ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT (PMB 316)TERM PAPAR ONGLOBAL CARBON EMISSIONSUBMITTED FOR PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF AWARD OFMASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIONBYMAYANK MITTALROLL NO: 501204021UNDER THE GUIDANCE OFDR. RUDRA RAMESHWAR2013
1GLOBAL CARBON EMISSIONSABSTRACTMangroves are among the most threatened and rapidly disappearing natural environmentsworldwide. In addition to supporting a wide range of other ecological and economicfunctions, mangroves store considerable carbon. Here, we consider the global economicpotential for protecting mangroves based exclusively on their carbon. We develop uniquehigh-resolution global estimates (5′ grid, about 9 × 9 km) of the projected carbon emissionsfrom mangrove loss and the cost of avoiding the emissions. Using these spatial estimates, wederive global and regional supply curves (marginal cost curves) for avoided emissions. Undera broad range of assumptions, we find that the majority of potential emissions frommangroves could be avoided of CO2. Given the recent range of market price for carbonoffsets and the cost of reducing emissions from other sources, this finding suggests thatprotecting mangroves for their carbon is an economically viable proposition. Political-economy considerations related to the ability of doing business in developing countries,however, can severely limit the supply of offsets and increases their price per ton. We alsofind that although a carbon-focused conservation strategy does not automatically target areasmost valuable for biodiversity, implementing a biodiversity-focused strategy would onlyslightly increase the costs.INTRODUCTIONExtraction, processing and delivery of aggregates require adequate supplies of energy. Mosthas come from burning of coal, oil and natural gas which give rise to gaseous carbonemissions (principally carbon dioxide, CO2, and carbon monoxide, CO) and contribute toincreases in global atmospheric temperature. Steep increases in overall carbon emissionsduring the 20th C. raised concerns about climate change. International action was sought toaddress this. All sources of aggregates (land won, marine dredged materials, recycled,industrial by-products and imported) contribute to carbon emissions so there is a need tocompare the relative levels of emissions from production of each as part of considering alow-carbon economy.The Climate Change Act 2008 introduced a long-term framework for action in the UnitedKingdom that introduced legally binding carbon budgets that would set a ceiling on the levelsof greenhouse gases that can be emitted into the atmosphere. The Act requires that emissionsare reduced by at least 80% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. It also set up an independent
2Committee on Climate Change, the first report from which advised on the levels of thesebudgets for the first three 5 year periods.A Low Carbon Transition Plan set out how the UK will cut CO2 emissions by more than athird from 1990 levels by 2020, following a 21% reduction that had been achieved already.The strategy called for around 50% yearly emissions cuts between now and 2011 by makingthe energy mix "more green". Government also expected 40% of the energy used to comefrom low-carbon sources, 30% from renewable energy sources, and the remainder fromnuclear and "clean coal" provision. All parts of society and industry were required to play apart in achieving this. These provisions are being reviewed by the Government elected tooffice in 2010.SOURCES OF EMISSIONThe aggregates industry uses energy in several ways: fuel for on-site drilling, excavation and haulage vehicles, or at sea for shipping and dredging; wheel and road washing; processing plant used for crushing and grading materials; conveyors, extractor fans and dewatering and liquid waste pumps; lighting; heating and other facilities for buildings including workshops, offices and messing facilities; fuel for transportation of materials from the quarry gate to the user and used in deliveries ofmaterials to the quarry; and operation of plant producing value added products such as ready mixed concrete and asphaltcoated stone. For instance, ready mixed concrete consists of aggregate bound by cement.Cement has a relatively high carbon "burden" because it is made by burning limestone orchalk (calcium carbonate), with a high energy input releasing carbon dioxide from these.CARBON EMISSION BY FUELIn 2010, 43% of CO2 emissions from fuel combustion were produced from coal, 36% fromoil and 20% from gas. Growth of these fuels in 2010 was quite different, reflecting varyingtrends that are expected to continue.Between 2009 and 2010, CO2 emissions from thecombustion of coal increased by 4.9% and represented 13.1 GtCO2. Currently, coal fillsmuch of the growing energy demand of those developing countries (such as China and India)where energy-intensive industrial production is growing rapidly and large coal reserves existwith limited reserves of other energy sources. Without additional abatement measures, theWEO 2012 projects that emissions from coal will grow to 15.3 GtCO2 in 2035. However,adopting a pathway towards limiting the long-term temperature increase to 2°C as in the
