I earned master’s and doctoral degrees in ecology from UC Davis before spending more than a decade in Washington, D.C., advancing climate change policy. Thus, it is no surprise that much of my policy work is grounded in ecological science and has examined the role that natural landscapes can and should play in addressing climate change.

On March 10, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the UC Davis Policy Institute for Energy, Environment and the Economy co-sponsored “Natural Climate Solutions Symposium” in Sacramento which featured speakers from government, academia, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector to elevate the dialogue on how California’s natural landscapes can be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help the State of California adapt to its changing climate.

We had a few goals for the day which I think we achieved:

1. raising awareness of how natural landscapes (such as forests, wetlands, and rangelands) provide solutions for climate change;
2. learning from each other and hearing different perspectives on needs and current activities in the State regarding climate change and natural landscapes; and
3. sparking opportunities for additional collaboration between symposium participants.

The symposium kicked off with a bang with a presentation from Wade Crowfoot, Deputy Cabinet Secretary and Senior Advisor to Gov. Jerry Brown. Mr. Crowfoot quoted Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities about this being “the best of times” and “the worst of times” for action on climate change.

A surprise appearance by Gov. Brown reinforced this concept. He noted that we are facing serious impacts from climate change already; we face some tough political barriers to action; and we have the challenge to compress the complexity of climate change impacts and solutions into one-liners that can be rallied around to catalyze action.

And none of our speakers were Pollyannas about the current situation. We learned from Dr. John Battles of UC Berkeley that California’s lands currently are a carbon source and not a sink.

But, lest we focus too much on the “worst of times,” we also heard from Sen. Fran Pavley, the governor, and Mr. Crowfoot about the significant progress we have made through concrete legislative and executive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a changing climate. Sen. Pavley was honored for her legacy of strong action on climate change in the California Assembly and Senate. And, in the aftermath of last December’s United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Paris, we’ve never had as much global momentum for climate action.

It’s time to take advantage of this worldwide focus on climate change and optimize the benefits natural ecosystems are already playing to sequester carbon and increase resilience to climate change. The symposium underscored why natural resource solutions need to “rise up higher” in the climate discussion, as TNC’s Michelle Passero noted, to become integral to overall climate policy strategy.

Another “best of times” example was the science presented at the symposium. Drs. Ben Houlton and Louise Jackson from UC Davis, UC Berkeley’s Dr. Battles, and Ellie Cohen of Point Blue Conservation Science said we already have plenty of science. We know how to manage natural lands to maximize carbon sequestration, climate resilience, and other co-benefits (such as increasing or conserving biodiversity). So, the time for action is now.

Over the course of the day, we dug into the challenges and courses of action needed to better incorporate natural lands management into state climate change mitigation and adaptation policy. We heard from executive branch leaders David Bunn (Director, California Department of Conservation) and Edie Chang (Deputy Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board) about current action plans including an upcoming March 23 CARB scoping plan meeting on managing natural lands for climate change benefits. We learned from Assemblymembers Rich Gordon and Richard Bloom about the legislative calendar of hearings prioritizing these issues in the coming months. We heard about the challenge posed by the need to focus Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funding (GGRF) generated by cap-and-trade revenue to ensure “biggest bang for the buck” for reducing greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time needing to value and quantify co-benefits from natural lands management. We discussed the possible need for a statutory approach to address carbon sequestration in landscapes outside of urban areas covered by Senate Bill 375. And finally, we learned from practitioners and private landowners about their work on the ground, already managing natural lands for climate change benefits and their lessons learned on the importance of engaging communities, especially economically disadvantaged communities, in this planning and work.

It is abundantly clear that figuring out the best ways to incorporate natural lands into climate change initiative in the state, as well as nationally, and internationally, is a hot and very complex—topic. Quantifying, measuring, and monitoring how natural lands contribute to carbon sequestration and climate resilience are first key steps. The next step: building consensus for an investment in policies that scale up natural climate solutions across California, is no easy task.

But the long-held “narrative that the environment and the economy are enemies is shifting,” noted Assemblymember Gordon, with analysis that shows the financial benefits of environmental investment.

