Gordy Slack: What is at stake at COP15?
Daniel Sperling: This is a huge challenge. We’re all in this together and everyone has to acknowledge their responsibility; Copenhagen will reflect that. It’s part of the consensus process. And it will be important, too, because we will create some of the funding programs that will be used to help developing countries reduce their greenhouse gasses through advanced technology and innovation. To some extent, though, we may be overstating the importance of Copenhagen. When push comes to shove, it will be state and local and national governments, not international bodies, that enact the policies that will really make a difference. For one thing, the enforcement will happen more locally; and that’s where the incentives will be created, too.
GS: When it comes to regulating CO2 emissions, California leads the country in many ways. What are a few of the things this state has to show the rest of the US, and perhaps the delegates in Copenhagen, too?
DS: California may be the only government in the world that has developed a comprehensive plan for reducing greenhouse gasses across the entire economy and society. It is the so-called “scoping plan,” which was adopted last December. The state is now in the process of adopting and implementing all of the rules and policies that are part of that plan. One of first adopted was the low carbon fuel standard, which requires a reduction in the GHG intensity of transport fuels and provides the framework for transforming the oil industry into a low-carbon energy industry. Two other major programs that will be adopted shortly are a carbon cap-and-trade program and a renewable electricity generation requirement.
GS: Cap-and-trade is a hot subject in the congressional debate over whether to adopt a climate bill. How does this relate to California’s own cap-and-trade regulations?
DS: The California Air Resources Board has created a high level advisory board and is conducting a series of workshops on the planned cap-and-trade program. It is scheduled for adoption next year. If the national government adopts a cap-and-trade program, as it is likely to do next year, California will make its program consistent with it. As background, cap-and-trade is an overarching policy mechanism that sends price signals to the whole economy. But in CA, at least for the 2020 targets, cap-and-trade will only account for about 20 percent of the economy-wide reduction. The rest comes from the many other, more specific policies, incentives, and rules—including everything from energy-efficiency standards for appliances to low-carbon-fuel standards for transportation fuels to limits on gases used in semiconductor manufacturing, and much more.
GS: As part of the California delegation, what will you be focusing on in Copenhagen?
DS: My expertise is on the transportation side; everything from land-use and vehicle travel to fuels. And the vehicles themselves.
GS: How big a part of the whole carbon picture is transportation?
DS: Big. In California, transportation contributes about 40 percent of the total greenhouse gasses. Nationally, it’s about 33 percent. Worldwide, it’s 20 – 25 percent.
GS: In California, what are the lowest-hanging fruits for reductions of carbon emissions in transportation?
DS: More efficient gasoline and diesel vehicles. That’s number one. Then, decarbonizing fuels.
GS: When it comes to improving vehicles, where are the easiest gains to be made?
DS: There are many opportunities. You can make engines more efficient by controlling the valves better. You can build better transmissions, use lighter materials, and electrify some of the accessories, such as steering and braking. You can switch to diesel engines, which are more efficient, and hybrid vehicles, which are even more efficient. Eventually you’ll get plug-in hybrids and fuel-cell and battery-electric vehicles. All those together will represent huge reductions. California’s regulation of vehicles, known as the Pavley Law (AB 1493)—which, after much opposition from the auto industry and then the Bush Administration, is now being adopted nationally—extends only up to the year 2016. Most of the reductions through 2016 will come from making conventional gasoline vehicles more efficient, plus some reductions from increasing use of hybrid vehicles and perhaps diesel. It’s after 2016 when the more advanced technologies will need to kick in. Making sure those technologies are ready and in the pipeline will be key.
GS: What about removing carbon from fuels? Where are the biggest gains going to be made there?
DS: Well, in the near term, most promising are the low-carbon biofuels, sometimes referred to as second-generation biofuels, especially those using waste materials, like crop residues, municipal solid waste, and forestry residues. Also, grasses and trees. All of these can be converted into liquid fuels. The other promising options are using electricity for vehicles and then, eventually, hydrogen. If we do things right, twenty years from now, most new vehicles will be running on a mix of electricity, biofuels, and hydrogen. Our cities will be efficient and livable so we won’t have to travel as much. Public transportation will be better so we won’t be so dependent on cars when we do have to travel. California already has those policies in place that will both make cars much more efficient and decarbonize fuels. I already mentioned the Pavley Law, which, thought it has led a tortured life, is a great example of how California has been a laboratory of democracy, where things are invented and tried out and then migrate up to the national level. Last May, president Obama decided that not only would he allow the 14 states to implement their versions of the Pavley Law, but he said he wanted the entire country to adopt them, too.
GS: You’re both a professor at Davis and a state regulator. How do those different hats fit you?
DS: Together, not too easily, at least initially. Regulators and academics have totally different intellectual approaches. I am principally an academic, by experience and predisposition. But as regulations and policies embrace more flexible and market-based approaches, the two start converging more. I’m learning to integrate the two in a positive way, in ways that I hope are leading to better policy. Having academics in government is important; we’ve got to make regulations and policy more effective and more efficient and that means bringing more performance-based and market-based approaches to the policy world. For example, creating the low-carbon fuel standards, which I played a big role in, depended on life-cycle analysis methods. On their own, politicians and bureaucrats don’t typically have a good feel for life-cycle analysis and other more technical tools; they need researchers for that. The university has much more than a role in helping governments reduce emissions, it has a responsibility. Climate policy isn’t something humans have done before. This is all new; and we don’t know how to do it. We need new technology, new methods, new data, and new approaches. And the research university will play a central role in providing these.
Back to December 2009 Newsletter
-------------------