3WEO 2012 450 Scenario – through use of more efficient plants and end-use technologies aswell as increased use of renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage (CCS)technologies – could see coal consumption drop and CO2 emissions from coal reduced to 5.6Gt by 2035. Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 (ETP 2012) also shows that intensifieduse of coal would substantially increase CO2 emissions unless there was a very widespreaddeployment of CCS.CARBON EMISSION BY REGIONBetween 2009 and 2010, CO2 emissions increased in all regions except Africa, however,growth rates varied among regions. As mentioned earlier, CO2 emissions from non-Annex Icountries grew by 5.6%, while those of Annex I countries rose by a more modest 3.3%,having decreased in 2009. As a result,the gap between the aggregate emissions of non- AnnexI countries and Annex I countries continued togrow.At the regional level (Figure 3), between2009 and 2010, CO2 emissions increased significantly in Latin America (6.5%), Asiaexcluding China (6.1%) and China (6.0%). CO2 emissions increased at a lower rate in AnnexII regions, ranging from 2.1% in Annex II Europe to 3.4% in Annex II North America.CARBON EMISSION BY SECTORTwo sectors produced nearly two-thirds of global CO2 emissions in 2010: electricity and heatgeneration accounted for 41% while transport produced 22%.Generation of electricity andheat was by far the largestproducer of CO2 emissions and was responsible for 41% of worldCO2 emissions in 2010. Worldwide, this sector relies heavily on coal, the mostcarbonintensive of fossil fuels, amplifying its share in global emissions. Countries such asAustralia, China, India, Poland and South Africa produce between 68% and94% of theirelectricity and heat through the combustion of coal. The second-largest sector in terms ofemissions represented 22% of global CO2 emissions in 2010, reflecting an increase of 3.0%between 2009 and 2010. Almost three-quarters of the emissions from transport were due toroad.CARBON EMISSION FROM LAND USE CHANGECO2 emissions from deforestation and other land-use change were 0.9±0.5 PgC in 2011. Forthe period 2002-2011, land-use change emissions accounted for 10% of all emissions fromhuman activity (fossil fuel, cement, land-use change). The data suggest an overall decreasetrend in land-use change emissions particularly since 2000. The implementation of new landpolicies, higher law enforcement to stop illegal deforestation, and new a forestation andregrowth of previously deforested areas could all have contributed to this decline. Total
4emissions from human activity in 2011 (fossil fuel, cement, land-use change) were 10.4±0.7PgC. Emissions from land-use change were 36% of the total human emissions in 1960, 18%in 1990, and 9% in 2011. Uncertainty for all land-use change emission estimates remainslarge. CO2 emissions from land-use change are mainly based on forest statistics of the Foodand Agriculture Organization and a bookkeeping method, and include interannual variabilityin deforestations based on fire activity from year 1997 onwards.CARBON EMISSION IN INDIAIndia emits more than 5% of global CO2 emissions and shows a clear trend of rapid increase:CO2 emissions have almost tripled between 1990 and 2010. The WEO 2012 New PoliciesScenario projects that CO2 emissions in India increase by 3.5% per year from 2010 to 2035,at which time India would account for 10% of global emissions. A large share of theseemissions are produced by the electricity and heat sector, which represented 54% of CO2 in2010, up from 40% in 1990. CO2 emissions in the transport sector accounted for only 10% oftotal emissions in 2010, but transport is one of the fastest-growing sectors.In 2010, 68% ofelectricity in India came from coal,12% from natural gas and 3% from oil (Figure 22).Theshare of fossil fuels in the generation mix grew from 73% in 1990 to 85% in 2002. Since2002 theshare of fossil fuels remained fairly steady, representing 83% in 2010. Althoughelectricity produced fromhydro has actually risen during this period, the share fell from 25%in 1990 to 12% in 2010, largely due tomore rapid increases in coal-fired generation.Of the BRICS countries, India has the lowest CO2 emissions per capita (1.4 tCO2 in2010), about one third that of the world average. Due to the recent large increases inemissions, however, the Indian ratio is more than two times that of its ratio in 1990 and willcontinue to grow. In 2035, India is projected to be the world‘s most populous nation with 1.5billion people. Yet according to the WEO 2012 New PoliciesScenario, its carbon emissions of2.5 tCO2 per capita will still be substantially lower than the world average of 4.3 tCO2 percapita in the same year. In terms of CO2/GDP, India has continuously improved theefficiency of its economy and reduced the CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 22% between1990 and 2010. India aims to further reduce emissions intensity of GDP by 20% to 25% by2020 compared with the 2005 level.