As UC Davis’ Dr. Jackson stated, “transformative change happens from people.” The experts who participated in the March 10 symposium are helping to inform that change, and leading us down the path to success.

---

Kit Batten, Ph.D., is the Executive Director of the Policy Institute for Energy, Environment and the Economy

Agenda for the Natural Climate Solutions Symposium

Biographies of the symposium presenters

The Paris Climate Accord reached on Saturday, December 12, feels like a home run. Nearly 200 countries fully agreed on text in which they pledge to make large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions over the next 15 years, with mechanisms to help ensure that this goal is achieved. It includes quantified CO2 mitigation commitments from all major economies around the world; mechanisms for reporting and verifying progress; commitments for $100 billion in financing of actions; and many other key elements.

However, as President Obama said in his speech that day, this agreement does not “solve” the global climate change problem.

“Even if all the initial targets set in Paris are met, we’ll only be part of the way there when it comes to reducing carbon from the atmosphere, so we cannot be complacent.”

The president is correct: This is only a partial solution that does not (yet) limit temperature change to 2 degrees Celsius, and it needs to be fully implemented over the coming years, with all the uncertainties around that. But it does contain many promising elements. For example, it includes specific pledges from most of the signatories to cut CO2 emissions by 2030. These commitments vary widely, as do each country’s circumstances.

What’s the outlook for transportation? Last week I noted some of the measures that feature in the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) of a range of countries. Today I’ll show a comparison of actual targets under the accord, with one possible scenario for transport. This is highly speculative since few countries have indicated the sectoral breakdowns of their targets; for example, even countries shooting for 40% reductions in CO2 emissions have not indicated if that means 40% in each sector (transport, buildings, industry, electricity generation, etc.) or 40% on average with individual sectors varying. But if you take for a moment the possibility that transportation delivers reductions at an average intensity, you can gain a sense of the challenge ahead.

The first figure below shows the 2014 estimated energy-related CO2 emissions for six major economies, and the 2030 target (taken as the midpoint in cases where a range of targets is possible, based on analysis presented here). The second figure shows hypothetical targets if transportation CO2 were reduced in the same proportion as the overall targets for each country, starting from 2014 transportation CO2 emissions as estimated by the International Energy Agency.

As you can see in the first figure, the U.S. commitment is ambitious – a major reduction from nearly 20 tons per capita to less than 13 by 2030. As shown in the second figure, if the U.S. reduced transportation-related CO2 emissions in proportion to this total, it would be a cut from about 6.5 tons per capita to about 4.5 by 2030.

This would still leave the U.S. at a higher per-capita emissions level than any of the other countries or regions shown. But it certainly would put the U.S. on a strong downward trajectory. China and India would actually increase their per-capita transportation emissions, but not by as much as would have occurred without their commitments – and both would remain at a very low CO2 level in 2030. Russia would retain a more average position; though Russia is noticeable in its overall target (Figure 1) in that it starts with fairly high emissions and these increase significantly – it would become the highest per capita of the six countries by 2030.

Whether or not countries decide to tackle transportation at the same level of intensity as other sectors, they will need to include ambitious goals for transportation to succeed. How will they achieve targets like these and move from planning to doing?

“You have to do many different things and each place it’s different,” noted California Governor Jerry Brown in Paris.

Among the combinations of measures that make sense for most countries to include: promote much better fuel economy of new cars and trucks (and also of second-hand imports, for those countries that import many such vehicles); shifts of travel from high CO2 modes (like cars and trucks) to lower CO2 modes (mass transit, cycling and walking, along with more rail freight). Alternative fuels will also need to play an expanding role. The only three potentially very low-emission fuels are electricity, hydrogen and biofuels, and these will need to lead the way to very low CO2 emissions. International aviation and shipping are particular challenges, since they are not covered under individual country commitments. The international bodies International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and International Maritime Organization (IMO) have been asked to redouble their efforts to work with industry on commitments and strategies for these sectors, and they too will need to put a large emphasis on efficiency and alternative fuels.

The best combination of measures will vary by country, as will the role of transportation in achieving overall CO2 targets. During 2016, the STEPS program at UC Davis will be looking more closely at the plans of different countries and assessing combinations of transportation measures that can help get the job done.

