News Releases
May 30, 2013
In the past decade, the massive expansion of China’s production and export of silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells and panels has cratered the price of those items globally, creating tension between China and the United States, and, more recently, China and the European Union. In a new study (see PDF), MIT researchers explain why these tensions could harm the broader solar industry and have spiraling effects for China-U.S. trade relations.
“China and the U.S., and China and the E.U., are in the midst of a blame game as the solar industry is on the brink of collapse — and the tensions could infect technology and commercial development globally,” says John Deutch, the lead author of the study and Institute Professor at MIT. “All the players should understand that the PV industry is globally linked, and jobs and profits are available for those who manufacture and for those who innovate. Given the complex but productive relationships, nations need to find a way to better work together rather than flirt with protectionist measures.”
Over the last decade, manufacturing of PV cells and panels expanded in China, boosting supply globally. The flood of solar panels, combined with a slipping subsidized demand for solar energy (especially in Europe), lowered the global market price to unsustainable levels, the study shows. Between 2009 and 2012, the price of crystalline silicon panels decreased from more than $2.50 per watt to less than $1 per watt, as China supplied 30 to 50 percent of U.S. PV imports.
The result? PV manufacturers globally haven’t been able to compete, Deutch and the study’s co-author, MIT professor of political science Edward Steinfeld, explain. In response, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission imposed substantial anti-dumping duties — tariffs imposed on low-priced foreign imports — on some Chinese manufacturers last November, following complaints from U.S. PV manufacturers who alleged that the Chinese were selling their products below fair market value. Around the same time, Europe issued an anti-dumping inquiry; it has also threatened to announce tariffs by June 6.
China has responded with its own allegations, also threatening to issue tariffs — this time, on the materials and technology imported to make the panels. Many of those imports come from the United States. China threatens these tariffs as its PV industry also faces trouble, according to the study: Net margins of panel suppliers in China fell to double-digit negative values in 2011 and remain there now, more than a year later. The study reports that Suntech Power Holdings — the largest PV-panel maker in the world — posted a loss of $495 million in 2012. (The company declared bankruptcy at the end of March.)
Deutch and Steinfeld explain that the two nations — China and the United States — are interdependent and form a “potentially productive global ecosystem for innovation.” When one side declines — as is happening in China, with its PV manufacturers — so will the other side, as is happening in the United States, with its technology and manufacturing tools, the study says. The researchers explain that there are opportunities for the two nations to together accelerate the worldwide deployment of solar PV for electricity generation.
“The two countries have different strengths and weaknesses,” Deutch says. “The U.S. is creating the technology and manufacturing tools and China is successfully, but not profitably, manufacturing devices based on today’s technology. If both countries look at the big picture, choose to focus on their strengths, and put aside the blame game, they have a real opportunity to boost global deployment of solar.”
Arun Majumdar, the vice president for energy at Google and former director of the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, says, “Deutch and Steinfeld’s factual and data-driven analysis shows that in the interdependent global market and supply chain of the solar industry, policies of individual governments that foster and leverage their domestic strengths to openly and fairly compete in the global market are better off in the long term to reach national goals of economic growth.”
Majumdar adds, “On the other hand, policies that distort the market via undue protectionism or disproportional investments to reach national goals could backfire and produce opposite outcomes.”
The study will become part of a larger report on the “Future of Solar,” to be released by the MIT Energy Initiative at a later date.
Researchers explore possible consequences of greater biofuel use
The growing global demand for energy, combined with a need to reduce emissions and lessen the effects of climate change, has increased focus on cleaner energy sources. But what unintended consequences could these cleaner sources have on the changing climate?
Researchers at MIT now have some answers to that question, using biofuels as a test case. Their study, recently released in Geophysical Research Letters, found that land-use changes caused by a major ramp-up in biofuel crops — enough to meet about 10 percent of the world’s energy needs — could make some regions even warmer.
“Because all actions have consequences, it’s important to consider that even well-intentioned actions can have unintended negative consequences,” says Willow Hallgren, the lead author of the study and a research associate at MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. “It’s easy to look at a new, cleaner energy source, see how it will directly improve the climate, and stop there without ever considering all the ramifications. But when attempting to mitigate climate change, there’s more to consider than simply substituting out fossil fuels for a cleaner source of energy.”
Hallgren and her colleagues explored some of those consequences in considering two scenarios: one where more forests are cleared to grow biofuel crops, and one where forests are maintained and cropland productivity is intensified through the use of fertilizers and irrigation.
In both cases, the researchers found that at a global scale, greenhouse-gas emissions increase — in the form of more carbon dioxide when CO2-absorbing forests are cut, and in the form of more nitrous oxide from fertilizers when land use is intensified. But this global warming is counterbalanced when the additional cropland reflects more sunlight, causing some cooling. Additionally, an increase in biofuels would replace some fossil fuel-based energy sources, further countering the warming.