5CARBON FOOTPRINTA carbon footprint is the measure of the amount of greenhouse gases, measured in units ofcarbon dioxide, produced by human activities. A carbon footprint can be measured for anindividual or an organization, and is typically given in tons of CO2-equivalent (CO2-eq) peryear. For example, the average North American generates about 20 tons of CO2-eq each year.The global average carbon footprint is about 4 tons of CO2-eq per year. Anindividuals ororganization‘s carbon footprint can be broken down into the primary and secondary footprints.The primary footprint is the sum of direct emissions of greenhouse gases from the burning offossil fuels for energyconsumption and transportation. More fuel-efficient cars have a smallerprimary footprint, as do energy-efficient light bulbs in your home or office. Worldwide, 82%of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are in the form of CO2 from fossilfuel combustion .The secondary footprint is the sum of indirect emissions of greenhouse gasesduring the lifecycle of products used by an individual or organization. For example, thegreenhouse gases emitted during the production of plastic for water bottles, as well as theenergy used to transport the water contributes to the secondary carbon footprint. Products withmore packaging will generally have a larger secondary footprint than products with a minimalamount of packaging.GREENHOUSE GASES AND GREENHOUSE EFFECTAlthough carbon footprints are reported in annual tons of CO2 emissions, they actually are ameasure of total greenhouse gas emissions. A greenhouse gas is any gas that traps heat in theatmosphere through the greenhouse effect. Because of the presence of greenhouse gases inour atmosphere the average temperature of the Earth is 14 ºC (57 ºF). Without the greenhouseeffect, the average temperature of the atmosphere would be -19 ºC (-2.2 ºF).Many greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water, occurnaturally. Other greenhouse gases, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydro fluorocarbons(HFCs), per fluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) are synthetic. Since thebeginning of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, bothnatural and man-made, have been increasing. Burning fossil fuels and land-use changes suchas deforestation interfere with the natural carbon, moving carbon from its solid form to thegaseous state, thus increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.There are many ways for individuals and organizations to reduce their carbon footprint, suchas driving less, using energy efficient appliances, and buying local, organic foods as well asproducts with less packaging. The purchase of carbon offsets is another way to reduce acarbon footprint. One carbon offset represents the reduction of one ton of CO2-eq. Companieswho sell carbon offsets invest in projects such as renewable energy research, agricultural andlandfill gas capture, and tree-planting.Critics of carbon offsets argue they will be used to absolve any guilt over maintaining―business as usual‖ in our lifestyles. Additionally, the current offset market is voluntaryand
6largely unregulated, raising the possibility that companies will defraud customers seeking toreduce their carbon footprint.EMISSIONS TRADINGEmissions trading schemes provide a financial incentive for organizations and corporations toreduce their carbon footprint. Such schemes exist under cap-and-trade systems, where thetotal carbon emissions for a particular country, region, or sector are capped at a certain value,and organizations are issued permits to emit a fraction of the total emissions. Organizationsthat emit less carbon than their emission target can then sell their ―excess‖ carbon emissions.This market mechanism is expected to bring down the costs of meeting emissions targets.CO2 AND ENERGY IN THE CONTEXT OF TOTAL GHG EMISSIONSThis report focuses primarily on CO2 from anthropogenic energy transformation processes,but it is nonetheless useful initially to see both energy and CO2 in the context of total globalgreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The source of most of the figures that follow is the ClimateAnalysis Indicators Tool (World Resources Institute, 2008).CO2 is the single most important greenhouse gas in terms of current emissions, accountingfor over three-quarters of annual emissions in terms of CO2eq. The next most importantGHG directly emitted through anthropogenic processes are methane and nitrous oxide. Whilemethane is emitted during the extraction and use of fossil fuels, the main sources are inagriculture and land use change, so it is reasonable to exclude these from further discussion inan analysis based on the energy sub-sectors.
