News Releases

MIT researchers have built a model that will be further developed as part of an NSF-funded project to track how chemicals get to remote Arctic environments.

By: Vicki Ekstrom

Listen to researcher Noelle Selin on Alaska's KNOM radio here (segment begins at 3m 42s)

It's been more than a decade since global leaders met in Stockholm, Sweden, to sign a treaty with the goal of eliminating persistent organic pollutants making their way into our food chain — such as harmful pesticides like DDT that nearly wiped out the American Bald Eagle. While leaders have come a long way in restricting these types of pollutants, contamination of the Arctic remains a problem. Researchers at MIT are working to help inform policies that more effectively address contamination problems with their latest research and the help of a new grant from the National Science Foundation.

"Persistent organic pollutants are chemicals of substantial international concern," Noelle Selin, the project's lead researcher and assistant professor in MIT's Engineering Systems Division and Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, says. "For emerging contaminants in the Arctic, we need to know more about their sources, environmental behavior, and transport pathways in order to regulate them more effectively."

Selin and Carey Friedman, a postdoctoral associate at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, had their latest results published last week in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. The study, Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: A Global 3-D Model Analysis Including Evaluation of Arctic Sources, describes the researchers' development of a detailed 3-D atmospheric model used to track the day-to-day transport of chemicals. Specifically, they tracked PAHs — toxic byproducts of burning wood, coal, oil and other forms of energy that remain in the atmosphere for less time than other persistent organic pollutants regulated by global standards.

"Even though our model estimates lifetimes less than a day, that's still long enough for these PAHs to travel long distances and have potentially damaging effects," says Friedman, the study's lead author, noting that some of these chemicals are known carcinogens that could cause cancer. "So PAHs may be a good case study of how we regulate long-range transport."

Friedman's work will be an important foundation for ongoing work in Selin's research group at MIT, in collaboration with the University of Rhode Island and the Harvard School of Public Health. Together the researchers will be exploring the global transport of other contaminants in the Arctic, such as chemicals used in stain-resistant carpets and non-stick pans. In research going forward, Selin and her team will extend the model created in their recent analysis that allows them to track chemicals with much greater precision.

"These more complex models are showing what simple models aren't, such as daily fluctuations of pollutants in specific locations," Friedman says. "So while the simple models are important for some aspects of the policy process, they may not provide enough information to base these types of important decisions off of."

The presence of these pollutants in the Arctic is important for several reasons. First, the researchers say there's a very real health concern. Organic pollutants typically condense and rain down into Arctic regions. Once they mix with other chemicals, it's unknown what danger they could pose to animals and humans, especially in concert with climate change stressors in the Arctic. Already, these chemicals are known to build up in the fat of whales, seals and other animals — a main source of food for people living in these high latitude regions.

At the same time, the practices that create some of these chemicals such as gas and oil exploration and shipping are expected to increase in the Arctic. As they do, it's important to understand how pollutants traveling from distant sources exacerbate the problem, and how climate changes can affect future contamination.

"Climate change and contaminants are both substantial present and future threats to the Arctic, and our research can ultimately help leaders make better policies to protect this unique environment," Selin says.

The inescapable importance of China to global energy and climate efforts has compelled the Joint Program—in collaboration with Tsinghua University—to launch a special research effort called the China Energy and Climate Project.

 A growing population and rapid development will put a strain on land used to grow food over this century. But if reforestation is used to avoid climate change it will create further strain, says a new MIT study.

It’s no surprise that the United States and China are the world’s top greenhouse-gas emitters. What may be surprising is the country that ranks third in the lineup: Indonesia. Indonesia is a major culprit not because of its traffic or power plants, but because of its massive deforestation.

Deforestation accounts for almost 20 percent of global emissions—more than the world’s entire transportation sector. But saving the trees—as beneficial as it would be to the changing climate — comes at a significant cost as a growing, wealthier population competes for food, says a new MIT study.

“With a larger and wealthier population, both energy and food demand will grow,” says John Reilly, the lead author of the study and the co-director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. “Absent controls on greenhouse gases, we will see more emissions from fossil-fuel use and from land-use change. The resulting environmental change can reduce crop yields, and require even more land for crops. So this could become a vicious circle.”

The Reilly et al. study, recently published in Environmental Science & Technology, compares the effects of slashing emissions from energy sources alone to a strategy that also incorporates emissions associated with land use.