While the effects of large-scale expansion of biofuels seem to cancel each other out globally, the study does point to significant regional impacts — in some cases, far from where the biofuel crops are grown. In the tropics, for example, clearing of rainforests would likely dry the climate and cause warming, with the Amazon Basin and central Africa potentially warming by 1.5 degrees Celsius.
This tropical warming is made worse with more deforestation, which also causes a release of carbon dioxide, further contributing to the warming of the planet. Meanwhile, Arctic regions might generally experience cooling caused by an increase in reflectivity from deforestation.
“Emphasizing changes not only globally, but also regionally, is vitally important when considering the impacts of future energy sources,” Hallgren says. “We’ve found the greatest impacts occur at a regional level.”
From these results, the researchers found that land-use policies that permit more extensive deforestation would have a larger impact on regional emissions and temperatures. Policies that protect forests would likely provide more tolerable future environmental conditions, especially in the tropics.
David McGuire, Professor of Ecology at University of Alaska Fairbanks, says these findings are important for those trying to implement mitigation policies to consider.
“Hallgren et al. caution that society needs to further consider how biofuels policies influence ecosystem services to society as understanding the full dimension of these effects should be taken into consideration before deciding on policies that lead to the implementation of biofuels programs,” McGuire says.
He finds Hallgren’s incorporation of reflectivity and energy feedbacks unique compared to similar studies on the climate impacts of biofuels.
Beyond the climate
While Hallgren focuses specifically on the climate implications of expanded use of biofuels, she admits there are many other possible consequences — such as impacts on food supplies and prices.
A group of her colleagues explored the economic side of biofuel expansion as part of a study released last year in Environmental Science & Technology — a paper that was recognized as that journal’s Best Policy Analysis Paper of 2012.
The team, led by Joint Program on Global Change co-director John Reilly, modeled feedbacks among the atmosphere, ecosystems and the global economy. They found that the combination of a carbon tax, incentives for reforestation and the addition of biofuels could nearly stabilize the climate by the end of the century; increased biofuels production alone could cut fossil-fuel use in half by 2100.
But just as Hallgren found trade-offs when she dug deeper, so did Reilly and his team of researchers.
“The environmental change avoided by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions is substantial and actually means less land used for crops,” Reilly says. This leads to substantial rises in food and forestry prices, he says, with food prices possibly rising by more than 80 percent.
Hallgren says, “There is clearly no one simple cause and effect when it comes to our climate. The impacts we see — both to the environment and the economy — from adding a large supply of biofuels to our energy system illustrate why it is so important to consider all factors so that we’ll know what we’re heading into before making a change.”
Researcher Eric Martinot presents findings of two-year project at campus event
Professor Eric Martinot, the senior research director with the Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies in Tokyo, told students and faculty at a seminar on April 18 that renewables have become “mainstream” and are “a major part of our energy system.”
Martinot just completed a two-year project entitled the Renewables Global Futures Report — a compilation of 170 face-to-face interviews conducted with industry executives, CEOs of renewable energy companies, utility leaders, government officials and researchers.
“We’re still thinking about the future of renewable energy like it’s 1990 or like it’s the year 2000,” Martinot said. “Our thinking is just behind the reality of where renewables are today and where they are going based on existing market technology, cost and finance trends.”
Martinot gave an overview of various projections and scenarios from the oil industry, the International Energy Agency (IEA) and environmental groups. The data shows that investment in renewables is a key example of the current growth and expected trajectory. Renewable energy investment is predicted to double if not by 2020, then by 2040.
“For the last three years, since 2010, global investment in renewable energy has exceeded investment in fossil fuels and nuclear power generation capacity. That’s very surprising to most people,” he said.
Despite this growth, Martinot said, “existing sources of finance are not going to enable us to reach high levels of renewables. Bank lending and utility balance sheet finance are the two major current finance mechanisms and they are going to run out.” In the future we should expect to see new sources of investment — including pension funds, oil companies and community funds.
Renewables currently supply about 20 percent of global electricity — with hydropower making up about 15 percent of that and all other renewables (wind, solar, geothermal and biomass) making up five percent. Martinot sees potential in expanding renewables to heating and cooling in the near future.
“We have all of the technologies we need right now, we don’t need to wait for technology for high shares of heating and cooling from renewables, but this is going to involve huge changes in building construction, architectural practices, building materials, the whole construction industry,” he explained. “It can take decades for all of that to change. But we can do it.”
Integration of renewables into the grid, buildings, homes and vehicles is where he sees the greatest opportunities for investment, infrastructure and research.
“Power grids have been operated and designed for the last 100 years on the basis of two things: number one, energy storage is impossible and number two, that supply has to meet demand,” he said. Because of the variability of renewables, integration and management of both storage and demand are necessary.
Martinot believes we are on the path toward combating these challenges. “We’re seeing both of those turned on their head because energy storage has become practical and is being done on a commercial basis on a number of projects. We’re also seeing the so-called ‘demand response’ where you can actually adjust demand to meet supply, rather than the other way around.”
Utilities in Denmark and Germany, for example, are using new tools to manage the variability of wind and solar and are able to switch to natural gas and heat when needed.