7THE CURRENT SITUATION IN GLOBAL CO2 EMISSIONSThe sectors used are the main sectors and sub-sectors defined in IPCC Guidelines, as follows: Energy sectors include all emissions arising from the transformation of energy,principally through the burning of fossil fuels, as follows: Electricity and Heat produced in power plant but then delivered to end users mainlyfor domestic or industrial purposes. This category is mainly electricity generation, butalso includes CHP (Combined Heat and Power) and heat-only plant, plus emissionsfrom plant in other energy supply industries (e.g. oil refineries). Manufacturing and Construction includes all emissions arising from direct energytransformation in the specified industries, including fuels burnt for process heat ormechanical power. Transportation covers primarily oil products consumed in road vehicles and trains,although domestic aviation and some coastal and inland shipping are also included.International shipping and aviation are excluded (see below). Other Fuel Combustion includes emissions from fuels consumed directly, andmainly for space and water heating, in sectors other than manufacturing andconstruction (i.e. residential, commercial, agriculture, etc). Fugitive Emissions are GHG (mainly CO2 and methane) emitted directly to theatmosphere during the extraction of fossil fuels. Other sectors are a heterogeneous group primarily as follows: Industrial Processes include emissions arising from industrial production other thanthrough energy use. A major component of this category is CO2 that is liberated whenlimestone is converted into cement. Land Use Change and Forestry is a very important category covering a range ofsources (and some sinks) of greenhouse gases. In particular it reflects large quantitiesof CO2 and methane emitted when natural land uses (forestry, permanent grassland,wetland, etc) are converted for other uses such as agriculture.
8 International Bunkers are included in ‗other secors‘ to reflect their special statusunder the UNFCCC regime. However, as they represent emissions from the burningof bunker fuels in international shipping and aviation, they should in practice bebracketed under energy, and within that, under transport.Global Emissions by GasAt the global scale, the key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are: Carbon dioxide (CO2) - Fossil fuel use is the primary source of CO2. The way inwhich people use land is also an important source of CO2, especially when it involvesdeforestation. Land can also remove CO2 from the atmosphere through reforestation,improvement of soils, and other activities. Methane (CH4) - Agricultural activities, waste management, and energy use allcontribute to CH4emissions. Nitrous oxide (N2O) - Agricultural activities, such as fertilizer use, are the primarysource of N2O emissions. Fluorinated gases (F-gases) - Industrial processes, refrigeration, and the use of avariety of consumer products contribute to emissions of F-gases, which include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), per fluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
9Global Emissions by SourceGlobal greenhouse gas emissions can also be broken down by the economic activities thatlead to their production. Energy Supply (26% of 2004 global greenhouse gas emissions) - The burning ofcoal, natural gas, and oil for electricity and heat is the largest single source ofglobal greenhouse gas emissions. Industry (19% of 2004 global greenhouse gas emissions) - Greenhouse gasemissions from industry primarily involve fossil fuels burned on-site at facilities forenergy. This sector also includes emissions from chemical, metallurgical, andmineral transformation processes not associated with energy consumption. (Note:Emissions from electricity use are excluded and are instead covered in the EnergySupply sector.) Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (17% of 2004 global greenhouse gasemissions) - Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector primarily include carbondioxide (CO2) emissions from deforestation, land clearing for agriculture, and firesor decay of peat soils. This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystemsremove from the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 that is removed is subject to largeuncertainty, although recent estimates indicate that on a global scale, ecosystems onland remove about twice as much CO2 as is lost by deforestation.  Agriculture (14% of 2004 GHG emissions) - global greenhouse gas emissions) -Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture mostly come from the management ofagricultural soils, livestock, rice production, and biomass burning. Commercial and Residential Buildings (8% of 2004 global greenhouse gasemissions) - Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector arise from on-site energygeneration and burning fuels for heat in buildings or cooking in homes. (Note:Emissions from electricity use are excluded and are instead covered in the EnergySupply sector.) Waste and Wastewater (3% of 2004 global greenhouse gas emissions) - Thelargest source of greenhouse gas emissions in this sector is landfill methane (CH4),followed by wastewater methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Incineration ofsome waste products that were made with fossil fuels, such as plastics and synthetictextiles, also results in minor emissions of CO2.