The report finds that, with a growing global population, fast-developing nations, and increasing agricultural productivity and energy use, the world is on the path to seeing average temperatures rise by as much as 6 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Even with an aggressive global tax on energy emissions, the planet will not be able to limit this warming to 2 degrees Celsius—the target world leaders have agreed is needed to avoid dangerous climate change. But when the tax is applied to land-use emissions, the world community could come much closer, with temperatures by the year 2100 rising 2.4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

To go one step further in reducing emissions the study incorporates biofuels production, which could increase carbon storage on land and be a cleaner source of energy, lessening the use of fossil fuels. The researchers find that increased biofuels production could cut fossil-fuel use in half by the end of the century—from 80 percent of energy without a tax to 40 percent with a tax—and further limit warming to bring the world just shy of the target.

The world could get even closer to the target, the study shows, by creating economic incentives for storing carbon on land—such as through reforestation. In combination with the global carbon tax, this could “bring the world closer to keeping warming below the 2 degree Celsius temperature,” Reilly says.

But there are always drawbacks.

“The environmental change avoided by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions is substantial and actually means less land used for crops,” Reilly says. “The big tradeoff is that diverting this amount of land to carbon storage, and using land to produce biofuels, leads to substantial rises in food and forestry prices.”

Food prices could rise more than 80 percent, the study shows. Along with this, nations could become wealthier, with global GDP increasing fivefold. On average, the share of a household’s budget for food, even with higher prices, might fall from 15 percent to 7 percent. But for poorer regions of the world, the food budget share could increase, meaning these food price impacts could have disproportionate effects on poorer regions.

Food shortages and higher food prices are becoming a major challenge, according to Jonathan Foley, director of the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment, who spoke at a recent MIT event.

“In the last 20 years we’ve produced 28 percent more crops. But in the next 38 years, we need to double that growth,” Foley said. “We’re not going to grow our way out of the problem … we must look at other possibilities.”

An advocate of ending deforestation, Foley said we need to grow food more efficiently.

Reilly agrees, and says his study puts an emphasis on more effective use of land to produce food. Part of this means more efficient (intensive) use of pasture and grazing land. But, he says, the carbon tax scenarios he tests make the problem that much more difficult—with biofuels and carbon sequestration using up more land.

“And with all three of these demands for land—food, biofuels and carbon storage—the competition is intense, and as a result, food prices rise. So this is an important tradeoff the world needs to consider.”

In his first State of the Union address, President Barack Obama set a goal for 80 percent of America's electricity to come from clean energy. Last week, the release of the Renewable Electricity Future study by the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) confirms that reaching this goal by 2050 is very possible. But what impact would clean energy have on another key ingredient to daily life: clean water? Researchers at MIT helped answer that question in NREL's report.

The MIT research—Modeling Water Withdrawal and Consumption for Electricity Generation in the United States—is a compilation of the water segment of the Renewable Electricity Future study. In it, the researchers find that as solar panels, wind turbines and other sources of non-thermal renewable energy replace coal, gas and similar thermal powerplants, the use of water to cool those powerplants will decrease by about half.

"The most important use of water for electricity production is for cooling," says Adam Schlosser, an author of the study and the assistant director for science research at MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. "The benefit of renewables like wind or solar is that you don't need to boil water for steam to spin the turbines, and then you don't need water to cool the steam. That cooling process is removed, saving a lot of water."

This is good news for water-stressed regions, including much of the western United States, as production of electrical power results in one of the largest uses of water in the nation. A 2005 report by the U.S. Geological Survey found that about 201,000 million gallons of water each day were used to produce electricity, with much of this water going toward keeping powerplants cool.

While most Americans will use less water when powering their homes with renewable energy, the MIT researchers did find that areas that switch to thermal renewable technologies might end up using more water. Biomass energy, being produced mostly in the northwestern United States, is one strong example, the study finds.

"Biomass is obviously contributing to the carbon aspect of the overall problem," Schlosser says, "But it's actually exacerbating an already water-stressed situation because you not only need water to grow it, you also need water to cool the thermal electricity generation process."

Schlosser compares this to concentrated solar technology being used in the southwest, which typically relies on a dry cooling system where fans are used instead of water.

"Solar technology really benefits the southwest because it uses a resource that's so plentiful in that region—the sun—and doesn't use a resource that there is very little of—water," Schlosser says.

But Schlosser explains that the dry cooling technology—while an obvious choice for the drought-stricken southwestern United States because it uses 90 percent less water—is less efficient and more expensive because the electric plant would need to use electricity to run large fans that force air through the heat-exchange process. This explains why areas where water scarcity is more subtle would choose to stick to water cooling technologies in thermal electricity generation.

