ArticlePublisher preview available

The surprisingly inexpensive cost of state-driven emission control strategies

DOI:10.1038/s41558-021-01128-0
Authors:
Wei Peng at Pennsylvania State University
Wei Peng
Gokul Iyer at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Gokul Iyer
Matthew Binsted
Matthew Binsted
Matthew Binsted
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Jennifer R Marlon at Yale University
Jennifer R Marlon
Show all 7 authorsHide
Read publisher preview
Download citation
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract and Figures

Traditionally, analysis of the costs of cutting greenhouse gas emissions has assumed that governments would implement idealized, optimal policies such as uniform economy-wide carbon taxes. Yet actual policies in the real world, especially in large federal governments, are often highly heterogeneous and vary in political support and administrative capabilities within a country. While the benefits of heterogeneous action have been discussed widely for experimentation and leadership, little is known about its costs. Focusing on the United States, we represent plausible variation (by more than a factor of 3) in the stringency of state-led climate policy in a process-based integrated assessment model (GCAM-USA). For a wide array of national decarbonization targets, we find that the nationwide cost from heterogeneous subnational policies is only one-tenth higher than nationally uniform policies. Such results hinge on two critical technologies (advanced biofuels and electricity) for which inter-state trade ameliorates the economic efficiencies that might arise with heterogeneous action.
Reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions for four levels of national mitigation efforts under two subnational policy approaches Here we show the reduction in CO2 emissions in 2050 relative to 2005. The first and second rows show the results under the uniform and heterogeneous approach, respectively. Different colors of the bars show the mitigation in different economic sectors. The white numbers represent the percent contribution of electricity sector to total CO2 mitigation. Low, Medium and High represents the low-, medium-, and high-supporting states, respectively.
Reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions for four levels of national mitigation efforts under two subnational policy approaches Here we show the reduction in CO2 emissions in 2050 relative to 2005. The first and second rows show the results under the uniform and heterogeneous approach, respectively. Different colors of the bars show the mitigation in different economic sectors. The white numbers represent the percent contribution of electricity sector to total CO2 mitigation. Low, Medium and High represents the low-, medium-, and high-supporting states, respectively.
… 
Net electricity trade in 2050 for 15 grid regions a, ‘80% Uniform’: 80% national decarbonization with the uniform approach; b, ‘80% Heterogeneous’: 80% national decarbonization with the heterogeneous approach; c, Changes in ‘80% Heterogeneous’ relative to ‘80% Uniform’. For a) and b), the background colors represent the net electricity export from a grid region (orange) or the net import into a grid region (blue). The electricity transmission patterns remain largely the same under these two subnational policy approaches. For c), the background colors represent the absolute differences in net electricity export (that is, generation minus demand) between these two approaches. The black numbers show the percent differences: the positive numbers indicate that a net exporting (importing) grid in “80% Uniform” further increases its export (import) in “80% Heterogeneous”, while the negative numbers indicate that a net exporting (importing) grid in “80% Uniform” reduces its export (import) in “80% Heterogeneous”. In other words, 13 out of the 15 grids increase their electricity trade with other grids under the Heterogeneous approach. The 15 electricity grid regions are presented in Supplementary Fig. 5.
Net electricity trade in 2050 for 15 grid regions a, ‘80% Uniform’: 80% national decarbonization with the uniform approach; b, ‘80% Heterogeneous’: 80% national decarbonization with the heterogeneous approach; c, Changes in ‘80% Heterogeneous’ relative to ‘80% Uniform’. For a) and b), the background colors represent the net electricity export from a grid region (orange) or the net import into a grid region (blue). The electricity transmission patterns remain largely the same under these two subnational policy approaches. For c), the background colors represent the absolute differences in net electricity export (that is, generation minus demand) between these two approaches. The black numbers show the percent differences: the positive numbers indicate that a net exporting (importing) grid in “80% Uniform” further increases its export (import) in “80% Heterogeneous”, while the negative numbers indicate that a net exporting (importing) grid in “80% Uniform” reduces its export (import) in “80% Heterogeneous”. In other words, 13 out of the 15 grids increase their electricity trade with other grids under the Heterogeneous approach. The 15 electricity grid regions are presented in Supplementary Fig. 5.