10Global Carbon Emission Reduction TechnologiesThe potential consequences of global warming, many industrialized countries, principally inEurope, havecalled for either a freeze or a 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissionsby the developed world by the year2000 or shortly thereafter; several have pledged to freezeor reduce emissions whether or not the rest of the world participates. In the United States,Congress asked its Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to evaluate the potential forreductions in carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, which is responsible for about 20percent of the global total.BuildingsThis sector is at once the richest in potential reductions and the most difficult to tap.Relatively few buildings exploit state-of-the-art energy efficiencies; many, if not most, werebuilt when energy was cheap. The building sector encompasses a multitude of areas wherethe amount of energy consumed—and thus the amount of carbon released can be lowered.These range from design and construction (for example, the arrangement of the walls andwindows and the materials used) to furnishings (the choice of lights and appliances.In the building sector, by 2015 our moderate package could achieve carbon reductionsequal to 13 % of current total U.S. carbon emissions (which are running about 1.4 billion tonsa year). The tough package could bring emissions down by 22 % of the current total. In newresidential land commercial buildings, for instance, better insulation, tighter windows, andimproved construction methods to lower heating and cooling needs can reduce total U.S.emissions of carbon by about 6 percent of the current total by 2015. (About two-thirds of thispotential exists in commercial buildings and the remainder in houses.) The retrofitting ofexisting buildings offers additional, but smaller, opportunities for carbon reductions. Moreefficient heating and cooling equipment, water heaters, and appliances can bring total U.S.emissions down by about 5 % by 2015. The potential from improved lighting (particularly incommercial buildings) is almost as great.
11Identifying promising technical measures is one thing; drafting policies to bring about theiradoption is a much more challenging task. A tax on carbon emissions will certainlyencourage their reduction by sending price signals to reduce energy consumption. But a taxalone is insufficient. Because there are so many different decision makers—contractors,construction companies, landlords, tenants, and homeowners —a larger arsenal of policyinstruments is needed. A combination of financial incentives to pursue efficiency coupledwith disincentives for high energy use—the ―carrot and stick‖ approach—can be particularlyeffective.Demand-side managementThis refers to electric utility programs designed to encourage customers to modifytheir patterns of energy use. Energy conservation is allowed to compete with construction ofnew power plants as an investment option for utilities trying to balance energy supply anddemand. Utilities can then fund efforts to improve building shells or the equipment insidebuildings. In some cases, utilities pay for rebate programs, give out high efficiency lightbulbs, or otherwise stimulate end-use efficiency improvements, and in so doing save energyat a fraction of the cost of new power supplies. There is already considerable support fordemand-side management by many state energy offices, state legislatures, and public utilitycommissions. The key to success is for state public service commissions to allow utilities toprofit from demand-side investments.Further, the federal government could mandate that environmental consequences beconsidered when public utility commissions evaluate new sources of electricity. For example,New York State includes an estimate of the costs of environmental damage that would accruefrom a new coal-fired power plant when it calculates the total cost of that supply option.Congress has already mandated, in the 1980 Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning andConservation Act (Public Law 96–501), that the Northwest Power Planning Council adoptrate structures that give conservation measures a cost break over other more traditionalsupply-side measures.Technology-specific regulations. Congress can mandate improvements in efficiency throughmeasures such as appliance standards and energy codes for buildings. The NationalAppliance Energy Conservation Act, which sets minimum efficiency standards forappliances such as refrigerators, home air conditioners, furnaces, and water heaters, isexpected to lower residential energy use by as much as 10 percent by the year 2000.However, even stricter standards are possible using currently available technologies.Congress could also consider extending standards to other equipment such as commercialheating, ventilation, and air-conditioning equipment; lighting; and building components suchas windows. Energy-related building codes serve a function analogous to that of appliancestandards by preventing the construction of very inefficient buildings. However, buildingcodes have traditionally been under the jurisdiction of states and localities.Although a mandatory national building code could reduce carbon emissionssignificantly, it currently lacks the necessary political support from states and theconstruction industry.