All told, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris was the subject of exhaustive negotiations (and a 31-page agreement); extensive coverage in traditional media; and enormous attention on social media.

What’s yet to be written is whether the conference ultimately achieves its lofty goal: ensuring a “shared future and shared environment” for our planet.

I arrived in Paris to (ironically) unseasonably warm temperatures, and a strange mix: a festive Christmas-time atmosphere combined with a paramilitary police presence at almost every street corner, keeping watch over the throngs.

At the COP21 global climate conference being held at an old airport just north of the center city, delegates are also thronging, though the French have done an admirable job creating a facility that can handle the up to 40,000 expected without any cramped feeling. The massive venue of about 10 major halls can easily accommodate the crowds. It only took about 10 minutes to go through the initial registration process compared to the several hours it took at the Copenhagen COP of 2009. Since we arrived an hour early to be sure we had enough time, this efficiency was almost disappointing!

Meanwhile, as the climate meetings here move into day four, the transportation side of things is, so to speak, heating up.  In today’s major transport session, hosted by the Lima-Paris Action Agenda, Michelin and the Partnership on Sustainable Low-Carbon Transportation (SLoCaT), a range of announcements were made regarding transportation-related targets and commitments. They included a commitment by the aviation industry to cut CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050; the Global Fuel Economy Initiative announced it is most of the way toward its goal of having 100 countries commit to a 50% reduction in light-duty vehicle fuel consumption per kilometer (km) in 2050; and perhaps the most audacious of all: the declaration of the International Zero-Emission Vehicle Alliance (ZEV Alliance) to put 100 million electric vehicles (cars and SUVs) on the world’s roads by 2030. These are all interesting declarations since they involve both governments and non-government entities such as airlines and various manufacturing companies. All three of these cases (and most others today) are voluntary commitments that do not have legal standing. But as public commitments they can be tracked and monitored, and public pressure can and no doubt will be applied as needed to help see these through in the coming years.

These types of commitments are meant to complement government commitments to cut CO2 emissions, many of which have already been announced. For example the Obama administration has made a commitment to cut U.S. CO2 emissions by 28% in 2030 compared to 2005 levels. The European Union has been even more ambitious, committing to a 40% reduction by 2030 but compared to 1990 levels, a tougher bar than the U.S. 2005 base year. China has not committed to outright reductions, but has committed to a peak in CO2 by no later than 2030, and a deep reduction in CO2 per unit gross domestic product (GDP) in this same time frame. Most countries have not set specific targets for transport, but many have indicated sets of measures for the transport sector that they intend to use to help achieve their overall targets. SLoCaT has published an interesting report that references these. It includes the following chart that breaks out measures by country income level and type of measures. The chart shows that biofuel-related measures, bus-related measures, and e-mobility-related measures are the top three measures that countries are referencing in their strategies.

One question is whether many (or any) of these commitments by major emitting countries will be strengthened over the remaining one and a half weeks of meetings. It seems that much of the negotiations are instead around mechanisms and systems whereby the developed countries will help finance the CO2 reductions of the developing (“non-Annex I”) countries. In the coming days, I will be digging deeper into the commitments and will try to better understand the role of transport in this broader context.

Related articles:

• UC Davis Expert to Take Pro-Cycling Message to Paris Conference, Sacramento Bee, 11/29/2015.
• STEPS Co-Director Lew Fulton Co-Authors First Report Quantifying Global Benefits of Urban Cycling, E-Biking.

The global scientific community recently gathered in Paris for a preparatory meeting as part of the lead-up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP-21) being held in the French capital this December.*

With the elusive goal of forging a legally binding global climate agreement just a few months away, climate scientists are weighing how to get the world on track to limit climate change to a two-degree Celsius increase.

The International Energy Agency estimates that the window for achieving this target is almost closed — but not quite.  Achieving deep reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the transportation sector by 2050 will need to play a key part since transportation accounts for 25% of energy-related carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). The IEA estimates that at least a 50% reduction in transportation CO2e GHG emissions will be needed globally in that time frame. (Additionally, a nearly complete phase out of CO2e for all energy sectors will be required by 2075.)

