Developing and Assessing Investment Options for Economic, Energy, and Climate Security Gains in the United States

Pat Delaquil, Gary Goldstein, Hal Nelson, Thomas Peterson, Stephen Roe, Adam Rose, Dan Wei, Jeffery Wennberg

Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, USA.
Decision Ware Group, Annapolis, USA.
The Center for Climate Strategies, Washington DC, USA.
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/lce.2014.52004                

Abstract

Recent US data indicate a clear and progressive decoupling of carbon emissions and energy intensity from economic growth. This is primarily a consequence of state and national environmental and energy policy actions, and secondarily a result of shifts in economic structure and increases in natural gas supplies. To assess future opportunities of proactive approaches to policy and investment, we analyze 20 sector-based actions at the national and subnational levels in the US that can narrow remaining national carbon emissions gaps by 2020 and beyond, while improving economic and energy efficiency in every sector. These actions are found to provide favorable returns on investment for job creation, energy and cost savings, and multiple measures of energy security. Selection and design of these new actions are based on evaluation of hundreds of policy options derived from facilitated, stakeholder and consensus-based development of comprehensive climate action planning in 20 states. They represent top issues of focus for policymakers, and serve as key drivers for new investment, collaboration, and governance approaches that are needed to integrate economic, energy, and environmental security in the US. This same general approach to planning and analysis is of value to other nations seeking similar benefits. Techniques for comprehensive, multi-objective, fully integrated, and collaborative systems of planning and analysis are important as a means for comprehensive security solutions. This also requires leadership at all levels of government, and a broadened view of national security.

Keywords

Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, Macroeconomic Impacts, Energy System Optimization, Energy Security, Policy Design, Integrated Security Metrics System, MARKAL/TIMES

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Weyant, J. (1999) Special Issue on the Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation. Energy Journal, 21.
[2]	Barker, T., Kohler, J. and Villena, M. (2002) Costs of Greenhouse Gas Abatement: Meta-Analysis of Post-SRES Mitigation Scenarios. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 5, 135-166.
[3]	Rose, A. and Dormady, N. (2011) A Meta-Analysis of the Economic Impacts of Climate Change Policy in the United States. The Energy Journal, 32, 143-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol32-No2-6
[4]	Wennberg, J., Rose, A. and Wei, D. (2010) Impacts of Comprehensive Climate and Energy Policy Options on the US Economy. Johns Hopkins University, Center for Climate Strategies, Baltimore.
[5]	Nelson, H., von Hippel, D., Peterson, T. and Garagulagian, R. (2014) The Great Recession or Progressive Energy Policies? Explaining the Decline in US Greenhouse Gas Emissions Forecasts. Claremont Graduate University Working Paper, Claremont.
[6]	IRG (2006) Final Report on Support, Update and Improvement of USEPA MGA-MARKAL Model Database. International Resources Group, Washington DC.
[7]	ETSAP (2012) http://www.iea-etsap.org/web/index.asp
[8]	Loulou, R., Goldstein, G. and Noble, K. (2004) Documentation for the MARKAL Family of Models. International Energy Agency Energy Technology Analysis Programme (IEA-ETSAP). http://www.iea-etsap.org/web/Documentation.asp
[9]	EPA (2011) National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data. http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
[10]	Rose, A., Wei, D. and Dormady, N. (2011) Regional Macroeconomic Assessment of the Pennsylvania Climate Action Plan. Regional Science Policy and Practice, 3, 357-379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-7802.2011.01048.x
[11]	Rose, A. and Wei, D. (2012) Macroeconomic Impacts of the Florida Energy and Climate Change Action Plan. Climate Policy, 12, 50-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2011.579257
[12]	Miller, S., Wei, D. and Rose, A. (2010) The Macroeconomic Impact of the Michigan Climate Action Council Climate Action Plan on the State’s Economy. Report to Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. http://www.climatestrategies.us/ewebeditpro/items/O25F22416.pdf
[13]	Wei, D. and Rose, A. (2011) The Macroeconomic Impact of the New York Climate Action Plan: A Screening Analysis. Report to New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
[14]	CCS (2012) Macroeconomic Screening Tool. http://www.climatestrategies.us/library/library/view/986
[15]	Nelson, H., Rose, A., Wei, D., Peterson, T. and Wennberg, J. (2014) Intergovernmental Climate Change Mitigation Policy: Theory and Outcomes. Journal of Public Policy, Forthcoming.