Number range CHAPTERDecember 16, 2002

**Rapporteurs\' Report for Breakout Session on**

**"Stabilizing Greenhouse Gases in the Earth's Atmosphere: Opportunities
for Technology and Innovation"**

**2:00 - 4:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 4^th^, 2002**

#  

# Introduction

# 

Breakout session \# 16, entitled "Stabilizing Greenhouse Gases in the
Earth's Atmosphere -- Opportunities for Technology and Innovation", was
different from the other 23 sessions in that it addressed the R&D plans
for climate change technology development, as part of a comprehensive
response to the climate change challenge, and did not seek to provide a
critique or comment on the draft Strategic Plan for the combined U.S.
Global Change Research Program and the Climate Change Research
Initiative (CCRI), or any specific chapter or topical theme therein.

Specifically, the session was designed to explore the role of technology
in facilitating progress toward meeting the President's near- and
long-term climate change goals for the U.S., and in supporting, more
generally, the central goal of the U.S.-ratified United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is to achieve:

> \"...stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the Earth\'s
> atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
> interference with the climate system.\"

# Moderator

The two-hour session began with moderator Rob Socolow of Princeton
University setting context and introducing the relevance of technology
to a conference devoted primarily to climate science. He pointed out
that almost no other session or parts of the Strategic Plan for the
Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), except for parts of Chapters 4,
6, and 11, addressed factors that support technology and innovation.
This session was about searching for solutions to the climate change
challenge.

Socolow argued that while there is a challenge in understanding the
scientific aspects of climate policy issues, it is equally important to
determine what to do about them. R&D should address both the problem and
its potential for finding solutions. Socolow pointed out that there are
science needs relevant to the technologies that address potential
solutions that the CCSP Strategic Plan fail to address; needs that he
termed not climate science, but \"solution science.\" A few examples
include the consequences of injecting CO2 into brine aquifers, storage
for hydrogen fuels, crop residues and agriculture, and more. He also
argued that deployment needs include both improvements to existing
technologies and revolutionary developments in new technologies. Some
near-term technological needs include advances in efficiency, coal
gasification with CO2 capture, and wind technologies. Examples of
revolutionary technologies would include fusion, synthetic
photosynthesis, and others.

**Panelist #1 -- Federal Perspective**

Panelist #1, Bob Marlay from the DOE's Office of Science and Technology
Policy, provided an overview of Federal perspectives on climate change
technology and related R&D planning activities. Marlay pointed out that
the Administration has a technology counterpart to the Department of
Commerce-led CCSP, that is, the DOE-led Climate Change Technology
Program (CCTP). He noted that both the CCSP and CCTP are guided by the
Cabinet-level Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology
Integration (CCCSTI). He noted, further, that this symmetry between
climate change science and technology extended to their respective
Presidential initiatives, and that, like the CCRI of the CCSP, the
National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI) was the technology
counterpart to the CCRI and part of the CCTP.

He began by referencing the President\'s two major policy addresses on
the subject of climate change, one on June 11, 2001, and another on
February 14, 2002. In these two addresses, the President reaffirmed
America\'s commitment to work within the United Nations framework to
develop a flexible, science-based response to the important issue of
climate change. Among other actions, the President committed the Federal
Government to pursue a broad range of strategies to reduce growth of GHG
emissions and launched the CCRI and NCCTI. The CCTP and NCCTI efforts
have involved as many as 10 Federal R&D agencies. Working groups have
been established, as well as a staff office in DOE, to provide technical
support to the CCTP, NCCTI and, more generally, the CCCSTI.

Marlay identified five key thrusts for climate change technology
development emerging from the CCTP effort: (1) transform the energy
supply to reduced GHG content of all forms of energy supply, (2)
transform energy end-use through efficiency and fuel-switching, (3)
capture and sequester GHGs through direct and indirect modes, (4)
mitigate contributions to warming of other gases with a specific focus
on industrial and agriculture practices, and (5) measurement, monitor,
and verification of GHG inventories and fluxes. He then highlighted key
areas for future applied R&D emphasis, including GHG-free electricity,
GHG-free fuels, GHG-free feedstocks and materials, and technologies for
the reduction of emissions in GHG gases other than CO2, and identified a
number of key areas for supporting basic research.