Along with using less water, the Renewable Electricity Future study finds that greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by about 80 percent, potentially offering significant public health benefits. The National Research Council estimated that in 2005, air pollution emissions from coal powerplants cost $32 per megawatt of energy in public health damages, the report notes, suggesting that the health cost benefits could counterbalance the costs to build clean energy infrastructure.


RELATED - Union of Concerned Scientists Webinar

Three Questions with Research Scientist Sebastian Rausch
 

As global leaders prepare to gather for the Rio+20 sustainable development summit in Brazil next week, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and a collection of economists from MIT and other organizations has released a report to help leaders confront the price tag associated with climate change. The publication— Fiscal Policy to Mitigate Climate Change: A Guide for Policymakers—details the most effective methods to reduce emissions and contain costs, namely through carbon pricing.

Until now, leaders have focused on slowing warming to 2 degrees Celsius to prevent catastrophic changes associated with climate change. Because this would mean taking drastic measures to hold emissions at about today's levels, researchers at MIT argue that leaders should be realistic and start smaller because the time to act is quickly running out. Their research—Emissions Pricing to Stabilize Global Climate—is a chapter within the IMF guide.

“Negotiations on the exact emission reduction target have been going on for a long time without much substantial progress,” says Sergey Paltsev, lead author of the MIT study and associate director for economic research at the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. “But it is better to start with some policy that reduces emissions because even a small initial step is important as it sets the process on track.”

IMF’s Managing Director Christine Lagarde points to a tax or trade system.

“Perhaps we can help with a simple concept that everybody can understand—getting the prices right,” Lagarde said in a speech at the Center for Global Development. “Getting the prices right means using fiscal policy to make sure that the harm we do is reflected in the prices we pay. I am thinking about environmental taxes or emissions trading systems under which governments issue—and preferably sell—pollution rights.”

The MIT research suggests an emissions price—organized through either a tax or cap-and-trade system—of about $20 to $40 per ton by 2020 to help the world community reach less stringent targets that would keep warming to 2.9 or 3.6 degrees Celsius.

“These less stringent targets are more realistic and reachable, and they still reduce the risk of more severe climate impacts,” Paltsev says. But, he warns, “we have never experienced such changes and do not know exactly how the Earth will respond, so the smaller the changes we make, the greater the risk of something unexpected and bad happening.”

Still, making small changes is better than not acting at all, Paltsev says, and we shouldn’t wait for technology to fix the problem for us.

“We can wait for a miracle technology, like biofuels with carbon capture and storage, to appear and become economical— allowing us to reach more stringent target—but then we place our bets on something which may or may not materialize,” Paltsev says.

The longer the global community waits to take action, the higher the price tag could be and the less likely the world will be able to meet even less stringent targets. This could mean “unprecedented levels of damage and degradation” if current trends in production and consumption continue, United Nations Undersecretary General Achim Steiner said in a recent statement. He added, “The moment has come to put away the paralysis of indecision, acknowledge the facts and face up to the common humanity that unites all peoples.”

Andrew Steer, special envoy for climate change for the World Bank, agrees.

“We will turn the tide against climate change only when core economic policymakers wake up to the urgency of the issue and factor it into their fiscal and economic policies,” he said.

Making progress one step at a time

Even if all countries were able to agree on a uniform path forward, slowing emissions would require a complex burden-sharing system including incentives and compensation for emerging and developing countries—continuing an ongoing struggle about who pays what to confront the challenge.

While such an international effort may take time, the Green Climate Fund—formed in Cancun, Mexico, in 2010—could help developing countries. Meanwhile, major emitters like the United States, European Union and China could establish a relatively small carbon tax, the revenue from which could be returned to citizens to balance out the higher energy prices and increase public support. The idea is similar to parts of a proposal by U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.).

Still, cap-and-trade—a system invented by American economists—is far from being implemented in the United States, as countries around the world take steps to implement the system—like China.

“Just as many of our best innovations are produced in China, they may beat us in implementing such a system,” John Reilly, a co-director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change and an author of the IMF chapter, said recently. "We're really being left behind.”

China is not the only country that has an edge on the United States. The EU, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea have already begun to set hard emission limits, and cap-and-trade programs are gaining traction in Brazil and Mexico as well.

Joëlle Chassard, manager of the Carbon Finance Unit of the World Bank, said in a statement that it was heartening to “see increasing interest in, and support for, new market-based mechanisms to mitigate climate change.”