A new article** that I and several co-authors (Lee R. Lynd, Alexander Körner, Nathanael Greene and Luke R. Tonachel) have just published in Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining looks at the feasibility of hitting such 2050 and 2075 transportation targets—and in particular at the question of whether the world can hope to reach these kind of targets without a strong contribution from biofuels. In short, we address the question of whether the world needs biofuels by examining the feasibility of doing without them.

Our conclusions are clear: Even with aggressive reductions in global passenger and freight travel growth, shifts to mass transport modes, strong efficiency improvements and deep market penetration by vehicles running on electricity and hydrogen, there could remain a large demand for “dense” liquid fuels in 2050 (80% of transportation fuel) and even in 2075 (50%). This liquid fuel demand is due largely to aviation, ocean shipping, and long-haul trucking.  Electricity and hydrogen may not be suitable in such cases, but “drop-in” biofuels will be.

Acknowledging the significant uncertainties involved in such projections and the challenges faced by all candidate technologies and fuels, we conclude that it will be difficult to achieve a low-carbon transportation sector without widespread use of biofuels, and that aggressive efforts to develop sustainable, low-carbon biofuels alongside other options are warranted.

Why did we focus on biofuels? There is a notable lack of consensus about whether biofuels can contribute to future energy supply on a scale large enough to meaningfully impact global energy challenges.  While major challenges exist across all three potentially very low CO2e fuels (biofuels, hydrogen, and electricity), biofuels especially have become the focus of the question “can they play a major role?” but also “should they?”

In our article, we explore scenarios where electricity and hydrogen are utilized to as great a degree as we find plausible, in order to identify the gap that would have to be filled by biofuels. This helps us understand what the situation will be if we are not able to achieve truly sustainable, low GHG biofuels in large volumes around the world—currently a significant possibility.

We focus on scenarios that achieve the very low targeted CO2e emissions, reflecting the consensus that deep reductions are needed to avoid radical changes to the world’s climate with great attendant risks. We conduct this analysis in the context of the IEA scenarios and, in fact, base it specifically on the Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 scenarios, which I and one other of the authors were involved in developing. The article fleshes this ETP 2012 scenario out further, showing how much of different types of fuels we might see adopted by various modes over the coming decades, in what is truly a very ambitious low-carbon pathway.

In summary, we demonstrate in this paper that to achieve transportation two-degree targets it will take very strong actions  across all transportation modes, worldwide – maximum efficiency improvement, maximum use of the most efficient modes,  and curbing demand growth. But ultimately it also will take large volumes of very low-carbon fuels.

We find that if the world does not continue to develop very low-carbon, advanced biofuels (such as cellulosic ethanol and drop-in gasoline and diesel replacement fuels), it is unlikely that we can achieve transportation targets.  There is some reason for optimism as larger advanced biofuels facilities begin to come on line in the U.S. and in other countries. But given the pace of progress so far, this is far below what will be needed.

A significant ramp up in advanced biofuel research, development, and demonstration efforts is needed—supported by policies to strongly stimulate deployment and uptake of advanced biofuels, while discouraging the “wrong” kind of biofuels: those that do not have inherently low GHG life-cycle scores or that could trigger strong indirect effects. And such policies must be consistently applied in many countries around the world in order to have a chance to reach the needed volumes.

We must be very careful to avoid stimulating production of destructive biofuels that adversely impact global land use and even elevate rather than reduce transportation CO2e emissions.  At the same time we must avoid shutting down the promising potential for advanced, low-carbon biofuels, as we seek a sustainable global future. Above all, we must redouble efforts to carefully assess and scale up the most promising technologies and pathways.

***

Photo: Switchgrass may play an important role in a sustainable biofuels future. 

*The 21^st Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—known as COP21.

**The Need for Biofuels as Part of a Low Carbon Energy Future

Lew Fulton previously wrote about biofuel innovations and advanced biofuels in a July 2014 GreenLight blog and co-authored research study.