… 
CO2 sequestration by bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) technology in 2050 a, Total CO2 sequestration from BECCS; b, CO2 sequestration from BECCS for bioliquids production; c, CO2 sequestration from BECCS for electricity production. 20%-80% represent the levels of national mitigation effort. ‘U’ and ‘H’ represent Uniform and Heterogeneous policy approaches, respectively. Low, Medium and High represent low-, medium-, and high-supporting states.
CO2 sequestration by bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) technology in 2050 a, Total CO2 sequestration from BECCS; b, CO2 sequestration from BECCS for bioliquids production; c, CO2 sequestration from BECCS for electricity production. 20%-80% represent the levels of national mitigation effort. ‘U’ and ‘H’ represent Uniform and Heterogeneous policy approaches, respectively. Low, Medium and High represent low-, medium-, and high-supporting states.
… 
Variations in state-level carbon intensity and mitigation costs to achieve 80% decarbonization nationally a, Carbon intensity in 2015; b, Reduction in carbon intensity in 2050 relative to 2015, to achieve 80% national decarbonization with uniform or heterogeneous approach; c, Mitigation cost in 2050 as a fraction of 2050 GDP, to achieve 80% national decarbonization with uniform or heterogeneous approach. All economic values are presented in US$2015.
Variations in state-level carbon intensity and mitigation costs to achieve 80% decarbonization nationally a, Carbon intensity in 2015; b, Reduction in carbon intensity in 2050 relative to 2015, to achieve 80% national decarbonization with uniform or heterogeneous approach; c, Mitigation cost in 2050 as a fraction of 2050 GDP, to achieve 80% national decarbonization with uniform or heterogeneous approach. All economic values are presented in US$2015.
… 
Carbon mitigation costs for four levels of national mitigation efforts under alternative formations of policy heterogeneity Here we show the carbon mitigation cost in 2050 as a fraction of projected 2050 GDP, by three groups of states (low, medium and high-supporting states). ‘Uni’ stands for the uniform approach. Het, Het (Gov), Het (LN), Het (+range), Het (3 zero), Het (5 zero) and Het (AP) represent different heterogeneous approaches with detailed description in the Sensitivity Analysis section and Supplementary Methods. The inserted figure shows the contribution by low-, medium-, and high-supporting states to national total CO2 emissions in 2016⁵⁰.
+7
Carbon mitigation costs for four levels of national mitigation efforts under alternative formations of policy heterogeneity Here we show the carbon mitigation cost in 2050 as a fraction of projected 2050 GDP, by three groups of states (low, medium and high-supporting states). ‘Uni’ stands for the uniform approach. Het, Het (Gov), Het (LN), Het (+range), Het (3 zero), Het (5 zero) and Het (AP) represent different heterogeneous approaches with detailed description in the Sensitivity Analysis section and Supplementary Methods. The inserted figure shows the contribution by low-, medium-, and high-supporting states to national total CO2 emissions in 2016⁵⁰.
… 
Figures - available from: Nature Climate Change
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
  • A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
  • Learn more
Preview content only
Content available from Nature Climate Change
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Articles
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01128-0
1School of International Affairs and Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA. 2Joint
Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, College Park, MD, USA. 3School of the Environment, Yale Program on Climate
Change Communication, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. 4Center for Global Sustainability, School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, College
Park, MD, USA. 5School of Global Policy and Strategy, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 6Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 7Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Jacobs School of Engineering, University of California San
Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 8The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, USA. ✉e-mail: weipeng@psu.edu
As governments get serious about decarbonization, politi-
cal leaders in large and politically diverse countries need to
grapple with huge variations in political and administrative
feasibility within their countries. That heterogeneity in interests and
capabilities has led many federal governments to encourage or tol-
erate large internal variations in policy effort. Diverse studies have
pointed to the benefits of heterogeneous approaches for experimen-
tation and learning1–4. Yet these realities in climate politics have
not been well represented in leading modelling frameworks, which
typically assume nationally uniform policy efforts5–8. This gap in
modelling work also reflects the widely held assumption by poli-
cymakers that heterogeneous subnational policy efforts will be a lot
more costly than nationally uniform efforts9.
