News Releases
By: Vicki Ekstrom, Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
SOURCE: EPA
Americans have long known the dangers of mercury in our environment, with doctors repeatedly warning pregnant women to remove fish from their daily diets. But despite this solid knowledge of the health impacts, the United States has never regulated mercury emissions from powerplants — our nation’s number one source of mercury — until now.
Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. The standards require coal-fired powerplants to install scrubbing technology that will cut 90 percent of their mercury emissions by 2015.
To better inform local residents about the new protections, Noelle Eckley Selin — an assistant professor in MIT's Engineering Systems Division and Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and a researcher in MIT’s Joint Program on Global Change — this week joined EPA Regional Administrator Curt Spalding and other public health experts at a public availability session at the East Boston Neighborhood Health Center.
“These mercury standards help prevent the developmental delays and neurological damages that could come from eating contaminated fish,” Selin said at the Thursday event.
At MIT, Selin looks at the pathways by which mercury reaches the environment and the effect it has on human health once it gets there. She also analyzes the steps regulators could take — and in some cases have taken — to prevent further contamination.
“There’ve been proposals for a long time to regulate these emissions from coal-fired powerplants,” Selin said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times when the rules were first released on Dec. 21, 2011. “The earlier incarnation of this was the Clean Air Mercury Rule, which was a cap-and-trade proposal for mercury, and that was challenged in the courts and then thrown out. And now this is another try at regulating, but it’s been a long time in coming.”
Massachusetts began controlling mercury in the 1990s. Since then, the state has reduced mercury emissions by 91 percent, according to Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Kenneth Kimmell.
“It has been a major source of frustration for us that even though we’ve reduced our mercury rates by so much, many of our water bodies are still off limits to fishing because of pollution from upwind states,” Kimmell said at the Thursday event.
Selin, 2009 Annual Review
Massachusetts’s experience shows that tough standards can have a substantial effect on the environment, Selin said. But federal regulations such as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards are necessary because of the pollution that comes from powerplants in coal mining and producing states.
Health benefits
Rachel Murphy of Cambridge has a 6-year-old daughter with severe asthma. Her daughter’s asthma is so bad that at times she coughs hard enough to burst blood vessels in her eyes.
“Rachel can get the best medicine possible, but she can’t control the air her daughter breathes,” New England’s American Lung Association President Jeffrey Seyler said at the event.
The air toxics standards are expected to help tens of thousands of children such as Murphy’s daughter by preventing 30,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 6,300 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children each year, according to EPA estimates.
Vulnerable populations such as infants will also be helped specifically because of the mercury standards under the new rule.
“These will especially protect newborns who are at a greater risk during their development,” Selin said. “It’s estimated more than 300,000 newborns in the U.S. are exposed in utero to dangerous levels of mercury. This can cause lower IQ and neurological damages.”
Dr. Alan Woolf, the director of the Pediatric Environmental Health Center at Children's Hospital in Boston, agrees.
“Mercury is associated with long-lasting and potentially irreversible effects on the brain and nervous system,” Woolf said at the event. “These effects can reduce a child’s intelligence, can change their behavior, and can cause seizures, muscle weakness, paralyses and other neurologic injuries limiting their future as productive citizens.”
International implications
The United States’s leadership in regulating mercury comes at an important time, as countries around the world have been negotiating a global, legally binding mercury treaty since June 2010.
The third of five planned United Nations negotiating sessions occurred in November in Nairobi, Kenya, and Selin plans to attend the fourth in June in Uruguay. She will also be bringing six graduate students, as part of a National Science Foundation grant, to the final negotiating session set to take place in early 2013.
SOURCE: EPA
In an earlier interview with MIT News, Selin said domestic politics would likely continue to be a challenge for U.S. implementation of environmental regulations and international cooperation on mercury. But with these standards — now the most stringent mercury standards of its kind in the world — she says the country has proven their leadership.
“These standards show that the U.S. is taking leadership at home to address a widespread and substantial global problem.”
By: Vicki Ekstrom, Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Regional climate policies depend largely on fiscal strategies and can have spiraling effects throughout the globe, a new MIT report further proves in the January edition of the Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. The report — titled “Biofuels, Climate Policy, and the European Vehicle Fleet” — uses the European transportation system as a test case and shows the significant impact various fiscal policies can have on emission reductions.