Who’s most likely to drive an electric vehicle? An environmentally conscious consumer, many would respond. One of the key societal benefits of electric vehicles is that they produce zero tailpipe emissions and result in far fewer carbon emissions per mile travelled. This means that EVs can help mitigate the issues of climate change and urban air pollution, which arguably are some of the most prevalent issues of our time.

Indeed many studies have found that early adopters of electric vehicles cite environmental factors. Often early consumers are willing to make personal sacrifices when adopting an electric vehicle. We are all aware that the purchase price of an electric vehicle is higher than that of a gas vehicle, and that many have limited ranges, often less than 100 miles.

Not all EVs have limited range though; the Tesla Model S & Roadster are fully electric vehicles with range of 240-270 miles, have fast charge times, high performance, bold looks, luxury and high tech features. These attributes do however come at a cost, which is $70,000 to $105,000 for the Model S. This combination of benefits results in people adopting zero emission vehicles for reasons beyond environmental ones.

A study at the Plug-in Hybrid & Electric Vehicle Research Center is investigating reasons for adoption of Tesla electric vehicles. The study samples 39 Tesla adopters in hour-long interviews and is being conducted by myself a visiting scholar from the University of Birmingham with PH&EV director Tom Turrentine overseeing the project. While it is too early to draw decisive conclusions about all Tesla adopters, some interesting themes have emerged.

There were, of course, adopters whose reason for purchasing a Tesla was due to environmental concerns, or due to the positive environmental image they believe the vehicle conveyed to others. But there were more adopters who purchased a Tesla for other reasons.

The most prominent reason for purchasing a Tesla was the vehicle’s high performance, mainly its fast acceleration due to the vast amount of torque off the line. Adopters mentioned this frequently and with much enthusiasm:

“It was fast, and it was fun to drive.” 

“The Tesla has many of those performance visceral rewards, with none of the bruises of upkeep and maintenance”

Before purchasing a Tesla, adopters’ previous vehicles included a Ferrari 360, a Dodge Viper GTS, a Lotus Exige, a BMW M3 and a BMW 550i, among others.

There are also adopters whose purchase was motivated by technological reasons. Of particular note is the household with three all electric cars; a Nissan Leaf, Tesla Model S and Th!nk City. The male of this household was eager to note that he was a climate sceptic and did not believe in global climate change. He mainly liked the technology of the vehicles. Many of the other interviewees whose purchase decision was technology related worked in the Bay Area for tech companies..

“I’m a geek at heart, so I just appreciate the technology of this.”

“I’m a early adopter of all new technologies, I stayed up last night and hit buy on a Apple Watch at 12:01am.” 

Many of these performance and technology-oriented consumers indicated their purchase wasn’t environmentally motivated; the environment was not something to which they had given much thought, nor were they interested in that aspect of the car. Similar findings were presented in a recent publication by Kurani, Caperello, TyreeHageman & Davies of the PH&EV Research Center. They reported electric vehicles are not just for “Environmental Wackos” but also people who wish to save money on fuel and maintenance costs. (In contrast to Hardman’s research, their sample included owners of a wide variety of PEVs.).

Clearly, electric vehicles can appeal to people with different motivations. It is imperative, therefore, that EVs be marketed toward not just environmentally conscious consumers, but also to those with other purchase preferences, such as the technological and performance-related issues presented here.

An approach that advertises and promotes electric vehicles to a wide range of consumers with varying motivations will surely lead to increased sales. We can then all reap the rewards of reduced urban air pollution and mitigation of climate change.

A doctoral researcher at the University of Birmingham, Hardman recently completed his work as a visiting scholar at the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies. He will continue to work with PH&EV Center researchers to publish a research article, bringing together interview insights with PH&EV Center survey results, in order to understand the importance of purchase incentives for high-end electric vehicle adopters.

Can we reach very low carbon trucking by 2050?

The state of California is targeting an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 1990 levels by 2050, and recently announced its goal to reduce fossil fuel use in transportation by 40% by 2030. The U.S. federal government is also looking for new ways to reduce emissions from transport. One promising area to achieve both goals is in the tighter regulation of medium and heavy-duty trucks. A new UC Davis research study, “Strategies for Transitioning to Low-Carbon Emission Trucks in the United States,”* concludes that the trucking sector can offer significant reductions in both fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions through increased efficiency, electrification and alternative fuels. However the study cautions that achieving an 80% reduction in GHGs in the trucking sector by 2050 will be very challenging.