12Consumer information and marketing programsUncertainty and lack of information have been identified as key barriers to greaterinvestment in energy conservation in the building sector. The large number of highly costeffective investments in energy efficiency that are not chosen by consumers indicates thatprice alone doesn‘t stimulate optimal investment decisions. Requiring utilities to offer energyaudits or requiring home energy ratings as a condition of federally financed mortgages aretwo ways to improve consumer knowledge of energy use.TransportationIn the transportation sector, the moderate package promises a 4 percent reduction in U.S.carbon emissions from the current total by 2015; with the tough package the reduction couldbe 15 percent. The biggest reductions come from fuel efficiency improvements in cars andtrucks and getting more people into vans, buses, or mass transit. If consumers maintain theircurrent preference for mid-size cars with powerful engines, an aggressive pursuit bymanufacturers of technical improvements could yield new-car efficiencies of 39 miles pergallon (mpg) by 2000 and 55 mpg by 2010. If the majority of consumers can be convinced tobuy smaller cars, new-car fleet-average efficiencies of 42 mpg by 2000 and 58 mpg by 2010might be achievable.Congress has three policy options that will promote new-car efficiency.A Gasoline TaxThis would create incentives for increased efficiency and reduced travel. Taxes would induceconsumers to use less fuel while leaving them free to choose how they adjust their behaviour.In concert with increasing fuel economy standards (see below), taxes could have a long-termimpact on the efficiency of this country‘s vehicle fleet.Although the effectiveness of taxes is hard to predict from studies of the responses ofconsumers to price changes in the past, our midrange estimate is that a 50 percent increase inprice could reduce consumption 5 to 20 percent over the near term and even more over thelong term. About half of consumers‘ long-term adjustment to high price is expectedto take the form of driving less and the other half to take the form of choosing more efficientvehicles.Fuel economy standards. These influence the trade offs among cost, performance, size, andefficiency that underlie manufacturers‘ decisions to develop and introduce new models. Thecurrent fuel economy standards for cars, in place since 1978, have helped to increase autofuel economy. More stringent standards can lower carbon dioxide emissions aswell as reduce our dependence on imported oil. Redesigned standards based on vehiclevolume—allowing larger vehicles to meet a size-adjusted standard—can help minimize theburden on U.S. manufacturers that offer a wide range of car sizes.
13Transportation control measuresThese tactics to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled include promotion of carpools,higher parking fees at the workplace, employer subsidies to employees who use mass transitor vanpools, and mass transit improvements such as expanded bus service and schedules andlower fares. Although experience with transportation controls as a means of limiting airpollution suggests that they hold only modest promise for reducing car travel nationwide, insome congested cities the results could be significant.Long-term reductions in emissions can be achieved by changing patterns of settlementto minimize the need for travel. This can be accomplished by planning for high densities, orby mixing uses so that residences, jobs, and services are roughly balanced. When moredestinations are close to home, more trips can be made by foot; when densities are higher,public transit can serve more people effectively. Restrictions on suburban development—sometimes only on commercial and industrial development, and sometimes on residentialdevelopment as well—have been attempted in a few regions of the United States. Resistanceto such measures is likely to be high, and it is not an area where national policy makers canhave significant influence.For large cuts in carbon emissions to be achieved in the transportation sector, the mosteffective approach will be an integrated portfolio of policy measures that concurrentlyinfluence the fuel efficiency of new vehicles through standards or feebates, discourageautomobile use through gasoline taxes or other measures, and provide alternatives to singlepassenger automobile travel through carpooling, mass transit, and/or strategies to increase thedensity of urban and suburban settlements.ManufacturingIn this sector three technical improvements hold the greatest promise. The first is ―processchanges‖—for example, using electric arc rather than oxygen furnaces to make steel. The topfour consumers of energy in manufacturing— paper, chemicals, petroleum, and primarymetals—account for more than 75 percent of energy consumption in thissector. Together, by means of process changes, these industries improved their energyefficiency by between 2.3 and 4.3 percent per year between 1980 and 1985. If this pace canbe maintained, as we assume in our tough set of options for Congress, total carbon emissionsin the U.S. could drop by about 8 percent of the current total by the year 2015.Cogenerating electricity and steam for industrial processes is another promisingstrategy. If electricity were generated at industrial sites where the heat could be used to driveengines and fire furnaces, the efficiency of fossil fuels would rise dramatically. Widespreaduse of cogeneration technologies could contribute about a 4 percent drop in U.S. carbonemissions from the current total by 2015. More efficient motors are a third technicalimprovement that can bring substantial improvements, yielding reductions of about 4 percentby 2015.