To assess the potential increase in cost from heterogeneous
subnational policy formation compared with theorized opti-
mal uniform nationwide policy, we study the case of the United
States. The United States is the world’s second largest emitter and
already displays one of the world’s largest variations in subna-
tional action. Bottom-up coalitions, such as the ‘America is All In’
initiative, have gathered thousands of signatories from political
leaders in cities, states, companies and universities that represent
a constituency of more than half the U.S. population10. More than
30 states have completed state-level climate action plans, or are
in the process of developing one11. Nearly 40 states have created
renewable portfolio standards or voluntary renewable energy
goals to facilitate low-carbon transition12. Meanwhile, some states
are making limited effort and are under no sustained public pres-
sure to strengthen it.
Here we focus on heterogeneity in the stringency of policy efforts
made by each state. For ease, we will represent those policy efforts
as state-varying prices on carbon, although in practice no enterprise
uses only simple price instruments—a variety of other mechanisms,
such as renewable portfolio standards, low-carbon fuel standards
and industrial policies are the norm13,14. Our approach, by design,
allows us to assess the long-term dynamics that arise when states
vary in their willingness to act and when the country, as a whole,
varies the national decarbonization targets it might pursue. We see
this long-term view of heterogeneity in action as a complement to
studies that have focused on much nearer-term policy heterogene-
ity and thus been able to look more granularly at specific policy
instruments15. (See Supplementary Note2 for a comparison with
America’s Pledge study that examines nearer-term policies13.)
Methodologically, we employ a process-based integrated assess-
ment model (IAM): the Global Change Assessment Model with
state-level detail in the United States (GCAM-USA; Methods)16.
It includes detailed representation of sectoral and technology
options, as well as the interactions between the economic, energy
and land-use systems. These representations allow us to assess the
deployment trajectories of critical technologies in each state, the
competition between different technologies in various sectors and
the impacts of varying cost and policy assumptions on infrastruc-
ture investments across space and time. Our analysis hence goes
beyond prior studies based on simpler economic models17–19 by
identifying critical sectors, technologies and processes that deter-
mine the cost of heterogeneous policy efforts.
Scenario design
We examine 12 mitigation scenarios that vary across two dimensions:
i. National mitigation eort, measured by four targets of nation-
al total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for 2050 (for exam-
ple, 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% below 2005 levels; Supplementary
Fig.1). We also include a 95% decarbonization target as a sen-
sitivity analysis, which is close to the net-zero emissions target
set by the Biden Administration (Supplementary Fig. 7).
The surprisingly inexpensive cost of state-driven
emission control strategies
Wei Peng 1 ✉ , Gokul Iyer 2, Matthew Binsted 2, Jennifer Marlon 3, Leon Clarke4,
James A. Edmonds 2 and David G. Victor 5,6,7,8
Traditionally, analysis of the costs of cutting greenhouse gas emissions has assumed that governments would implement ideal-
ized, optimal policies such as uniform economy-wide carbon taxes. Yet actual policies in the real world, especially in large fed-
eral governments, are often highly heterogeneous and vary in political support and administrative capabilities within a country.
While the benefits of heterogeneous action have been discussed widely for experimentation and leadership, little is known
about its costs. Focusing on the United States, we represent plausible variation (by more than a factor of 3) in the stringency of
state-led climate policy in a process-based integrated assessment model (GCAM-USA). For a wide array of national decarbon-
ization targets, we find that the nationwide cost from heterogeneous subnational policies is only one-tenth higher than nation-
ally uniform policies. Such results hinge on two critical technologies (advanced biofuels and electricity) for which inter-state
trade ameliorates the economic efficiencies that might arise with heterogeneous action.