The building sector is another opportunity to integrate current renewable energy sources with the demands of the typical family home. Martinot described homes of the future that utilize solar power for heating and hot water, electric vehicles with batteries used by the home for power and energy storage, passive heat storage in building construction, and geothermal heat pumps to power homes.
“If you were able to standardize this type of construction in architectural practices around the world this could lower the cost and make if more common in peoples’ homes,” he said.
Martinot admitted he’s bullish about renewables and has high hopes that we can reduce carbon emissions and provide affordable energy.
His research shows that we can be optimistic about the future of renewables as governments, utilities and energy companies are expanding investment, research and development in renewable power across a variety of sectors.
Read Martinot's complete presentation.
Earth Day talk details Massachusetts’ accomplishments since the governor’s MIT speech five years ago
By: David L. Chandler
April 29, 2013
Earth Day talk details Massachusetts’ accomplishments since the governor’s MIT speech five years ago, and outlines new goals.
In an Earth Day address at MIT in 2008, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick outlined an ambitious set of goals that he said could achieve significant reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions and create businesses and jobs based on clean-energy solutions. In a follow-up talk this week, he described a series of successes in achieving these goals.
“Five years ago,” MIT President L. Rafael Reif said in introducing Patrick, the governor “delivered an inspiring challenge: He argued that the commonwealth could improve its environment and its economy by leading the way in energy efficiency and clean-energy innovation.”
In the ensuing years, Reif said, Patrick delivered on that promise: “Today, thanks to his leadership, Massachusetts ranks first in the nation in state-level energy efficiency.”
In addition, Reif said, “Harmful pollution and emissions are both declining, and clean-energy jobs are on the rise. Massachusetts has proven by example that we can have a strong economy and a healthy environment.”
Patrick said that five years ago, “We in Massachusetts took a fresh look at our energy future.” He noted that “with no oil, coal or natural gas of our own, we are at the end of the pipeline and are subject to the whims of a global energy market.”
To address that, Patrick pushed for three pieces of legislation, he said: “First, the Green Communities Act enabled us to set ambitious goals for renewable energy: 250 megawatts of solar by 2017 and 2,000 megawatts of wind by 2020.” (The commonwealth had previously produced only 3 megawatts each of solar and wind energy, he said.)
The second piece of legislation, called the Global Warming Solutions Act, set a series of goals for reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, calling for a reduction of 25 percent (from 1990 levels) by 2020, and a cut of 80 percent by 2050.
The third piece was the Green Jobs Act, aimed at “capturing the opportunities to foster innovation and create jobs,” Patrick said. Currently, 80 percent of money spent on energy in Massachusetts goes to out-of-state companies. But by creating new clean-energy businesses here, he said, “With the world in the midst of an energy revolution, we were convinced that if we got this right, the world would be our customer.”
In summarizing the outcomes of those actions, Patrick said, “I am here to report that it’s working.” For example, he said, “The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy has ranked Massachusetts the No. 1 state in energy efficiency for two consecutive years — ahead of longtime leader California.”
The governor added, “We installed more than 100 megawatts of solar power last year alone — ranking us sixth last year in total capacity added.”
Not only has this been good for the environment, but it has been good business, he said: “There are nearly 5,000 clean-energy firms in Massachusetts today, employing some 72,000 people — an impressive 11.2 percent growth in jobs in just the last year.”
There’s more in store: With the nation’s first offshore wind farm about to be built in Nantucket Sound, and a test facility for turbine blades in Charlestown, he said, “The U.S. Department of Energy projects 20,000 jobs by 2020 in offshore wind. Why not host those jobs here in Massachusetts?”
Patrick also outlined a next crucial area of environmental sustainability: “We see water innovation as the next opportunity for Massachusetts to seize,” he said. “The same concentration of brainpower in this and other world-class universities and research facilities that spawned and feeds the life sciences and high-tech revolution in Massachusetts is at the center of this next big push in water innovation.”
Although the focus of the MIT Energy Initiative-sponsored talk was Earth Day and environmental issues, Reif’s introduction also alluded to the governor’s leadership since the Boston Marathon bombing. “I believe I can speak for the entire MIT community in saying thank you for your leadership over the past 10 days,” Reif said. “It has been a terrible and confusing time, and you offered calm, clarity, sympathy and reassurance.”
Patrick noted those events also, including his attendance at Wednesday’s memorial service: “Yesterday’s tribute to Officer Sean Collier was beautiful and fitting,” he said. But, he said, despite the tragic events, “One shining remnant of this experience has been the re-emergence of a strong sense of community, the notion of common stake and common cause.”
He said that in light of that, “I am convinced that there isn’t a single challenge that we face in this state or in this country that can’t be surmounted by a renewed sense that we have a stake in each other’s dreams and struggles.”
Watch the Governor's speech here.
First workshop convened high-ranking Chinese environmental officials and experts from top government, university and research offices.
