Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base (1992) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
6 Mitigation
6 Mitigation
Pages 48-64
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 48... ...
It does not attempt, for example, to project future levels of economic activity and their implications for greenhouse gas emissions. The analysis does account, however, for future consequences of current actions.
|
From page 49... ...
The potential loss in value to consumers of the changes in consumption patterns must be estimated. TECHNOLOGICAL COSTING VERSUS ENERGY MODELING There are two choices for estimating the costs of various mitigation options: "technological costing" and "energy modeling." Technological costing develops estimates on the basis of a variety of assumptions about the technical aspects, together with estimates often no more than guesses of the costs of implementing the required technology.
|
From page 50... ...
Energy modeling analyses are challenged because of weaknesses in model specification, measurement error, and questionable relevance of historical data and behavior for future untested policy actions. In this study, the cost-effectiveness indicators for mitigation actions are derived mostly from technological costing rather than energy modeling analyses.
|
From page 51... ...
FIGURE 6.1 A comparison of hypothetical mitigation options. Curves show the costs of various levels of reduction in CO2-equivalent emissions.
|
From page 52... ...
First, responses to greenhouse warming should be regarded as investments in the future of the nation and the planet. The actions required will have to be implemented over a long period of time.
|
From page 53... ...
A true cost-effectiveness analysis of reducing greenhouse gas emissions would measure only the costs of interventions taken solely because of greenhouse warming. This is difficult in practice because many of these actions contribute to several social goals, making it hard to distinguish the costs and benefits attributable to greenhouse warming alone.
|
From page 54... ...
Table 6.3 presents what the panel calls geoengineering options. The geoengineering options in this preliminary analysis include several ways of reducing temperature increases by screening sunlight (e.g., space mirrors, stratospheric dust, multiple balloons, stratospheric soot, and stimulating cloud condensation nuclei)
|
From page 55... ...
Improve efficiency by 40 to 60% through residential measures mentioned above, heat pumps, and heat recovery systems. Reduce lighting energy consumption by 30 to 60% by replacing 100% of commercial light fixtures with compact fluorescent lighting, reflectors, occupancy sensors, and daylighting.
|
From page 56... ...
Improve overall efficiency by 60 to 70% through switching 10% of building electricity use from electric resistance heat to natural gas heating. INDUSTRIAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT Replace existing industrial energy systems with an additional 25,000 MW of co-generation plants to produce heat and power simultaneously.
|
From page 57... ...
of existing plants by up to No through improved plant operation and maintenance. Improve overall thermal efficiency of coal plants by 10% through use of integrated gasification combined cycle, pressurized fluidizedbed, and advanced pulverized coal combustion systems.
|
From page 58... ...
Replace commercial refrigeration equipment such as that used in supermarkets and transportation with that using fluorocarbon substitutes. Replace domestic refrigerator insulation with fluorocarbon substitutes.
|
From page 59... ...
These or other options may, with additional investigation, research, and development, provide the ability to change atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases or the radiative forcing of the planet. Geoengineering options have the potential to affect greenhouse warming on a substantial scale.
|
From page 60... ...
aNet benefit = cost less than or equal to zero Low cost = cost between $1 and $9 per ton of CO2 equivalent Moderate cost = cost between $10 and $99 per ton of CO2 equivalent High cost = cost of $100 or more per ton of CO2 equivalent bThis "maximum feasible" potential emission reduction assumes 100 percent implementation of each option in reasonable applications and is an optimistic "upper bound" on emission reductions. CThis depends on the actual implementation level and is controversial.
|
From page 61... ...
Space mirrors Low to moderate Low to moderate Low to moderate Atmospheric CFC removal Unknown Potential Emission Mitigation (t CO' equivalent per year) 8 billion to 25 billion 8 billion to 80 billion 4 trillion or amount desired 4 trillion or amount desired 7 billion or amount desired 4 trillion or amount desired 4 trillion or amount desired Unknown NOTE: The feasibility and possible side-effects of these geoengineering options are poorly understood.
|
From page 62... ...
The line labeled "25% Implementation/High Cost" assumes incomplete implementation of each option (25 percent implementation of feasible opportunities) and the high end of the range of cost estimates for that option (high cost)
|
From page 63... ...
As can be seen from Figure 6.4, the United States should be able to achieve substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions at low cost, or perhaps even a small net savings. IMPLEMENTING MITIGATION OPTIONS An array of policy instruments of two different types are available: regulation and incentives.
|
From page 64... ...
CONCLUSIONS There is a potential to inexpensively reduce or offset greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. In particular, the maximum feasible potential reduction for the options labeled "net benefit" and "low cost" in Table 6.2 totals about 3.6 billion tons (3.6 Gt)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.