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 11 | SEPTEMBER 2021 | 738–745 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange
738
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
... These choices involve critical trade-offs: the most economically efficient strategy may be politically infeasible 2 , the fairest may be expensive 3 and letting each country choose its own policy may compromise the global targets. Writing in Nature Climate Change, Wei Peng and colleagues 4 show that allowing individual states in the United States to have their own climate policies does not make achieving national climate targets considerably more expensive than a uniform national policy. ...
... Climate strategies should strike a tricky balance between efficiency, fairness and sovereignty 3 . Peng et al. 4 demonstrate a novel way to operationalize 'sovereignty' in an IAM based on empirical data on public support for climate action. They also show that in the case of the United States, sovereignty does not necessarily impede efficiency. ...
Cost of non-uniform climate policies
Article
  • Aug 2021
Economically optimal climate strategies may be politically less feasible because they need strong collective action. Fortunately, achieving climate goals through more realistic differentiated policies may not be much more expensive.
The climate advocacy gap
Article
  • Jun 2022
Quantification of an efficiency–sovereignty trade-off in climate policy
Article
Full-text available
The Paris Agreement calls for a cooperative response with the aim of limiting global warming to well below two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels while reaffirming the principles of equity and common, but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities¹. Although the goal is clear, the approach required to achieve it is not. Cap-and-trade policies using uniform carbon prices could produce cost-effective reductions of global carbon emissions, but tend to impose relatively high mitigation costs on developing and emerging economies. Huge international financial transfers are required to complement cap-and-trade to achieve equal sharing of effort, defined as an equal distribution of mitigation costs as a share of income2,3, and therefore the cap-and-trade policy is often perceived as infringing on national sovereignty2–7. Here we show that a strategy of international financial transfers guided by moderate deviations from uniform carbon pricing could achieve the goal without straining either the economies or sovereignty of nations. We use the integrated assessment model REMIND–MAgPIE to analyse alternative policies: financial transfers in uniform carbon pricing systems, differentiated carbon pricing in the absence of financial transfers, or a hybrid combining financial transfers and differentiated carbon prices. Under uniform carbon prices, a present value of international financial transfers of 4.4 trillion US dollars over the next 80 years to 2100 would be required to equalize effort. By contrast, achieving equal effort without financial transfers requires carbon prices in advanced countries to exceed those in developing countries by a factor of more than 100, leading to efficiency losses of 2.6 trillion US dollars. Hybrid solutions reveal a strongly nonlinear trade-off between cost efficiency and sovereignty: moderate deviations from uniform carbon prices strongly reduce financial transfers at relatively small efficiency losses and moderate financial transfers substantially reduce inefficiencies by narrowing the carbon price spread. We also identify risks and adverse consequences of carbon price differentiation due to market distortions that can undermine environmental sustainability targets8,9. Quantifying the advantages and risks of carbon price differentiation provides insight into climate and sector-specific policy mixes.
Fusing subnational with national climate action is central to decarbonization: the case of the United States
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2020
Approaches that root national climate strategies in local actions will be essential for all countries as they develop new nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement. The potential impact of climate action from non-national actors in delivering higher global ambition is significant. Sub-national action in the United States provides a test for how such actions can accelerate emissions reductions. We aggregated U.S. state, city, and business commitments within an integrated assessment model to assess how a national climate strategy can be built upon non-state actions. We find that existing commitments alone could reduce emissions 25% below 2005 levels by 2030, and that enhancing actions by these actors could reduce emissions up to 37%. We show how these actions can provide a stepped-up basis for additional federal action to reduce emissions by 49%—consistent with 1.5 °C. Our analysis demonstrates sub-national actions can lead to substantial reductions and support increased national action.
