Bullet Points: The FY2009 Budget: Science and Technology, Energy and Climate

ENERGY CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT’S SCIENCE ADVISOR
John Marburger III (Former Science Advisor to the President, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy)

• The greatest challenge of climate science is the estimation of impacts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forms the basis of US climate change policy
• Anthropogenic climate change is not the only source of risk to vulnerable populations. Population growth, industrialization, global mobility, inadequate public health arrangements, and ineffective governments all multiply the negative impacts of climate change. We need to find a balance between mitigation and adaptation
  • Despite the difficulty of forecasting regional impacts, some strategies are obvious. Populations that are already stressed by flooding, drought, and desertification are clearly vulnerable. Investments in better water management, zoning regulations, and agricultural practices will have an immediate impact on the quality of life for these populations, and they are also an essential part of any climate response strategy
  • Needs of the present versus those of the future
  • Obligations to humanity coupled with those of energy security
• US energy data:
  • Of the 27 billion tons per year of CO2 that the US emits, 40% is coal, 40% is oil, and most of the rest is natural gas
  • The US makes up about 20% of global energy consumption and about 20% of global carbon emissions
  • The approach to mitigating climate change seems obvious. In the short run, we should produce fewer greenhouse gases and increase absorption of those already in the atmosphere. In the long run, we need to eliminate releases of fossil carbon altogether, or limit releases to an amount much smaller than current values
  • This must begin immediately because Earth’s heat balance is already tilted, and some effects of massive CO2 production are already evident
• The challenge to shift away from fossil fuels is sobering
  • Today, very few low-carbon technologies exist that can be expanded to the necessary scale
  • Only one, nuclear fission, is sufficiently mature and sufficiently scalable to be a serious contender with low-cost coal plants
  • It would take an additional 136 nuclear power plants — or 270,000 wind turbines — to achieve a 4% reduction in global carbon emissions
• Economic development is paved with fossil fuels
  • For any given economy, CO2 production is roughly proportional to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The good news, however, is that the coefficient proportionality is sensitive to technology
  • In other words, introducing modern energy technologies in the rapidly developing parts of the world can slow the growth of fossil CO2 relative to the historical development path
  • Thus, the objective of a CO2 mitigation strategy should be to reduce the carbon intensity of the world’s economy toward zero
• Why shouldn’t the goal be simply to reduce the absolute carbon emission toward zero? Why bring in the notion of “intensity“?
  • Because the cause of our climate anxiety — the root cause — is the overwhelming desire of people everywhere to improve their lot
• Let us be clear that if we are serious about combating anthropogenic climate change, fossil fuel carbon emissions must be reduced in all major economies
  • It is not enough for only the “old rich“ economies of Europe, America, and Japan to eliminate their emissions. All populous countries must eventually adopt low- or no-carbon energy technologies
• In the long run, the research and development areas on the supply side that promise the greatest payoff for energy security and mitigating climate change are carbon capture and storage from coal-fired power plants, and improvements in the reduction of waste and proliferation risk associated with nuclear facilities
• On the demand side, how much energy we use depends on cultural behavior It is difficult to measure how people will respond to policies and education
  • We need more information on barriers to acceptance of socially beneficial technologies
• In view of these considerations, what constitutes a rational path forward?
• Recommendations:
  • Address climate change — every major economy in the world needs to make some kind of commitment to long-term emissions reduction
  • For both climate change and energy security — technology development must focus on scalable sources (nuclear power, and coal with carbon capture and sequestration) while maintaining progress in other areas such as renewable power and efficient end uses
  • We need better data and agreement on data definitions and measurements that permit comparisons of energy use not only among countries, but also in different economic sectors within the same country
  • We need some sort of international financial framework that takes into account private as well as public investments in energy infrastructure
  • To prepare for the inevitable effects of climate change, much more attention needs to be given to adaptation
  • All countries need an increased focus on research in low-carbon energy technology