Anyone who drives on our major highways knows from firsthand observation: Trucks dominate freight movement in this country. Currently, trucks move 72% of the tonnage and 70% of the goods value nationwide. By 2050, truck travel is expected to increase by 80% nationally and by 50% in California.

There is no question trucks need to play an increasing role in decarbonizing transportation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently begun a process for tightening existing requirements for heavy-duty trucking fuel efficiency and CO₂-equivalent (CO₂e) reduction with its Phase 2 fuel economy standards.

Can trucks deliver deep CO₂e reductions? It’s a tall order with lots of uncertainty, but our study finds that deeply reducing the carbon footprint of trucking is possible, and could be increasingly affordable over time. However, to achieve deep reductions in truck emissions will require new types of truck engines and fuels—with policies to support their adoption.

Designed for specific and varied purposes, trucks come in many shapes and sizes, including long haul tractor trailers, urban “vocational” trucks (e.g. refuse), delivery trucks, and heavy-duty pickups. Today, the majority of these trucks, no matter their size class, rely on petroleum fuel—with a small share of some segments using natural gas. By 2050, to achieve an 80% reduction in GHG, nearly all trucks in all of these segments will need to be significantly more efficient and be powered by electricity, hydrogen (via fuel cells), or very low carbon advanced biofuels. With “drop-in” biofuel (renewable diesel), trucks can continue to use conventional diesel engines.

In our paper we develop two overarching scenarios. In the first, we show a transition to “ZEV” (zero emission vehicle) trucks, in which nearly all truck sales are either fuel cell or battery electric by 2040. In this scenario, long haul trucks, which use the most fuel of any truck type, have transitioned to almost 100% fuel cell vehicles on the road by 2050. The scenario shows a ZEV sales ramp-up starting in about 2020 and reaching 30-50% market share by 2030. If this scenario were to happen, it would be one of the fastest major changes in propulsion system in the history of transportation.

A second scenario reduces the ZEV requirements and growth rates by one-half and achieves additional GHG reductions by rapidly ramping up production and use of advanced biofuels. While the transition to ZEV trucks could start later and overall looks much more manageable in this scenario, the investments in advanced biofuels production would need to accelerate dramatically over the next 10-15 years, and their feedstocks and production pathways would need to be selected very carefully to ensure that these fuels are sustainable and that they have very low life-cycle GHG impacts.

While neither of these scenarios looks easy, both appear possible and the silver lining may be that both biofuels and ZEV trucks will probably become more affordable over time. We show that taking into account a $50/ton value of CO₂e, all of these propulsion systems and fuel options may become competitive with diesel fuel trucks by 2030. There is, however, considerable uncertainty – around costs, the rate that new truck technologies can be adopted, and the carbon intensity of fuels.

Strong policies will be needed to achieve these or similar sales scenarios and the emissions reductions they promise. Tighter federal fuel economy standards for trucks will certainly help to cut truck fuel consumption significantly and help offset truck travel growth. But to get to deep CO₂e reductions, the rapid ramp-up pathway of ZEVs is key, and this may require strong, targeted incentives or regulations. Current policies to promote biofuels also may have to be modified to better incentivize advanced, drop-in fuels. Natural gas, leading to very-low GHG renewable natural gas, is another interesting pathway but we did not consider it in detail in this study given uncertainties in the RNG pathway that are the focus of a separate research project by UC Davis.

Ultimately, while the future for trucking looks bright, the future for achieving deep GHG reductions in the trucking sector looks challenging. This study identifies some potential avenues and trajectories, considers needed policies, and estimates some of the major costs. It also identifies areas where more research is needed, since many aspects of our trucking future are uncertain.

*“Strategies for Transitioning to Low-Carbon Emission Trucks in the United States,” a white paper from the Sustainable Transportation Energy Pathways Program at UC Davis and the National Center for Sustainable Transportation.

Read the white paper.

Read the policy brief.

View a video interview of the study’s authors.

Listen to the webinar.