The MIT-Tsinghua China Energy and Climate Project held a workshop on Tuesday March 12 to kick off a landmark study on the impact of China’s vehicle emissions and fuel standards on energy, economic, emissions, air quality and health. The study is being supported by a grant from the Energy Foundation, which provides resources to institutions that most effectively leverage change in transitioning to a sustainable energy future. The workshop, held at Tsinghua University, was hosted by collaborators at the university’s Institute for Energy, Environment, and Economy.
“Understanding the role fuel quality standards could play in cutting China’s emissions and air pollution is crucial to the health of the communities, as well as to addressing growing urban sustainability challenges,” says Valerie Karplus, director of the MIT-Tsinghua China Project and a co-researcher for the study. “This study will provide that insight. We’re grateful to have the support of the Energy Foundation, as well as feedback from a varied stakeholder base.”
The researchers will perform a comparison of policy options for reducing transportation emissions in China. This process will begin with an analysis of China’s transport sector and an updated inventory of emissions by sector. Researchers will also identify regional air quality impacts using a regional chemical transport model and analyze the impact of various policy options on energy use, emissions, the economy and human health.
“This study will be the first to use of an integrated model – simulating travel demand, fuel use, vehicles emissions and air quality – to determine health and economic impacts of fuel policies in China,” Eri Saikawa, a professor at Emory University and the lead researcher for the study, said. “The model will be a powerful tool for assessing transport policy options currently under discussion in China.”
Throughout the project, researchers will communicate their results to policymakers through an ongoing and interactive process. The March 12th workshop was the first of several of these meetings. It brought together stakeholders from China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection and the Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau, as well as experts from Tsinghua University, Beijing University, Nanjing University, Clean Air Initiative-Asia, the International Council on Clean Transportation, the Energy Foundation, and the Health Effects Institute.
At the March 12th meeting, the stakeholders provided input on which policy questions would be of greatest interest for the study to consider and explored how the results of the study might be used within their organizations. It was decided that the research would focus on assessing the impacts of fuel quality standards and tailpipe emissions standards in China, with a focus on the potential benefits of implementing the China 6 standard, which is the toughest standard announced so far and targets deeper reductions in nitrous oxide emissions country-wide before 2020.
MIT researchers find vehicle efficiency standards are at least six times more costly than a tax on fuel.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Valerie Karplus makes her case in an op-ed in the NY Times here.
Vehicle efficiency standards have long been considered vital to cutting the United States’ oil imports. Strengthened last year with the added hope of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the standards have been advanced as a way to cut vehicle emissions in half and save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the pump. But researchers at MIT find that, compared to a gasoline tax, vehicle efficiency standards come with a steep price tag.
“Tighter vehicle efficiency standards through 2025 were seen as an important political victory. However, the standards are a clear example of how economic considerations are at odds with political considerations,” says Valerie Karplus, the lead author of the study and a researcher with the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. “If policymakers had made their decision based on the broader costs to the economy, they would have gone with the option that was least expensive – and that’s the gasoline tax.”
The study, published this week in the March edition of the journal Energy Economics, compares vehicle efficiency standards to a tax on fuel as a tool for reducing gasoline use in vehicles. The researchers found that regardless of how quickly vehicle efficiency standards are introduced, and whether or not biofuels are available, the efficiency standards are at least six times more expensive than a gasoline tax as a way to achieve a cumulative reduction in gasoline use of 20 percent through 2050. That’s because a gasoline tax provides immediate, direct incentives for reducing gasoline use, both by driving less and investing in more efficient vehicles. Perhaps a central reason why politics has trumped economic reasoning, Karplus says, is the visibility of the costs.
“A tax on gasoline has proven to be a nonstarter for many decades in the U.S., and I think one of the reasons is that it would be very visible to consumers every time they go to fill up their cars,” Karplus says. “With a vehicle efficiency standard, your costs won't increase unless you buy a new car, and even better than that, policymakers will tell you you’re actually saving money. As my colleague likes to say, you may see more money in your front pocket, but you’re actually financing the policy out of your back pocket through your tax dollars and at the point of your vehicle purchase.”
Along with being more costly, Karplus and her colleagues find that it takes longer to reduce emissions under the vehicle efficiency standards. That’s because, with more efficient vehicles, it costs less to drive, so Americans tend to drive more. Meanwhile, the standards have no direct impact on fuel used in the 230 million vehicles currently on the road. Karplus also points out that how quickly the standards are phased in can make a big difference. The sooner efficient vehicles are introduced into the fleet, the sooner fuel use decreases and the larger the cumulative decrease would be over the period considered, but the timing of the standards will also affect their cost.
The researchers also find that the effectiveness of the efficiency standards depends in part on the availability of other clean-energy technologies, such as biofuels, that offer an alternative to gasoline.
“We see the steepest jump in economic cost between efficiency standards and the gasoline tax if we assume low-cost biofuels are available,” Karplus says. “In this case, if biofuels are available, a lower gasoline tax is needed to displace the same level of fuel use over the 2010 to 2050 time frame, as biofuels provide a cost-effective way to displace gasoline above a certain price point. As a result, a lower gas tax is needed to achieve the 20 percent cumulative reduction.”