Paltsev agrees that these systems are encouraging and useful, even at the local level. But, he says, “It is also important to harmonize the efforts” and “all major emitters, including the U.S., need to participate.”

Quito, Ecuador, is not considered a global leader by most measures. But there is one way in which Quito is at the forefront of metropolises worldwide: in planning for climate change.

As climate negotiators wrap-up talks in Bonn, Germany, this week, a major point of contention is who needs to do what to slow global warming. Nations such as China and the United States have held back from making substantial emission reduction pledges in the past, as both nations waited for the other to act. But new research out of MIT shows the importance of all major nations taking part in global efforts to reduce emissions—and in particular, finds China's role to be crucial.

The report—titled "The Role of China in Mitigating Climate Change"—published in the journal Energy Economics, compares the impact of a stringent emissions reduction policy with and without China's participation. It finds that China's actions are "essential."

"As the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, without China, climate goals—like the 2 degrees Celsius target that most agree is necessary to prevent serious irreversible consequences—are out of reach," says Sergey Paltsev, the lead author of the study and the assistant director for economic research at MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

Specifically, the study finds that with China's help the global community is able to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius, relative to pre-industrial levels. But without China, we miss that mark by about 1 degree Celsius.

Not only will it be close to impossible to achieve the 2 degrees mark without China's participation, but emissions reductions will also be more expensive because substantial costs would shift to only some countries. That is why the researchers argue for a global economy-wide greenhouse gas tax that spreads the burden of responsibility.

But even in this best-case scenario, reducing emissions comes with a steep price tag. China could experience substantial GDP losses by the end of the century under the most stringent policy cases. These losses come from higher energy prices, which influence consumption and export dynamics.

"While strong reductions may turn out to be costly in China and may require some incentives from developed countries," Paltsev says, "that doesn't make China's actions any less important."

The researchers stress, however, that reaching that 2 degrees threshold with China's participation is only possible in the most optimistic case. And these days, there isn't much cause for optimism.

The researchers tested various levels of emission reduction plans—a global carbon tax of $10, $30 or $50. The various taxes would slow warming to 3.5, 2.4 and 2 degrees, respectively, by the end of the century, according to their analysis. With no global policy, the increase in warming is projected to be about 5.5 degrees Celsius.

These scenarios show that, "Even more modest and realistic goals require near universal participation of major greenhouse gas emitters," Paltsev says.

Top energy user today, climate leader tomorrow?

The importance of China's participation in a global climate treaty increases with each year, as the country's population, economy and energy use continue to grow rapidly.

From 2000 to 2010, China's energy use grew 130 percent. That's up from a growth of just 50 percent the previous decade. With a growing, wealthier population, China has become the world's largest energy consumer—and with it, the world's greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

China's share of global energy-related CO₂ emissions has increased in just eight years from 14 percent in 2000 to 22 percent in 2008. Eighty percent of those emissions came from coal, making China the consumer of about half the world's coal.

But China is on a path toward doing something about their rapidly escalating energy use and emissions. They've recently announced they will be testing a pilot cap-and-trade program in select major cities in 2013, and plan to make the program national by 2015.

John Reilly, the co-director of the Joint Program on Global Change, pointed out recently the irony behind the plan. While the United States created the idea of cap and trade, he says, "just as many of our best innovations are produced in China, they may beat us in implementing such a system ... we're really being left behind."

Paltsev agrees that the system would be "a very good start" for China, allowing the country to reach its goal of reducing carbon intensity by 40 percent relative to 2005, and increasing the share of non-fossil fuels by 15 percent by 2020. But, he says, "these actions are still not enough, making almost no substantial difference in reducing global emissions."

In fact, the change, taken by China alone, would only reduce global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius in 2020.

But Tim Yeo, who chairs the United Kingdom Parliament's energy committee, recently told The Financial Times that if China did impose a national cap and trade system, "It's game over for the rest of the world ... Everyone will have to do it, including the U.S."

Paltsev agrees. "While the system would only be a start for China, as the country would still have a long way to go in reducing emissions, it would likely influence other countries—like the U.S.—to follow. But time is really of the essence."


To learn more about the Joint Program on Global Change's work in China, visit the China Energy and Climate Project website at: http://globalchange.mit.edu/CECP/.

Traditionally, oil prices have been used to gauge the natural gas market; but new research shows that the future of what is currently a cheap fuel is really anyone's guess.