“The effectiveness of climate policies in isolation might depend crucially on the fiscal rules and environment,” says Sebastian Rausch, a co-author of the study and a research scientist at MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. “So if you want to think about effective emissions-reduction policies and climate policies you have to take into consideration their interaction with other mechanisms like taxes and tariffs.”
For decades, Europeans have relied on diesel to power their cars. While better for the environment, these drivers have traditionally chosen diesel because higher taxes on gasoline make diesel the cheaper alternative. But now, Europe is encouraging its drivers to consider greener options. The European Union has imposed a renewable fuel mandate that requires 10 percent of fuel to be based in renewable sources like biodiesel or ethanol by 2020.
But will the higher price tag that often comes with renewables cause the mandate to have a negative effect? The MIT researchers say no. Studying the system with and without the mandate, they find that the number of drivers using diesel and biodiesel continues to increase with time because of rising oil prices and a tax system that balances out the additional expense of using renewables.
“So fueling up with biodiesel would still be 69 cents a gallon cheaper than gas,” Rausch says, “and it has the added benefit of reducing European emissions by about 8 percent by 2030.”
The report further analyzes the impact of tax or tariff changes, in combination with the imposed mandate. As one might expect, when gas and diesel have an equal tax rate almost a quarter fewer drivers choose diesel by 2030. The renewable fuel mandate also does not have a large impact on emissions because more drivers turn to gas. But if biodiesel and ethanol tariffs are removed, Europe can achieve significant emission reductions — about 45 percent — as these renewable fuels become cheaper to import and use. At the same time, diesel vehicles would all but disappear as ethanol blends crowd out the diesel market.
Looking at a global scale, the report shows that while renewable initiatives can cut emissions within that country, they can also cause spikes in emissions in other countries — or what is known as “leakage.”
Rausch explains: “You’re still driving a fair amount of diesel vehicles, but the fuel to drive those vehicles now comes from Brazil and other countries because you’ve removed your tariffs. You don’t have to produce as much diesel in the EU, so your emissions there are little bit lower. But the countries now producing more fuel to import to the EU see higher emissions.”
But there is still a positive side, Rausch says: “Because there’s a switch in imports from diesel to biofuels, emissions do get reduced in other countries as well because biofuel production releases fewer emissions than diesel production.”
These fuel changes in Europe can have a “snowballing effect,” Rausch says. Along with “leakage,” there can be other consequences. If Europe evens out its tax system, for example, increased demand for gasoline in Europe would drive up gasoline prices outside of Europe and lower gas consumption and emissions in general.
By: Vicki Ekstrom, Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Shale gas — a resource that has grown significantly in just the last few years to one-quarter of the domestic gas supply — is cheaper and involves fewer emissions than traditional coal or oil. But recent environmental concerns, combined with shale gas's important role in the global economy, have prompted the Obama administration and MIT researchers to investigate the resource and its potential impacts.
“People speak of [natural] gas as a bridge to the future, but there had better be something at the other end of the bridge,” Henry Jacoby, co-director emeritus of MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said earlier this year after co-authoring a report by the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) on The Future of Natural Gas.
Jacoby’s nagging thoughts prompted him and other researchers to further study shale gas and how its success could impact U.S. energy policy, including future technological development. Built on the MITEI study, the researchers' new report — The Influence of Shale Gas on U.S. Energy and Environmental Policy — is in this month's inaugural edition of the journal Economics of Energy and Environmental Policy.
“Prior to this we hadn’t compared U.S. gas production with and without shale,” Jacoby says of the new research. “This report makes that comparison. And we found much of what we already knew — which is a good thing — that shale makes a big difference. It helps lower gas prices, it stimulates the economy and it provides greater flexibility to ease the cutting of emissions. But it also suppresses renewables.”
The researchers came to these conclusions by considering what our nation would look like with shale and without shale under several policy scenarios. They found that gas prices would rise by about five times the current levels by 2050 without shale gas, under one scenario; electricity prices would also grow. But with shale gas, prices should only about double. The shale input also reduces electricity price growth by 5 percent in 2030 and 10 percent in 2045, compared to a scenario without shale gas.