To project the impact of vehicle efficiency standards, Karplus and her colleagues improved the MIT Emissions Predictions and Policy Analysis Model that is used to help understand how different scenarios to constrain energy affect our environment and economy. For example, they represent in the model alternatives to the internal combustion engine based on the expected availability and cost of alternative fuels and technologies, as well as the dynamics of sales and scrappage that affect the composition of the vehicle fleet. Their improvements to the model were recently published in the January 2013 issue of the journal Economic Modelling.
Last month, the United Nations Environment Programme agreed on the first major environmental treaty in over a decade. Its focus was reducing mercury pollution. There to participate in the events were ten MIT students and their instructor Noelle Selin, a researcher with the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change and an assistant professor of atmospheric chemistry and engineering systems.
To share their experiences and lessons learned from witnessing international environmental policy-making in action, Selin and the students hosted a panel discussion on Wednesday, February 6.
Selin kicked off the event by describing the problem of mercury in our environment and why an international treaty was essential to curbing the environmental and public health effects. She explained that mercury levels in the Earth have increased greatly due to the burning of fossil fuels, cement production, and more. Mercury then rains down into oceans, where it contaminates fish as toxic methylmercury.
"The health risks to consumers of fish include neurological effects, particularly in the offspring of exposed pregnant women," Selin explained. “Over 300,000 newborns in the U.S. each year are at risk of learning disabilities due to their elevated mercury exposure."
Mercury is an element that cycles in the environment, meaning that once it’s released into the atmosphere it can take decades to centuries for mercury to make its way back to ocean sediments.
“This becomes a global issue, this becomes a long term issue, and thus an issue for international cooperation,” Selin said.
There were five student teams on the trip that covered topics including: governing institutions, products and processes, emissions, waste/trade/mining, and finance. A member from each team presented on their issue at the panel and shared their thoughts and observations on the international negotiation process.
Philip Wolfe, a PhD candidate in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, discussed the institutions and policy process of the negotiations. He explained that the treaty has to work on two levels: globally and domestically.
“Individual countries engage in regional, domestic, or bilateral agreements and they’ll only really sign on to a global convention if it also meets their own domestic goals,” Wolfe said.
The treaty, if nations decide to sign it, would require tightly controlling emissions – a major area of discussion during the negotiations.
Leah Stokes, PhD candidate in Environmental Policy and Planning, discussed the challenges with regulating emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and artisanal small-scale gold mining. She explained that when individuals want to mine gold and don’t have any equipment they use mercury because it binds with gold. When burned together, the mercury burns first, leaving gold behind. This process is estimated by the United Nations to be the largest global contributor of mercury emissions.
“We also come into contact with mercury through a lot of the products we use,” explained Ellen Czaika, a PhD candidate in Engineering Systems Division.
Examples of products with mercury that will be phased out under the treaty include some types of compact fluorescent light blubs, dental fillings, pesticides, thermometers, and batteries. There were important discussions at the conference about weighing the benefits of some of these products versus their mercury risks, Czaika said.
Mercury mining is another source of concern, and a major piece of the treaty. Danya Rumore, a PhD student in Environmental Policy and Planning, explained that this was expected to be a big area of contention, but an agreement was reached that gave time for a ban to come into effect over a 15-year period.
Julie van der Hoop, a PhD student in the MIT/Woods Hole Oceanographic Joint Program, followed financial and technical assistance issues at the negotiations. She discussed how the strength and effectiveness of the treaty will be shown through the technology transfer programs, a new funding mechanism for developing nations, and implementation plans.
Ultimately, she said, “We’re looking for a treaty to be effective…If you make a treaty and it’s not effective then what’s the point?”
Many of the panelists said that the treaty has relatively weak requirements, but that this is still a historic and impactful international environmental treaty. Selin recognized that it had to be an agreement that all 140 countries would be able to sign on to and that any limits on mercury will have long-term impacts because of the nature of the mercury cycle.
“This isn’t a thing that ends today,” Stokes, of Environmental Policy and Planning, said. “This is just something that keeps going and going and going. Even though we have a treaty—really, we’re going to decide everything [about implementation] at the next meeting.”
The students attended the conference as part of a National Science Foundation grant, with the idea being to train a cohort of graduate students for science policy leadership through a semester-long course and an intensive policy engagement exercise. The group had UN observer status and was able to observe all of the negotiations, breakout sessions, and meetings. The students also presented their latest scientific information about mercury through a poster presentation, and shared their experiences and observations through a blog and twitter feed.
As Massachusetts and communities throughout the country face the realities of a world where severe weather events like Super Storm Sandy could become more common, smart adaptation strategies are needed. MIT students and researchers brought their latest ideas and findings to the table at an event on January 29. The interdisciplinary group of young researchers presented to officials from the Commonwealth’s Executive Office of Energy and the Environment, in hopes that the state would be able to leverage the information for future planning and implementation.
Going forward we will need to be thinking out-off-the-box, creatively for future planning ” Massachusetts Energy Undersecretary Barbara Kates-Garnick said at the event. “So much of what you’re doing is totally relevant to what we’re working on…I’m sure that we will be back in touch."