14A variety of promising policy options can encourage these technical measures:A carbon tax would levy economic penalties against factories with the highest emissions ofcarbon. Given such an approach, the tax would be highest on plants burning coal, low forthose burning natural gas.Emissions limits and efficiency standards. For example, a limit on the rate of carbon emissionby older utility plants might be set equal to the rate of the most efficient new coal-burningtechnologies. Such a limit would require a typical mid western plant burning Illinois coal toburn between about 10 and 30 percent gas, depending on the plant‘s efficiency.Two somewhat different strategies could be pursued to set carbon dioxide emissionlimits for new plants. If the intent is to force development of ultra-efficient coal technologies,then a standard could be set about equal to the lowest rate of emission anticipated fromtechnologies in the laboratory stage of development today. If the intent is to limit newfossil-fuel-fired generation to the cleanest sources only, then an even lower performancestandard could be set— recognizing, however, that this might foreclose the option of usingcoal. To speed up replacement of old plants with new, less polluting ones, Congress couldrequire the retirement of existing fossil-fuel-fired plants earlier than their expected lifetime of60 years.Efficiency standards for common energy-using equipment would be similar to those thatalready exist for automobiles and some appliances. Motors, as a category, would be the mostlikely candidate. If market-based approaches to lowering emissions—carbon taxes ormarketable permits—will work in any sector, they are most likely to be effective formanufacturing (and electric utilities). Demand-side management programs can substitute formarket-based emission controls but are more effective as a complement to such controls.Designing standards that make sense for the widely divergent uses of energy-consumingequipment in manufacturing is much more difficult than for the building or transportationsector. Such standards should be possible, however, for at least some of the more commontypes of technologies in these sectors.
15CONCLUSIONTackling climate change requires aggressive and prompt action. A number of technologiesare available to reduce global carbon emissions. CCS has a valuable role to play in theclimate mitigation portfolio, alongside other solutions. First generation CCS technology iscommercially available today, enabling the deployment of the technology to begin worldwideimmediately. Extensive research has shown that this can be done safely and effectively, withthe right regulatory oversight. Regulatory frameworks for carbon dioxide injection are beingfinalized in various countries around the world, and it is important that these contain adequatesafeguards for public health and the environment, and that all countries abide by minimumstandards.The main barrier for its adoption today is the price premium that it entails, but significantcost improvements are expected in the near future once serious deployment begins.Governments have a pivotal role to play in enabling CCS deployment throughcomplementary policies that include limits and a price on carbon emissions, incentives forearly deployment and performance standards for specific types of facility. Enhanced oilrecovery using carbon dioxide is expected to play an important role in the early years of CCSdeployment in certain countries, but appropriate regulation of the practice is needed to ensurepermanent sequestration. Internationally, a dedicated financing mechanism to enable CCSdeployment in developing countries with industrialized country participation is needed.
16ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe success of any research study depends upon a number of factors among which the properguidance from the experts in the industry and a faculty plays an important role. We wouldlike to express our heartfelt thanks to many people. This Project is an effort to contributetowards achieving the desired objectives. In doing so, we have optimized all availableresources and made use of some external resources, the interplay of which, over a periodof time, led to the attainment of the set goals. We take here a great opportunity to express oursincere and deep sense of gratitude to Dr. Rudra Rameshwar for giving us an opportunity towork on this project. The support & guidance from Sir, was of great help & it was extremelyvaluable. We express our sincere thanks to all the people who, directly or indirectly,contributed in time, energy and knowledge to this effort