A report released last month by IHS Global Insight, a global research firm commissioned by America’s Natural Gas Alliance, shows similar results. Prices would drop 10 percent in 2036 with shale, according to IHS, and the industry would add 870,000 U.S. jobs by 2015.
John Deutch, MIT professor and chair of a special U.S. Department of Energy panel studying shale, agrees with the significant economic contribution the shale industry can provide. Deutch, who was associated with the earlier MITEI report but not the new MIT study, said that the most recent employment estimates showed that there are three-quarters of a million jobs in the shale gas industry.
“More jobs are being created in Pennsylvania and Ohio by shale gas production than anything else that I’m aware of,” Deutch said at a recent MIT lecture, suggesting the significance of those two battleground states in U.S. elections.
“Over the last couple of years I’ve realized that what’s happening with unconventional natural gas [shale] is the biggest energy story that’s happened in the 40-plus years that I’ve been watching energy development in this country,” says Deutch, who served as undersecretary of the Department of Energy in the 1970s.
Shale’s low price tag is one of the reasons for its boom. For every $4 we pay for energy from natural gas, we pay $25 for oil, according to recent statistics from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Jacoby and Deutch agree this is not sustainable, and that there is a great incentive to continue to tap into the shale market — with Deutch calling shale “remarkably inexpensive” compared to other forms of natural gas.
This successful outlook has prompted some of the world’s leading oil companies to further invest in natural gas, and specifically shale gas production. Last month, Shell announced it would double gas production in North America in the next three years and that it has recently expanded its work to China.
But Jacoby warns, “Natural gas is a finite resource. We will eventually run into depletion and higher cost.” He adds, “It still releases greenhouse gas emissions. So if we’re going to get to a point where we strictly limit those emissions, we need renewables.”
The continued need for strong renewables prompts concerns, as the study finds that shale use suppresses the development of renewables. Under one scenario, for example, the researchers impose a renewable-fuel mandate. They find that, with shale, renewable use never goes beyond the 25 percent minimum standard they set — but when shale is removed from the market, renewables gain more ground.
These findings are significant in light of several concerns surrounding the unpredictable shale gas market and future environmental regulations.
One concern about shale gas extraction, and the most headline-grabbing concern, is that fluids from the gas production — a process called hydraulic fracturing, or simply fracking — could seep into and contaminate groundwater supplies. While the report found these concerns to be “overstated,” the Deutch shale panel said in November that “environmental issues need to be addressed now.”
This conclusion, along with uncertainties about how stringent greenhouse gas emission targets will be going forward, leaves the regulatory environment in question.
There’s also the concern that the global gas market is unpredictable because the shale revolution is still in its early stages.
Jacoby says the development of the industry in the United States is important because prices here are much cheaper than in other gas markets — namely, Europe and Asia. While we pay less than $4 per thousands of cubic feet, other markets pay up to $16. Because it is so much cheaper here, there’s the potential for us to become exporters.
But Jacoby calls this really a “matter of timing.”
“In the near term, our supplies are cheap enough that we should have the ability to export,” Jacoby says. “But over time, we likely won’t be able to compete with places like Russia and the Middle East that have lower costs, and eventually we’ll again turn to importing gas.”
Jacoby compares the global gas market to the oil industry. As shale resources are developed in places such as China, which recently announced that it was tapping at least 20 new reserves, prices will likely drop overseas and the United States will turn to cheaper imports as it has for oil.
An uncertain international gas market, an unpredictable regulatory environment with more stringent emission goals and decreasing natural gas reserves over time all point to the growing need to continue developing renewable technologies.
“Effective use of renewables, namely wind and solar, are still many years away,” Jacoby says. “How we tap into those resources and effectively work them into our electric grid still needs to be figured out. To get us there we need a robust R&D program so we’ll have renewable energies up and working effectively later in future decades when emissions regulations are stricter, and gas reserves are depleting.”
Shale might provide the flexibility to meet reduction targets at lower costs today, making it a strong “bridge” in the short term to a low-carbon future. But the report concludes that we can’t let “the greater ease of the near term … erode efforts to prepare a landing at the other end of the bridge.”