The student showcase was part of a series of events the MIT Energy Initiative organized during the MIT independent activities period to highlight what is being done – and what needs to be done – to face the realities of a post-Sandy world.
Included in the series of events was a panel discussion on January 23 featuring Massachusetts’ officials and MIT Professors Kerry Emanuel and Michael Greenstone. Learn more about the event, and watch the video of the panel, here.
The MIT Energy Initiative also organized a tour of the MBTA’s tunnels. Participants learned what the MBTA is doing to modernize and adapt to change. Read the MIT Tech story here.
 |
 |
|
Carri Hulet, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, presented on work she and Danya Rumore are doing on the New England Climate Adaptation Collaborative. As part of the effort, she and her partners engage stakeholders in communities throughout the region to devise creative adaptation ideas. |
Sebastian Eastham, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, presented on the health impact of geoengineering strategies and the moral consequences of choosing this approach. |
 |
 |
|
Megan Lickley, Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, presented on the need to protect coastal infrastructure under rising flood risks. She measured the costs associated with adding a sea wall to protect power plants off the coast of Galveston as an example of how her research could be applied. |
Rebecca Saari, Engineering Systems Division, presented on the co-benefits of a climate policy. Her research found that current ozone health costs fall hardest on the poor, but even a modest climate policy brings improvements. |
 |
 |
|
Dr. Tammy Thompson, Center for Global Change Science, expanded on Saari’s work and went into more detail on health benefits from climate change policy options. She compared the costs and benefits of several policy options and advised that policymakers should focus on both the costs and benefits when evaluating policies. |
Chris Mackey, Department of Architecture, presented on ways to counter the heat island effect by adding vegetation and reflective roofs to cool urban microclimates. His research showed the success such strategies could have, using the city of Chicago as an example. |
 |
 |
|
Jennifer Morris, Engineering Systems Division, presented on the added costs that come when combining a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) and a cap-and-trade policy. Her research showed that an RPS shifts investment away from least-cost emission reduction options and toward specific renewable technologies that could be more costly. |
Linda Shi, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, presented on local adaptation strategies in the Philippines as examples of how poorer countries have for many years been learning to adapt. One of her conclusions, however, found that short-term adaptive behavior may worsen long-term vulnerability. |
 |
 |
|
Dr. Justin Caron, MIT Energy Initiative, presented on emissions leakage from sub-national climate initiatives using California’s new cap-and-trade system as an example. He found that energy imports from neighboring states are the main cause of this leakage. To counter this, energy importers to California are now required to pay for a permit to sell their energy within the state. |
Daniel Chavas, Department of Earth, Atmosphere and Planetary Sciences, presented on the science of hurricane size, as larger storms (such as Sandy) can cause significantly more damage than smaller storms of comparable intensity. |
Dr. Noelle Selin of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change has been selected as one of 20 Leopold Leadership Fellows for 2013. She is the first fellow to be selected from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Based at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, the Leopold Leadership Program provides outstanding academic environmental researchers with skills and approaches for communicating and working with partners in NGOs, business, government and communities to integrate science in to decision making.
Selin is among the 20 mid-career academic environmental researchers named as fellows this year. The group was selected through a highly competitive process on the basis of their exceptional scientific qualifications, demonstrated leadership ability, and strong interest in sharing their knowledge beyond traditional academic audiences. The fellows will take part in intensive leadership and communications training designed to hone their skills in engaging with decision-makers, media, and the public. They also become part of a network of past fellows and program advisors who are working with leaders, both within and outside academia, to solve society’s most pressing environmental and sustainability challenges.
The 2013 fellows are doing innovative research in a wide range of disciplines, including ecology, marine science, economics, behavioral science, entomology, engineering and planning. They join a network of 175 past fellows who areengaged in broad-based efforts to solve society’s most pressing sustainability challenges.
MIT researchers, Massachusetts officials highlight strategies to adapt to climate change.
Just days after President Obama called for action on climate change in his second inaugural address, members of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick’s administration joined energy and environment researchers at MIT to discuss strategies for adapting to climate change. The panel discussion on Jan. 23 fostered a continued partnership between MIT and the Commonwealth to advance energy and environment innovation.
“We are so pleased to have the opportunity to utilize one of the Commonwealth’s greatest intellectual resources — MIT — to tackle this global challenge,” said Massachusetts Undersecretary for Energy Barbara Kates-Garnick, the moderator of the panel.
MIT professors Kerry Emanuel and Michael Greenstone kicked off the event with a discussion on the clear realities of climate change.
“When we’re talking about global climate change, no one really cares if the temperature goes up a few degrees. On a day like today it would seem to be a good thing,” said Emanuel, the Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Atmospheric Science. “What we really care about … is the side effects of that global warming.”
Side effects include increases in sea levels of as much as three feet by the end of the century, increased incidence of heat waves and drought, and more intense rain and snow storms and hurricanes.
