caused by clearing forests or fields to compensate for food crops such as corn or soy that are diverted to fuel. Opponents say the science behind the indirect modeling is inaccurate. 

Among entrepreneurs like Klann, the mood has never been more hopeful. In an Anaheim lab, the 57-year-old electrical engineer guides a visitor through a maze of pipes, filters, heat exchangers, fermentation tanks and vats of acid like a small boy showing off a chemistry set. “We’re in the forefront of this industry,” he said of his patented “concentrated acid hydrolysis” process. “We expect to have the first plant to produce cellulosic ethanol on a commercial scale.”  

Financing for his Lancaster plant, which recently obtained its final permits, has been delayed by the credit crunch. But if it comes through, the facility will process 170 tons of garbage a day to produce 3.7 million gallons of ethanol a year. Estimated cost per gallon: about $2, Klann says.  

He already has plans for 20 more facilities across the country. Next on the block: a plant outside Palm Springs, partly funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, that would produce 19 million gallons annually. 

Click here to read th entire article.  For interested readers, here is a TransportGooru article on California’s ambitious new fuel regulation standards. 

Tightening the “Green” Screw! California regulators consider instituting first-in-the nation low-carbon fuel standards

(Source: BBC Earth Watch)

So far, just about everyone seems to love the self-styled “world’s cheapest car”, the Tata Nano.

Writing on these pages, Indian motoring journalist Hormazd Sorabjee writes that “It thrilled me with its ‘proper car’ feel”; while for Adil Jal Darukhanawala of zigwheels.com, “The Nano has the makings of a mega winner.”

And what’s not to love? A five-seater car that does about 20 km per litre (that’s 56 MPG in old money) and costs $2,000 – come on! – and it’s not the end of the line, with Bajaj, the company that principally populates South and Southeast Asia’s roads with auto-rickshaws, planning to launch its own tiny car (the Pico?) within two years.

Just about the only people sounding a cautionary note on the tiny Nano’s giant appeal are environmental groups, notably the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE).

They judge it inappropriate for Indian cities, choked by traffic, where jams mean a journey across town can already be measured in hours.

“Cars may drive growth and aspirations, but they can never meet the commuting needs of urban India. Cars choke cities, harm public health and guzzle more oil.”

CSE’s simple prescription is more investment in mass transit schemes.

Although one can see the logic of their argument, it’s hard to imagine it prevailing.

Many Indian cities already have swarming bus networks and suburban rail networks. They’re slowly being supplemented by true mass transit rail systems – up and running inCalcutta and Delhi, under construction in Mumbai and Bangalore.

(Source: Los Angeles Times)

The new standard would gauge a fuel’s ‘carbon intensity,’ from its source to its burning.

The low-carbon fuel standard, if approved next month by the state’s Air Resources Board, would be the first in the nation to restrict greenhouse gases produced by a fuel, from its source to its burning.

Eleven states are considering similar rules, and President Obama has called for a national low-carbon fuel standard as part of his initiative to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by mid-century.

Air board chairwoman Mary Nichols said the proposed rule was a “comprehensive, cradle-to-grave approach” that would spur innovation and competition in the alternative fuels market.

But some members of California’s beleaguered renewable-fuels industry greeted the initiative with outrage. Tom Koehler, spokesman for Pacific Ethanol, said the proposal was “a perversion of science and a prescription for disaster.”

Click here to read the entire article.