Advertisement

Would constraining US fossil fuel production affect global CO2 emissions? A case study of US leasing policy

Article

Abstract

Avoiding dangerous climate change will require a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. By some estimates, global consumption and production of fossil fuels—particularly coal and oil—will need to end almost entirely within 50 years. Given the scale of such a transition, nations may need to consider policies that constrain growth in fossil fuel supplies in addition to those that reduce demand. Here, we examine the emissions implications of a supply-constraining measure that was rapidly gaining momentum in the United States (US) under the Obama administration: ceasing the issuance of new leases for fossil fuel extraction on federal lands and waters. Such a measure could reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 280 million tons annually by 2030, comparable to that of other major climate policies adopted or considered by the Obama administration. Our findings suggest that measures to constrain fossil fuel supply—though not currently viable in a US Trump administration—deserve further consideration at subnational levels in the US or by other countries now, and by future US administrations.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Jeff Archibald, Mike McCormick, John Larsen, Peter Marsters, Paul Ekins, Michael Mellish, and Spencer Reeder for helpful discussions about data and methodology. Adrian Down at SEI-US provided research support, and Mark Haggerty of Headwaters Economics and Sivan Kartha of SEI-US helped review this article.

Funding information

Funding support was provided by Friends of the Earth US.

Supplementary material

10584_2018_2152_MOESM1_ESM.docx (77 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 76 kb)