Natural gas prices neared the lowest they've been in about a decade this past winter, as utilities scrambled to take advantage of the fuel's low price tag and producers began to turn away from the low-profit fuel. According to new numbers from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the proportion of natural gas used to generate electricity soared to almost 35 percent in February—the highest ever for that month—while production saw its biggest decline in a year. These factors have led some to believe prices will rise again, and soon. Not so fast, say researchers at MIT.

Their study, featured in the latest issue of The Energy Journal, compares oil and natural gas prices from the early 1990s to today, showing a relationship between the pricing of the two fuels. But the nature of that relationship is constantly changing and is subject to external pressures, making it extremely difficult—if not impossible—to predict the price of natural gas in the short or long term.

"The tie between gas and oil has been exaggerated," says John Parsons, the lead author of the study and executive director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change and Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. "Parity will get re-established, but it might take a long time and it might be at a different level than you thought."

The research shows that, besides the price of oil, two forces heavily influence the gas market: long-term forces, like technological change, and short-term volatility due mostly to weather or seasonal changes. Both of these forces are currently at work, as prices per million British thermal units have fallen from $10 back in 2008 to $4 last fall to $2.40 today.

Parsons attributes a majority of the drop since last fall to weather, but points to new technology known as hydraulic fracturing—along with other factors such as the global recession—as the cause of the much larger drop in price over time. He says the price may recover from the short-term drop quickly—perhaps back to $4 in just a couple years—but price recovery from the effects of hydrofracking technology could take much longer.

"And so the danger is [that] we say that there's parity" between oil and gas prices, Parsons says, "and it gives people the impression that the parity establishes itself quickly and they discount the price signal and try to keep going with producing gas."

This is what happened when prices fell in the past: Producers were slow to take the price fall seriously because of the usual short-term volatility attributed to weather and seasonal changes.

How the gas market will shape up in the long term is anyone's guess, Parsons says, largely because untapped resources are a wild card. Right now, the U.S. has a very cheap resource that provides a short-term cushion of low-priced gas. If hydraulic fracturing turns out to have limited applications, gas prices probably won't stay low for very long. But if other parts of the world rich in natural gas choose to use hydraulic fracturing, natural gas could turn into a revolutionary fuel, he says.

That will "affect the price of gas and the price of oil and the pattern of electricity production globally," Parsons says. "But none of us know."

The researchers conclude that as much as oil and gas prices have been somewhat intertwined in the past, it is likely they will continue to affect each other. Future changes in gas-to-liquid technology, for example, would further strengthen the gas-oil relationship—likely driving oil prices down, gas prices up, and re-establishing some parity between the two.

RELATED — A Shale Gas Revolution?

Toyota’s Tom Stricker shares his view with MIT students, faculty
Video: Watch the event

With the advisement of several Joint Program on Global Change researchers—including the co-director Ron Prinn and co-director emeritus Jake Jacoby—the MIT Museum opened a new exhibition “Rivers of Ice: Vanishing Glaciers of the Greater Himalaya.” The exhibit draws from mountaineer and filmmaker David Breashears’ breathtaking photographs, and places them in context with those of earlier mountaineer photographers—revealing the glacial melt that has occurred over time.

Breashears, who took the photos throughout his forty-five expeditions to the Himalaya, views the Rivers of Ice exhibition as an opportunity to trigger public dialogue as scientists and policymakers work to better understand what exactly is happening to the glaciers of the Greater Himalaya. Formed by the collision of continents, the water from the glacial ice melt in the Himalaya contributes to watersheds that serve the drinking, agriculture and business needs of more than 1 billion people throughout Asia. As the snow cover melts and the glaciers of the Greater Himalaya retract and change, the need for greater and more detailed understanding of their importance to human and ecological systems increases.

Breashears hopes the exhibit—and a related symposium taking place on Saturday, April 21—will provide insight into some of the groundbreaking research being done to better understand the glaciers’ potential impact on global environmental issues.

Rivers of Ice, once viewed, cannot be forgotten. By experiencing the photography 'in the round' and at large scale, by viewing artifacts from expeditions past and present, and by learning about the people who call the Himalaya home, MIT Museum visitors gain a deeper understanding of the grand beauty of these mountains, as well as their significance to the global challenges we face today.

 
The exhibit, which will be open from April 13, 2012 to March 17, 2013, is a collaboration between the MIT Museum, GlacierWorks, and the Asia Society and designed by ThincDesign.

More information about the exhibit can be found here: web.mit.edu/museum/exhibitions/rivers-of-ice.html