GCAM v5.1: Representing the linkages between energy, water, land, climate, and economic systems
Article
Full-text available
This paper describes GCAM v5.1, an open source model that represents the linkages between energy, water, land, climate, and economic systems. GCAM is a market equilibrium model, is global in scope, and operates from 1990 to 2100 in 5-year time steps. It can be used to examine, for example, how changes in population, income, or technology cost might alter crop production, energy demand, or water withdrawals, or how changes in one region's demand for energy affect energy, water, and land in other regions. This paper describes the model, including its assumptions, inputs, and outputs. We then use 11 scenarios, varying the socioeconomic and climate policy assumptions, to illustrate the results from the model. The resulting scenarios demonstrate a wide range of potential future energy, water, and land uses. We compare the results from GCAM v5.1 to historical data and to future scenario simulations from earlier versions of GCAM and from other models. Finally, we provide information on how to obtain the model.
Energy investment needs for fulfilling the Paris Agreement and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals
Article
Full-text available
Low-carbon investments are necessary for driving the energy system transformation that is called for by both the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals. Improving understanding of the scale and nature of these investments under diverging technology and policy futures is therefore of great importance to decision makers. Here, using six global modelling frameworks, we show that the pronounced reallocation of the investment portfolio required to transform the energy system will not be initiated by the current suite of countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions. Charting a course toward ‘well below 2 °C’ instead sees low-carbon investments overtaking fossil investments globally by around 2025 or before and growing thereafter. Pursuing the 1.5 °C target demands a marked upscaling in low-carbon capital beyond that of a 2 °C-consistent future. Actions consistent with an energy transformation would increase the costs of achieving the goals of energy access and food security, but reduce the costs of achieving air-quality goals.
Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects
Article
Full-text available
The most recent IPCC assessment has shown an important role for negative emissions technologies (NETs) in limiting global warming to 2 °C cost-effectively. However, a bottom-up, systematic, reproducible, and transparent literature assessment of the different options to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is currently missing. In part 1 of this three-part review on NETs, we assemble a comprehensive set of the relevant literature so far published, focusing on seven technologies: bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), afforestation and reforestation, direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS), enhanced weathering, ocean fertilisation, biochar, and soil carbon sequestration. In this part, part 2 of the review, we present estimates of costs, potentials, and side-effects for these technologies, and qualify them with the authors' assessment. Part 3 reviews the innovation and scaling challenges that must be addressed to realise NETs deployment as a viable climate mitigation strategy. Based on a systematic review of the literature, our best estimates for sustainable global NET potentials in 2050 are 0.5–3.6 GtCO2 yr⁻¹ for afforestation and reforestation, 0.5–5 GtCO2 yr⁻¹ for BECCS, 0.5–2 GtCO2 yr⁻¹ for biochar, 2–4 GtCO2 yr⁻¹ for enhanced weathering, 0.5–5 GtCO2 yr⁻¹ for DACCS, and up to 5 GtCO2 yr⁻¹ for soil carbon sequestration. Costs vary widely across the technologies, as do their permanency and cumulative potentials beyond 2050. It is unlikely that a single NET will be able to sustainably meet the rates of carbon uptake described in integrated assessment pathways consistent with 1.5 °C of global warming.