References

  1. Aldina J (2013) Canada’s role as a global coal supplier. Coal Association of Canada 2013 Conference, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson K, McKibbin WJ (2000) Reducing coal subsidies and trade barriers: their contribution to greenhouse gas abatement. Environ Dev Econ 5(4):457–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer N, Mouratiadou I, Luderer G, Baumstark L, Brecha RJ, Edenhofer O, Kriegler E (2013) Global fossil energy markets and climate change mitigation—an analysis with REMIND. Climatic Change online 22 OctoberGoogle Scholar
  4. BLM (2017) Federal coal program: programmatic environmental impact statement-scoping report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  5. BLM (2016) Notice of intent to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement to review the federal coal program and to conduct public scoping meetings (no. 81 FR 17720, document no. 2016-07136). U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Bordoff J, Houser T (2015) Navigating the U.S. oil export debate. Columbia University, Center on Global Energy Policy and Rhodium Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Briscoe MB (2017) Wild Earth Guardians & Sierra Club v. United States Bureau of Land Management and Wyoming Mining Association; BTU Western Resources, Inc; State of Wyoming; National Mining Association, Elisabeth A. ShumakerGoogle Scholar
  8. Burger M, Wentz JA (2017) Downstream and upstream greenhouse gas emissions: the proper scope of NEPA review. Harvard Environmental Law Review 41(1):109–187.  https://doi.org/10.7916/D81G0SS0 Google Scholar
  9. CARB (2017) The 2017 climate change scoping plan update: the proposed strategy for achieving California’s 2030 greenhouse gas target. California Air Resources BoardGoogle Scholar
  10. CEA (2016) The economics of coal leasing on federal lands: ensuring a fair return to taxpayers. White House Council of Economic Advisers, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  11. Copenhagen Economics (2017) The future of fossil fuels: how to steer fossil fuel use in a transition to a low-carbon energy system. Energy Transitions CommissionGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis SJ, Peters GP, Caldeira K (2011) The supply chain of CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:18554–18559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Energy Modeling Forum (2013) Changing the game? Emissions and market implications of new natural gas supplies (EMF Report 26). Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Erickson P, Lazarus M (2014) Impact of the keystone XL pipeline on global oil markets and greenhouse gas emissions. Nat Clim Chang 4:778–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fæhn T, Hagem C, Lindholt L, Mæland S, Rosendahl KE (2017) Climate policies in a fossil fuel producing country: demand versus supply side policies. Energy J 38(1):77–102.  https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.38.1.tfae Google Scholar
  16. Gillingham K, Stock JH (2016) Federal minerals leasing reform and climate policy. The Hamilton Project, BrookingsGoogle Scholar
  17. Geiling N (2017) France just became the second country in the world to end oil exploration. Think progress. Retrieved from https://thinkprogress.org/france-to-end-oil-extraction-2040-1dbb97ae7612/
  18. Gerarden T, Reeder WS, Stock JH (2016) Federal Coal Program Reform, the Clean Power Plan, and the interaction of upstream and downstream climate policies (working paper no. 22214). National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  19. Gurría A (2013) The climate challenge: achieving zero emissions. Lecture by the OECD Secretary-General London, 9 October 2013Google Scholar
  20. Haftendorn C, Kemfert C, Holz F (2012) What about coal? Interactions between climate policies and the global steam coal market until 2030. Energy Policy 48:274–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haggerty M, Lawson M, Pearcy J (2015) Steam coal at an arm’s length: an evaluation of proposed reform options for US coal used in power generation (SSRN scholarly paper no. ID 2627865). Social Science Research Network, RochesterGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamilton JD (2009) Understanding crude oil prices. Energy J 30:179–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Headwaters Economics (2015) Federal coal lease database. Bozeman, MTGoogle Scholar
  24. Heede R (2013) Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010. Clim Chang 122:229–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huffman J, Lieu T, Honda M et al (2016) Keep it in the Ground Act of 2016Google Scholar
  26. IEA (2015) World energy outlook 2015. International Energy Agency, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. IEA (2016) World energy outlook 2016. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  28. IEA (2017) Energy technology perspectives 2017. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, HayamaGoogle Scholar
  30. IPCC (2014) Summary for policymakers: climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University press, Cambridge and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Jaccard M, Hoffele J, Jaccard T (2018) Can carbon budgets and oil pipeline approvals be linked? [this issue]Google Scholar
  32. Jiao JL, Fan Y, Wei Y-M (2009) The structural break and elasticity of coal demand in China: empirical findings from 1980-2006. Int J Glob Energy Issues 31:331–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Joskow PL (1987) Contract duration and relationship-specific investments: empirical evidence from coal markets. Am Econ Rev 77:168–185Google Scholar
  34. Lazarus M, Tempest K, Klevnas P, Korsbakken JI (2015) Natural gas: guardrails for a potential climate bridge. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm and SeattleGoogle Scholar
  35. Luppens JA, Scott DC (2015) Coal geology and assessment of coal resources and reserves in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana (USGS Numbered Series No. 1809), Professional paper. U.S. Geological Survey, RestonGoogle Scholar
  36. Masnadi MS, Brandt AR (2017) Climate impacts of oil extraction increase significantly with oilfield age. Nature Clim Change 7:551–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McGlade C, Ekins P (2015) The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature 517:187–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McKinsey and Company (2007) Reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions: how much at what cost? The Conference Board, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Merkley J, Cardin B, Sanders B et al (2015) Keep it in the Ground Act of 2015Google Scholar
  40. Metcalf G (2016) The impact of removing tax preferences for U.S. oil and gas production. Council on Foreign RelationsGoogle Scholar
  41. Miller LA, Bate RL (2011) Powder River basin coal resource and cost study: Campbell, Converse and Sheridan counties, Wyoming Big Horn, Powder River, Rosebud and Treasure counties, Montana (report no. 3155.001). Denver, COGoogle Scholar
  42. Muttitt G, McKinnon H, Stockman L, Kretzmann S, Scott A, Turnbull D (2016) The Sky’s limit: why the Paris climate goals require a managed decline of fossil fuel production. Oil Change International, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  43. ONRR (2015) Statistical information. Office of Natural Resources RevenueGoogle Scholar
  44. Paltsev S, Reilly JM, Jacoby HD, Morris JF (2009) The cost of climate policy in the United States. Energy Economics 31(supplement 2):S235–S243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Perloff JM (2007) Microeconomics, 4th ed. Pearson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Pierce BS, Dennen KO (2009) The national coal resource assessment overview, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper. United States Geological Survey, RestonGoogle Scholar
  47. Piggot G, Erickson P, Lazarus M, van Asselt H (2017) Addressing fossil fuel production under the UNFCCC: Paris and beyond (working paper). Stockholm Environment Institute, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  48. Rockström J, Gaffney O, Rogelj J, Meinshausen M, Nakicenovic N, Schellnhuber HJ (2017) A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science 355(6331):1269–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rogelj J, Schaeffer M, Meinshausen M, Knutti R, Alcamo J, Riahi K, Hare W (2015) Zero emission targets as long-term global goals for climate protection. Environ Res Lett 10:105007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rystad Energy (2016) Cube browser, version 1.18. Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  51. Rystad Energy (2017) UCube update and market perspectives. Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  52. Sathaye J, Meyers S (1995) Greenhouse gas mitigation assessment: a guidebook. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  53. Steininger KW, Schinko T (2016) Environmental policy in an open economy: refocusing climate policy to address international trade spillovers. In: Dynamic approaches to global economic challenges. Springer, Cham, pp 171–190Google Scholar
  54. Sinn H-W (2012) The green paradox: a supply-side approach to global warming. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  55. Stern DI (2012) Interfuel substitution: a meta-analysis. J Econ Surv 26:307–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. UNEP (2017) The emissions gap report 2017. United Nations Environment Programme, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  57. US EIA (2015a) Analysis of the impacts of the Clean Power Plan. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  58. US EIA (2015b) Monthly energy review, January 2015. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  59. US EPA (2012) Final rulemaking for 2017-2025 light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards and corporate average fuel economy standards (no. EPA-420-R-12-016). Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  60. US EPA (2013) Documentation for EPA base case v.5.13 using the integrated planning model (No. Report No. 450R13002). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from http://www2.epa.gov/airmarkets/power-sector-modeling-platform-v513
  61. US EPA (2014) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  62. US EPA (2015a) Proposed rulemaking for greenhouse gas emission standards and fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles–phase 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  63. US EPA (2015b) Regulatory impact analysis for the Clean Power Plan final rule (no. EPA-452/R-15-003). Office of air and Radiation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle ParkGoogle Scholar
  64. US GAO (2013) BLM could enhance appraisal process, more explicitly consider coal exports, and provide more public information. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  65. Vulcan/ICF (2016) Federal Coal Leasing Reform Options: effects on CO2 emissions and energy markets. Fairfax, VAGoogle Scholar
  66. Wolvovsky E, Anderson W (2016) OCS oil and Natural gas: potential lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions and social cost of carbon. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, SterlingGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stockholm Environment Institute (U.S. Center)SeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations