The Chicago Climate Exchange

This is the second installment of a paper I am currently writing.  More material will follow soon.  The paper is a comparison of the effectiveness of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and Chicago Climate Exchange to the Kyoto Protocol, the effectiveness of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to the Major Economies Forum, and an analysis of a small survey I performed of climate scientists and sustainability professionals.

The Chicago Climate Exchange

            In 2003, two Northwestern professors received a grant to develop a carbon market for private industry in the United States.  They partnered with various professionals and corporations and from that the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) was born.  The CCX originally had thirteen participants in 2003: American Electric Power, Baxter International Inc., the City of Chicago, DuPont, Ford Motor Co., International Paper, Manitoba Hydro Corp., MeadWestvaco  Corp., Motorola Inc., STMicroelectrics, Stora Enso North America, Temple-Inland Inc., and Waste Management Inc.  Since that time the total number of participants (in the direct emissions portion) has grown to 84.  “Participants include major corporations, utilities, and financial institutions with activities in all 50 states, 8 Canadian provinces, and 16 countries.” (Chicago Climate Exchange)

            There have been two phases to the Chicago Climate Exchange thus far, before it was sold to InterContinental Exchange and merged with various other cap and trade programs.  I will be focusing on those two phases.  Phase I ran from 2003 to 2006 and Phase II ran from 2007 to 2010.  What separates them are the starting point for the baseline emissions scenarios.  The baseline for Phase I had to be the organizations average annual emissions from 1998-2001, while the Phase II baseline could either be the average annual emissions from 1998-2001 or the single year of 2000.  This gave those entering the CCX at a later date greater leeway in determining their baseline emissions, allowing them an easier path to meeting their emissions reduction targets.  This should not take away from the magnitude of the CCX’s success however.

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

Excerpt from my current project.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

            The RGGI is a compact, originally formed between 10 New England states, to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions coming from their power sectors.  Since its inception it has lost one member, New Jersey, beginning on January 1st, 2012. (Martin, 2010)  That is as a result of political reasons however, not the success or failure of the initiative to achieve its goals.  The initiative regulates 211 power facilities in nine states currently.  Its current members are comprised of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. 

            The RGGI operates through an emissions allowance auction system.  Unsold allowances for the current year as well as all previous are auctioned in predetermined amounts quarterly.  Half of the allotment of total future emissions allowances for each year for the next four years can be auctioned.  Initial asking prices are determined “based on the Consumer Price Index, or 80-percent of the current market price of the particular RGGI allowance vintage being auctioned.” (RGGI, 2008)  The first control period lasted for three years from 2009-2011, after which it was decided in 2012 whether unsold allowances from previous years would be carried over into the new market. (RGGI , 2008; RGGI, 2012b)  Each state has its own way of determining the number the allowances it will make available for auction.  Their methods are defined in state statutes and regulations. (RGGI, 2012a)

            The entirety of the RGGI comprises an emissions market totaling 188 million tons of CO2.  This is ~29% of the size of the Chicago Climate Exchange (at an initial ~700 million tons of CO2 for Phase II), making it substantially smaller.  What is more important however, for determining systematic effectiveness at least, is understanding the percentage of total emissions cut.  For the first two 3-year periods the emissions baseline will remain steady and it will also be the compliance requirement.  After 2014, the baseline will decrease by 2.5% every   Each state has its own baseline set within the Memorandum of Understanding and its subsequent amendments, which are as stated: Connecticut, 10,695,036 tons; Delaware, 7,559,787 tons; Maine, 5,948,902 tons; Maryland, 37,503,983 tons; Massachusetts, 26,660,204 tons; New Hampshire, 8,620,460 tons; New Jersey, 22,892,730 tons; New York, 64,310,805; Rhode Island, 2,659,239 tons; Vermont, 1,225,830 tons.

            Not every allowance is sold however.  Some were not offered at auction and some were offered but not sold.  Of those not offered some were sold at a fixed price, transferred from state set-aside accounts, and some remained in set-aside accounts.  Of those in set-aside account a portion were retired.  For each state the portion of allowances remaining each year was different.  The number of allowances retired, and therefore tons of CO2 mitigated, and their percentage of the allowance budget per state is as followed: Connecticut, 6,802,914 tons, 21.2%; Delaware, 6,628,589 tons, 29.2%; Maine, 3,172 tons, 1.8%; Maryland, 6,501,404 tons, 5.8%; Massachusetts, 16,831,266 tons, 21%; New Hampshire, 452 tons,  <.01%; New Jersey, 15,706,238 tons, 22.9%; New York, 43,829,771 tons, 22.7%; Rhode Island, 1,706,721 tons, 21.4%; Vermont, 792,092 tons, 21.5%.  On the whole the RGGI states reduced emissions from their power sectors by an average of 16.76% for the First Control Period, with New Hampshire dragging the average down by two percentage points. (RGGI, 2012b)  On the whole emissions were reduced by 17.5% from their baseline.  This compares favorably with the outcome of the Chicago Climate Exchange’s Phase I.

Figure 1                                                                                                                                            Figure 2

RGGI Allowance Allocations Breakdown by Status and State (RGGI, 2012a)

http://goo.gl/YCeEg - Yale Environment 360 article

RGGI Inc. (2008). Design elements regional allowance auctions under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Retrieved from Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative website: http://www.rggi.org/docs/20080317auction_design.pdf

RGGI Inc. (2010). Relative effects of various factors on RGGI electricity sector CO2 emissions: 2009 compared to 2005. Retrieved from Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative website: http://www.rggi.org/docs/Retrospective_Analysis_Draft_White_Paper.pdf

RGGI Inc. (2011). RGGI compliance report. Retrieved from Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative website: https://rggi-coats.org/eats/rggi/index.cfm?fuseaction=reportsv2.final_compliance_summary_rpt&clearfuseattribs=true

RGGI Inc. (2012). Allowance allocation. Retrieved from http://www.rggi.org/market/co2_auctions/allowance_allocation

RGGI Inc. (2012). First control period CO2 allowance allocation. Retrieved from Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative website: http://www.rggi.org/docs/Allowance-Allocation.pdf

Temperature and High and Low Pressure Systems for the US

The US is experiencing a terrible drought thus far.  Corn crops throughout the country are dying.  It is a bad situation and may be indicative of the type of weather we will see in the future.  This is due to high pressure systems repeatedly driving into the Great Plains from the Gulf of California.  In an earlier post I had stated that the slowing of the Jet Stream would cause there to be intermittent warm and cold periods, as a result of increased atmospheric blocking patterns.  However, it seems that wave after wave of warm air from high pressure systems is keeping the Jet Stream to the north.  This is bringing at least moderate drought to 64% of US, second only to the Dust Bowl drought of 1934.  While the 50s still hold some records for longest concurrent days of drought and the 30s the most severe drought we are breaking records this year quickly.

Here's what the corn crop is like in Missouri right now.  Keep in mind we do not have drought resistant GMO corn.
http://www.businessinsider.com/missouri-farmer-tim-reinbott-shows-us-how-the-midwest-drought-has-ruined-his-corn-crop-2012-7#

I'm going to keep a daily record of NOAA daily weather maps on this blog post.  I'll be giving the temperature and 500 mb map.  The 500 mb chart will show where the high pressure system is located and it should generally be where the warmest temperatures are.
Here is where you can get the weather maps. http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/dailywxmap/

8-7-12

Natalia Shakhova Interview 3/4/10

This interview was done a while ago but I think it's beneficial to show it anyways.  Ms. Shakhova says that methane concentrations at the time were the highest they had been in 400,000 years.  Additionally, in a presentation she gave at a symposium on November 30, 2010 she states that methane release from the ESAS measured an additional 3.5 Gt, enough to trigger abrupt climate change.

That means the recent rise in methane release goes beyond what was necessary for abrupt change.  With the wildfires raging in the Western US this seems like we're in a dire situation.  I think I'm going to write a post on the End Permian/Triassic mass extinction soon.  I'm probably going to start researching moisture retention in soil and companion planting for hot environments given the heat wave the US has been experiencing.

Rio+20 'Future we Want' Part 2

The first part of Section V "Framework for action and follow-up" Point A.104 states the objective for the conference is primarily to "secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, as well as to address the themes of a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication and the institutional framework for sustainable development."  This statement sets a benchmark for what the conference is trying to achieve and it doesn't aim very high.  The conference is not meant to enhance concrete commitments that have already been made.  It is to secure renewed political commitment.  Of course this needs to be done within the three days the delegates attend the conference while they are supposed to be using the time to further sustainable development. 

References to Concrete Action
Point 163 commits to taking "action to reduce the incidence and impacts of such pollution on marine ecosystems, including through the effective implementation of relevant conventions adopted in the framework of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and the follow-up of the relevant intiatives such as the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities, as well as the adoption of coordinated strategies to this end.  We further commit to take action to, by 2025, based on collected scientific data, achieve significant reductions in marine debris to prevent harm to the coastal and marine environment."

In Point 255 the Parties "agree to establish an intergovernmental process under the auspices of the General Assembly, with technical support from the United Nations system and in open and broad consultation with relevant international and regional financial institutions and other relevant stakeholders.  The process will assess financing needs, consider the effectiveness, consistency and synergies of existing instruments and frameworks, and evaluate additional initiatives, with a view to preparing a report proposing options on an effective sustainable development financing strategy to facilitate the mobilization of resources and their effective use in achieving sustainable development objectives."  Point 256 further states, "An intergovernmental committee, comprising 30 experts nominated by regional groups, with equitable geographical representation, will implement this process, concluding its work by 2014."

Concrete Actions
There were no further concrete actions taken at the Conference.

Important Criticism
Point 247 states, "We also underscore that sustainable development goals should be action oriented,
concise and easy to communicate, limited in number, aspirational, global
in nature and universally applicable to all countries while taking into account
different national realities, capacities and levels of development and respecting
national policies and priorities."  This is an enormous mistake.  If this rule is followed plans for sustainable development can not be action oriented they can only espouse goals for what we would like to see.  Action oriented goals have to be tailored to every region or locality or they are meaningless.  The problems one area may face, drought, will be different from what another area will, increase in disease vectors.  This necessitates individual planning, which if done at the state level will look like an enormous and complicated plan on a level that has never been witnessed.

This is not only necessary it should have already happened.  I think it is nice to believe that climate change can be mitigated by independent actors slowly making concessions and building new infrastructure over time but that is not the case.  It has to be done now.  As the Arctic is warming and releasing methane we are sitting on the precipice of a disaster.  (See my previous post on Arctic Methane as a Driver of Climate.)  Regulation with teeth needs to be put in place to ensure that all actors are cutting emissions, not just those who think it is a good idea.

Conclusion
The purpose of these annual meetings is to further the creation of sustainable development policy and methods for ensuring compliance.  Specific plans should be created at these meetings while the maintenance of them should be carried out throughout the year in technical conferences.  At Rio all work seemed to be put off until later.  No specific plans for how any of the affirmations would be implemented were put forth.  No enforcement mechanisms were discussed.  The process has no urgency behind it.  Even if recommendations are to be sent to the General Assembly for further review an outline of the vision for the plan should be in the outcome documents.

In future posts I'm going to go over the various action plans that were listed in "Future we Want" to decipher what actions are being taken as a result of the UNCSD talks.

Rio+20 'Future we Want' Part 1

I've been reading Future we Want, Rio+20's outcome document and seeing what I make of it.  There has been a groundswell of protest over its weakness and inability to enforce definite cuts in emissions.  No new binding commitments to sustainable development have been decided.  In the process, progress on sustainable development at the mega-multinational level has reportedly come to a stand still.

Section II lists all the prior agreements states have made that the Conference of Parties would like to reaffirm.  Just to list them off..

1.  Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
2. Agenda 21
3. Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21
4. Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg Plan of Implementation)
5. Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development of the World Summit on Sustainable Development
6. Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States (Barabados Programme of Action)
7. Mauritius Strategy for the Further Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States
8. Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2011-2020 (Istanbul Programme of Action)
9. Almaty Programme of Action: Addressing the Needs of Landlocked Developing Countries within a New Global Framework for a Transit Transport Cooperation for Landlocked and Transit Developing Countries
10. political declaration on Africa's development needs
11. New Partnership for Africa's Development
12. United Nations Millennium Declaration
13. 2005 World Summit Outcome
14. Monterrey Consensus of the International Conference on Financing for Development
15. Doha Declaration on Financing for Development
16. outcome document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly on the Millennium Development Goals
17. Programme of action of the International Conference on Population and Development
18. key actions for the further implementation of the Programme of Action for the International Conference of Population and Development
19. Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action 

I have no background in any of these agreements.  I'm just listing them for your and my further reference.  From here I want to look at the actual wording of the document to see how many references to concrete action to implement sustainable development are made vs. actual commitments or plans.

Slowing of the Jet Stream

As climate change happens it is forecast that the Jet Stream will slow down which will form Rossby Waves, leading slowing moving systems of increased or decreased temperature.  This is the a picture of the Jet Stream on June 26, 2012 at 16:41 EST.

As you can see the Jet Stream has been pushed up in this map.  Much of the central United States is within the southern half of the system meaning temperatures are hot.  North of the wave is cold.  The system, in this condition, moves slowly.

Denver has just had 5 days in a row of temperature over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, tying its record.  Numerous other areas in the Midwest have also had intense 100 degree weather.  Fires within the west, particularly Colorado, have been intensifying.

Fresno, on the other hand, is on the north side of the system.  They just had a high of 82 F today tying the record for the coolest final weekend of June.  As I said, Fresno is on the cool north side of the system.  This is what we can expect as climate change continues.

The heat wave is unlikely to subside soon as a new high pressure system is coming up from the Gulf of California.  Here are some maps from 6/30/12 and 7/2/12.  Maps are available from Daily Weather Maps, NOAA.

If one reads the Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of Sustainable Development and Equity section of TAR, Working Group 2 Chapter 18 I believe, there is a portion that states that most stakeholders in north America believe we have the technology available for adaptation (p904).  This has been a mantra of conservatives pushing for less regulation of GHGs.  Things like 'I don't know, I'd like it a little warmer,' in reference to some kind of tropical paradise abound.  The Midwest and Rocky Mountains aren't on the ocean though.  The climate systems with the type of heat we're talking about are not equivocal in the least.  Besides, who would want that kind of heat without the option of jumping into the ocean every once and a while?

This kind of weather, swinging from extreme heat to extreme cold, is the kind of thing that ruins agriculture.  Emissions are bound to increase as people retreat indoors and turn their air conditioning up.  Deaths and illness from heat related health problems will increase producing stress on our healthcare system.  Wildfires will increase in the west as will depletion of aquifers as farmers increase their water usage to ensure their crops don't die.

TAR WG2 Chap 18 states that forestry and agriculture are the 2 areas in which adaptation will be the most successful (p904).  All that has to be put in place are action plans for ensuring the infrastructure is available.  It has been over a decade since 2001, when the report came out, and not enough has been done.

This is a very bad situation.  From what I understand thus far Rio+20 was a bust in terms of ensuring that measurable and binding goals for sustainable development were set.  This ensures that we are headed down the wrong path in mitigating this problem.  Adaptation is a key goal of sustainability.  To not have measurable required regulation in place is to ensure a hasty careless action plan in the future.

I'm going to try to write some more on Rio+20's 'Future we Want' outcome document in the coming days.  I'll also be addressing National Action Plans for Adaptation that were discussed at the UNFCCC conference in Bonn in late May.  I'll be reviewing two case studies on Laos and Malawi.

I've included a Youtube video that does a good job explaining changes in the Jet Stream.  You can find the portion at 8:28.

Temperatures for 6/26/12.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html

Third Assessment Report Working Group Chapter 18
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/pdf/wg2TARchap18.pdf

The photo of the Jet Stream
http://www.intellicast.com/National/Wind/JetStream.aspx

Weird Winter - Mad March - Part 1 video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-1iBHAivmw&list=PLCDEC880116BEF63D&index=61&feature=plpp_video

Daily Weather Maps
http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/dailywxmap/index_20120702.html