Near-term deployment of carbon capture and sequestration from biorefineries in the United States
Article
Full-text available
  • Apr 2018
Capture and permanent geologic sequestration of biogenic CO2 emissions may provide critical flexibility in ambitious climate change mitigation. However, most bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS) technologies are technically immature or commercially unavailable. Here, we evaluate low-cost, commercially ready CO2 capture opportunities for existing ethanol biorefineries in the United States. The analysis combines process engineering, spatial optimization, and lifecycle assessment to consider the technical, economic, and institutional feasibility of near-term carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Our modeling framework evaluates least cost source-sink relationships and aggregation opportunities for pipeline transport, which can cost-effectively transport small CO2 volumes to suitable sequestration sites; 216 existing US biorefineries emit 45 Mt CO2 annually from fermentation, of which 60% could be captured and compressed for pipeline transport for under $25/tCO2 A sequestration credit, analogous to existing CCS tax credits, of $60/tCO2 could incent 30 Mt of sequestration and 6,900 km of pipeline infrastructure across the United States. Similarly, a carbon abatement credit, analogous to existing tradeable CO2 credits, of $90/tCO2 can incent 38 Mt of abatement. Aggregation of CO2 sources enables cost-effective long-distance pipeline transport to distant sequestration sites. Financial incentives under the low-carbon fuel standard in California and recent revisions to existing federal tax credits suggest a substantial near-term opportunity to permanently sequester biogenic CO2 This financial opportunity could catalyze the growth of carbon capture, transport, and sequestration; improve the lifecycle impacts of conventional biofuels; support development of carbon-negative fuels; and help fulfill the mandates of low-carbon fuel policies across the United States.
Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C
Article
Full-text available
The 2015 Paris Agreement calls for countries to pursue efforts to limit global-mean temperature rise to 1.5 °C. The transition pathways that can meet such a target have not, however, been extensively explored. Here we describe scenarios that limit end-of-century radiative forcing to 1.9 W/ m2, and consequently restrict median warming in the year 2100 to below 1.5 °C. We use six integrated assessment models and a simple climate model, under different socio-economic, technological and resource assumptions from five Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs). Some, but not all, SSPs are amenable to pathways to 1.5 °C. Successful 1.9 W /m2 scenarios are characterized by a rapid shift away from traditional fossil-fuel use towards large-scale low-carbon energy supplies, reduced energy use, and carbon-dioxide removal. However, 1.9 W /m2 scenarios could not be achieved in several models under SSPs with strong inequalities, high baseline fossil-fuel use, or scattered short-term climate policy. Further research can help policy-makers to understand the real-world implications of these scenarios.
Turning Paris into reality at the University of California
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2018
The Paris Agreement highlights the need for local climate leadership. The University Of California’s approach to deep decarbonization offers lessons in efficiency, alternative fuels and electrification. Bending the emissions curve globally requires efforts that blend academic insights with practical solutions.
The importance of salience: Public opinion and state policy action on climate change
Article
  • Oct 2018
How does the salience of environmental issues influence climate policy adoption in the American states? This article considers how two aspects of public salience, issue problem status and issue attention, work with environmental interest group membership to influence climate policy adoption in the American states. We contribute to the theoretical development of issue salience and offer alternative measures that capture differences in salience across subnational units. We find evidence that states where climate change is perceived to be a problem, and where attention to environmental issues is high, are more likely to adopt relevant policies. Furthermore, states with Republican majorities in either legislative chamber are less likely to adopt climate policies. Our findings have implications for the impact of salience on the policy process.
Coupling national and global models to explore policy impacts of NDCs
Article
Since the official submission of the National Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris agreement framework , a set of studies attempted to assess the energy and economic impacts on NDCs by using large-scale energy-economy models, both at the national and global level. This paper presents a novel approach to quantify policy impacts of NDCs, by combining a set of technology-rich country-level models for major economies with an economy-wide global CGE model. The methodology enhances the credibility of global model-based scenarios, by complementing it with detailed representation of country-level policy priorities and structural heterogeneities, captured by national-level models. It also improves the consistency between national short-to-medium term policy plans with global long-term climate objectives. Results indicate that energy efficiency improvements and increased penetration of RES are the main contributors to emission reduction induced by NDCs. The role of emission reduction options differentiates by country, depending on national socioeconomic objectives, energy resource endowment and climate policy ambition. The Paris pledges are found to be consistent with robust economic growth both in developed and in emerging economies. NDCs result in a more labour-intensive economy driven by RES expansion, while major clean energy manufacturers (EU, China) have the potential to improve their balance of trade.