When asked by MIT Energy Initiative Director Ernest Moniz how long we have to prepare, Emanuel said the time scale is negative. But he pointed out that part of the problem is policies that encourage people to live and build in risky places. “People are moving into hurricane-prone regions, including right here in Massachusetts,” Emanuel said. “For these people, this is bad news.”
Emanuel's colleague, Greenstone, then laid out some of the ways to confront the challenges of climate change.
Mitigation — i.e., reducing greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the severity of climate change effects — is one course of action. But, Greenstone noted, a comprehensive mitigation strategy hasn’t generated much enthusiasm around the world. “I say that as someone who listened to the president’s inaugural and thought, ‘This is fantastic. The president is making a big effort on this,’” said Greenstone, the 3M Professor of Environmental Economics. “Unfortunately, I’m not sure everyone in the country agrees with the president, and the politics have proven to be a little harrowing.”
Like President Obama, Greenstone believes the United States should be a leader, encouraging other countries to also confront climate change. Acting through adaptation measures can complement both mitigation initiatives and funding of basic research and development for low-carbon energy sources in the United States and abroad.
Greenstone said that in addition to contributing to the science of climate change, researchers can partner with policymakers and planners to try to find successful adaptation strategies. This collaboration is important because “the playbook of successful adaptation strategies I think is rather small,” Greenstone said.
Fortunately, Massachusetts is playing a key role in developing that playbook. Two years ago, the Commonwealth released the Massachusetts Climate Change Adaptation Report, which lays out strategies to help prepare for and respond to the impacts of climate change. Stephen Estes-Smargiassi, director of planning for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), and the Department of Agricultural Resources Commissioner Gregory Watson spoke about some of their efforts.
Estes-Smargiassi used the Deer Island treatment plant as one example of their work to make adaptation part of their long-term strategy.
When the department began designing the plant in the 1990s, its engineers realized that if sea level rose, the plant's capacity would be compromised. To ensure they would have the capacity needed for the future, the MWRA decided to raise the design of the plant almost two feet. Estes-Smargiassi called this move the first significant and concrete effort at climate adaptation nationwide.
“When we’re making a renovation, we’re going to make sure climate change is a part of it. It’s built into our thinking,” Estes-Smargiassi said.
The department is also taking steps to be more efficient. Just this week, the MWRA was nationally recognized by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy and the Alliance for Water Efficiency for its exceptional efforts to save both energy and water. The MWRA’s work contributes to the Commonwealth’s overall effort to reduce emissions by 25 percent by 2020 and by at least 80 percent by 2050 below statewide 1990 emissions. Mandated by the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act of 2008, these emission reduction targets are the most ambitious in the nation.
With a third of global greenhouse gas emissions coming from the food system, Watson spoke on his department’s work. Calling large commodity-based agriculture “a thing of the past,” Watson said his department is turning to new, more sustainable techniques: composting, enriching soils with nutrients, increasing fertility with biochar (charcoal substitute made from organic material) and encouraging "grow local" campaigns.
“We’re creating a sustainable agricultural economy in Massachusetts,” Watson said. And that’s “the direction agriculture in this country is headed.”
While there are substantial efforts underway in Massachusetts, Kates-Garnick concluded the discussion by highlighting the need for continued work.
“We have a piecemeal approach. One administration leaves, another comes in. And while we may all be committed … what we really have to do now is put in place long-term consistent solutions ... I think we’re really focused on doing this in our administration,” Kates-Garnick said.
MIT researchers and Massachusetts officials will come together again next week to learn about cutting-edge strategies students are developing.
Watch the video of the event
Karplus, Paltsev recieve award for study on the impacts of vehicle efficieny stanards
Valerie Karplus, Research Scientist, and Sergey Paltsev, Assistant Director for Economic Research with MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, were awarded the 2012 Pyke Johnson Award at a ceremony last night during the annual meeting for the National Research Council's Transportation Research Board. The Pyke Johnson Award recognizes the best paper in the area of planning and the environment.
Published in November in the journal Transportation Research Record, the study looks into the new vehicle efficiency standards. The standards are considered one of the landmark environmental achievements of President Obama’s first term, and have been touted as a way to save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the pump and cut vehicle emissions in half. Karplus and Paltsev look behind the numbers to understand the full energy and economic impacts. 
“Common thinking in Washington holds that any policy that seems to advance technology without creating new taxes must be a no brainer for the country. That misses the broader economic impact,” says Karplus. “As my colleague says, you may see more money in your front pocket at the pump, but you’re financing the policy out of your back pocket through your tax dollars and at the point of your vehicle purchase.”
Of the research, University of Maine environmental economist Jonathan Rubin, chair of the Transportation Energy Committee of the Transportation Research Board, says, “The research of Dr. Karplus on the energy and climate impacts of the nation’s fuel economy standards for our cars and trucks makes an important contribution to policy-making based on science.”
