"Some country is going to be the clean energy superpower of the 21st century". That was the prediction of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, in her first debate standoff with Republican Donald Trump back in September.
Fast-forward to the results of the 2016 election, and it looks unlikely that that country will be the United States. President-elect Trump has repeatedly dismissed anthropogenic climate change as an 'expensive hoax', 'nonsense' and 'bulls**t', and has made explicitly clear that he plans to reverse the Obama administration's commitments to investing in renewable energy and reducing GHG emissions, which Trump regards as a pointless and destructive influence on the American economy and jobs. So just how dramatic an impact is Trump's imminent presidency likely to have on energy production and climate change policy in the United States?
First, some context. The total energy consumption of the United States in 2015 was 1763.8 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe), representing a remarkable 30.87% of total global energy consumption (5712.89 Mtoe) (BP, 2016). Of this total consumption, 33% was generated by coal power, 33% by natural gas, 20% by nuclear power, 6% by hydroelectric power, 7% by other renewable energy sources and 1% by petroleum (USEIA, 2016). In 2013 (the most recent year for which data is available), the United States was responsible for CO2 emissions totalling 1414.28 million metric tonnes of carbon (MtC), representing 14.47% of total global emissions (~9776 MtC) (CDIAC, 2013). The huge proportion of total global energy consumption, and of CO2 emissions, for which the United States is responsible, means that changes in energy policy in the United States are likely to have profound global impacts.
Under present plans, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that its Clean Power Plan (CPP), which requires states to reduce CO2 emissions from electricity production, will result in a 32% reduction from 2005 levels in CO2 emissions by 2030. (Jones and Martin, 2016). Mr. Trump, however, has firmly indicated that he will seek to abandon President Obama's Climate Action Plan, of which the Clean Air Act (which contains the CPP) is a key component. Without the CPP, the EPA estimates that by 2030, US CO2 emissions from the power sector will total around 1,900 million metric tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) (Jones and Martin, 2016) (note that in contrast to the CDIAC figures which are given in million metric tonnes of carbon, projections from the EPA are given in million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide, resulting in a higher figure). The 2030 emissions estimate without CPP represents only a 20.83% reduction from 2005 levels in CO2 emissions - President-elect Trump's aim of scrapping the CPP would therefore result in the United States producing significantly higher CO2 emissions during the next decades.
However, the impending about-face in federal climate policy under Mr. Trump will not mean a total abandonment of the pursuit of emissions reductions in the United States. Energy policy in the US is largely dictated at the level of individual states - as of 2016, 34 states (along with the District of Columbia) have enacted climate action plans, with 20 states (and D.C.) introducing GHG emissions reduction targets and 29 states, D.C. and two US territories implementing Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), which specify that a certain proportion of energy must be generated through renewable means by a given date (CSS, 2016).
It is possible, therefore, that the domestic impact on climate policy of a Trump administration will be limited. However, the international impact may be more significant. Mr. Trump has explicitly pledged to revoke the United States' commitment to the 2015 Paris Climate Conference (21st Conference of Parties; COP21). The Paris agreement mandates not only that parties take measures to reduce domestic GHG emissions (i.e. the CPP), but also that:
'Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist Developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation... developed country Parties should continue to take the lead in mobilising climate finance'.
- from Article 9 of the Paris Agreement, 2015
This commitment from wealthier countries to provide financial support to less developed countries in developing emissions mitigation strategies was instrumental in persuading poorer countries to sign up to the agreement, including huge emitters such as India (Le Page, 2016). Without US financial support, it is possible that some less developed countries will renege on their recent climate commitments, and likely that many will be unwilling to implement the intensified future mitigation strategies required if global warming is to be limited to below 1.5 degrees C (the target agreed at COP21).
In summary, during Trump's presidency, any action on climate change and GHG emissions at the federal level can be expected to be cancelled or reversed, including international agreements - due to the high contribution of the US to global emissions, and the importance of the US in terms of funding GHG mitigation measured internationally, this is likely to have a significant impact on global emissions over the coming years. However, domestically at least, Mr. Trump's power to enact changes is relatively limited and so impacts may be less severe - but a lack of federal legislation and impetus towards emissions reductions may cause some states to soften their own approaches towards action on climate change, causing further increases in future GHG emissions.
References:
BP (2016), Energy Charting Tool (http://tools.bp.com/energy-charting-tool.aspx#/st/primary_energy/dt/consumption/unit/MTOE/country/CA/MX/US/view/map/; 09/11/2016)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre (CDIAC) (2013), Global fossil fuel CO2 emissions (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2013.tot; 09/11/2016)
Center for Sustainable Systems (CSS), University of Michigan (2016), Climate Change: Policy and Mitigation Factsheet, Ann Arbor: CSS (link: http://css.snre.umich.edu/sites/default/files/Climate_Change_Policy_and_Mitigation_Factsheet_CSS05-20.pdf)
21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) (2015), Paris Agreement (http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/paris_agreement_english_.pdf; 09/11/2016)
Jones and Martin (2016), Effects of the Clean Power Plan, Washington D.C.: United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA) (link: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/section_issues.cfm#cpp)
Le Page (2016), 'President Trump means we can't escape a dangerously warmer world', New Scientist No. 3099
United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA) (2016), What is US electricity generation by energy source (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3; 09/11/2016)
No comments:
Post a Comment