The new fuel standards require automakers to install pollution-control technology to improve the fuel efficiency of cars by 5 percent and light trucks by 3.5 percent with each new model year starting in 2017. Karplus and her colleague simulated the proposed standards, and found that while drivers of these more efficient vehicles will no doubt save at the pump, they could spend several thousands of dollars more when buying their new car. Even more troubling, diverting efforts toward improved vehicle efficiency distracts attention away from policies that would target the broader economy and reduce fuel use or emissions more cost effectively, such as a carbon tax.
Estimates of how costly the policy would be – in terms of both direct costs to consumers and the larger rippling costs to the economy – hinge on the relative cost of the technology available to improve efficiency. The shorter the time frame automakers are given to develop the technology and produce more efficient vehicles, the less time there will be for technological progress and other factors to drive down costs and the more consumers will need to pay upfront. Emissions and oil imports will drop – both due to increased fuel efficiency and as the higher vehicle costs weighs on consumer budgets – but will be offset as consumers face lower costs per mile traveled, incentivizing more driving.
Karplus hopes her results will help policymakers make more informed decisions going forward. She credits that to the innovative method she used, which weaves engineering and technology constraints into a broad economic framework and allows researchers to test the cost and other impacts of a policy at different levels of stringency. This method inherently takes account of life-cycle emissions, as well as impacts that transmit across fuel markets by affecting prices. For example, a policy might only consider gasoline use by plug-in electric hybrids, but that “tailpipe measure” doesn’t take into account the emissions created from building, transporting and recharging those batteries. Her approach does.
“There are a lot of hidden costs to a policy like this,” Karplus says. “This model doesn’t allow you to ignore other important aspects of the economy and energy systems. It requires you to be explicit about your technology and cost assumptions. It provides a framework that allows lawmakers to look at all the available information on costs and the state of the technology and decide how to best create or update policies.”
Harvard, MIT researchers map future trends of mercury and ways to reduce it on eve of international negotiations. 
International negotiators will come together next week in Geneva, Switzerland for the fifth and final meeting to address global controls on mercury. Ahead of the negotiations, researchers from MIT and Harvard University are calling for aggressive emissions reductions and clear public health advice to reduce the risks of mercury.
The researchers’ commentary, published this week in the journal Environmental Health, is in response to a study on the costs associated with mercury pollution in Europe. That study showed that as many as two million children in European Union nations are born each year with long-term IQ deficits due to unsafe levels of mercury exposure. These lower IQs can have spiraling effects on the earning potential of those impacted down the road, resulting in as much as 9,000 million euros in lost revenue a year.
But the authors of the commentary, Elsie Sunderland of Harvard and Noelle Selin of MIT, say mercury’s impact — and that of its toxic form methylmercury — extends far beyond the EU.
“Mitigating the harm caused by methylmercury requires global-scale cooperation on policies and source reductions,” Sunderland says.
Fish and other species, such as polar bears, can be harmed by mercury exposure. Once entered into the food chain, this exposure harms humans. In the near term, the public health community can advise changes in seafood consumption to control the risks, the researchers say. The critical action, however, comes in making significant progress in reducing mercury emissions to prevent an even greater increase in cycling “legacy” emissions.
“Most analyses forecasting mercury levels underestimate the severity of the situation because they don’t take the entire picture into account when looking at future mercury levels,” says Selin, an assistant professor of engineering systems and atmospheric chemistry.
Selin and Sunderland explain in their commentary that most mercury exposure comes from eating fish. Coal-fired power plants and other sources such as industrial activities emit mercury to the atmosphere. This mercury eventually rains down to the land and sea. In the ocean, mercury can convert to toxic methylmercury, and accumulate in the marine food chain. Mercury pollution settles deep within the ocean and circulates for decades and even centuries, continuously posing dangers to humans and the environment.
When considering future emissions, these “legacy” emissions are often not taken into account, but should be, the researchers say, because they make up a substantial amount of future emissions and could make already-dangerous levels of mercury even more threatening.
For example, mercury in the North Pacific Ocean — a large player in the global seafood market — is expected to double by 2050, from 1995 levels, due to new emissions. With the substantial “legacy” emissions that will circle back into the atmosphere, that amount is much greater. This increase in mercury could have dire impacts on fish from the Pacific Ocean.
“Not only will we see these ‘legacy’ emissions circle back up,” Selin says. “But with energy demands growing worldwide, we’ll see more new mercury entering the atmosphere, unless we act now to control this mercury at its source — and that’s largely coal-fired power plants.”
Sunderland and Selin say the United Nations Environment Program’s negotiations represent a sure step in the right direction. The question is: Will the talks produce real results?
In an interview with MIT News just prior to the first negotiating session in 2010, Selin said U.S. domestic politics would likely be a challenge to international cooperation on mercury. But last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized Mercury and Air Toxics Standards that require coal-fired power plants to install scrubbing technology that will cut 90 percent of their mercury emissions by 2015. With these standards — now the most stringent mercury standards of their kind in the world — Selin says the country has proven its leadership and provided some hope.
“These standards show that the U.S. is taking leadership at home to address a widespread and substantial global problem,” Selin says.
Selin, along with ten MIT graduate students, will present recent scientific results to negotiators in Geneva next week.