**Panelist #2 -- National Lab Perspective**

Panelist #2, Ken Caldeira from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
addressed the long-term perspectives on climate change technology,
including scope, scale, potential contributions, limitations and timing
required for stabilization. He referred the audience to a recent article
published by Marty Hoffert, et al, including himself, in *Science*
(Science Vol. 298, pp. 981-987, 1 Nov. 2002). The authors surveyed the
potentials of long-term technologies to provide large-scale carbon
emission-free energy.

Caldeira identified three strategies to frame his review of energy
sources for climate stabilization: (1) diminish end-use demand; (2)
sequester carbon; and (3) develop non-fossil energy sources. He
summarized possible candidates for primary energy sources, including
terrestrial solar and wind energy, solar power satellites, biomass,
nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, fossil fuels with carbon capture and
sequestration. Non-primary power technologies included efficiency
improvements, hydrogen production, storage and transport,
superconducting global electric grids, and geoengineering.

Caldeira concluded that most, if not all, technological approaches
exhibit deficiencies that limit their ability to contribute to
stabilizing global climate and that therefore we need to invest in
overcoming barriers in a diverse portfolio of energy options. He
emphasized that a broad range of research and development options is
needed to improve the productivity of energy use, get more energy from
renewable resources, store energy and transmit it over long distances,
sequester carbon from fossil-fuels, have safe and environmentally
acceptable fission power, with fuel extension, and get energy from
fusion, and other advanced energy sources.

Areas covered or alluded to in the *Science* article as potentially
important for the long-term, but not covered in the current Federal R&D
portfolio, include: nuclear fuel and extension of uranium supply;
adaptation technology, in the likely event that warming will continue to
occur; solar power satellites in space; global electric grid
connectivity; and various geo-engineering strategies to scatter sunlight
and effect offsetting cooling.

**Panelist #3 -- Industry Perspective**

Panelist #3, Brian Flannery of ExxonMobil, addressed the role of
business and industry in climate R&D, and discussed the recent
announcement of the Stanford-based Global Climate and Energy Project
(GCEP). The GCEP creates a unique technology research collaboration
between outstanding academic institutions and private companies (capable
of conducting state-of-the-art technology research and commercializing
significant technologies globally) to accelerate the development of
innovative, commercially viable technologies that address climate change
concerns.

The GCEP, a ten-year program, led by Stanford University, with sponsored
funding by ExxonMobil (\$100 million), General Electric (\$50 million),
Schlumberger (\$25 million). E.ON has signaled its intent to contribute
\$50 million in the future. In addition, there may be additional
partners later. The GCEP\'s purpose is to demonstrate sponsors'
commitment to foster technological solutions to address long-term risks
of climate change and to mobilize significant academic and private
resources to accelerate development and commercialization of advanced
energy supply and end use technology.

The GCEP will: (1) develop concepts for innovative technologies with low
GHG emissions that can be used globally with explicit consideration of
developing country needs, (2) identify barriers to commercialization
(performance, cost, safety, environmental & regulatory, consumer
acceptance), (3) define and conduct fundamental, pre-commercial research
to overcome barriers, utilizing academic talent from around the world,
and (4) periodically assess progress, adjust the portfolio of research
programs to pursue most promising leads.

The GCEP portfolio will include an initial project slate of geological
sequestration of carbon, hydrogen from biomass and hydrogen fuel cells,
advanced combustion, especially in transport, and strategic assessment
of technology options. In addition, there are planned R&D collaborations
around the world and development of major research programs will grow in
early years to span the entire scope of proposed activity.

While GCEP will not seek direct government funding, the program will
seek opportunities to share results with government R&D initiatives.
Future results of GCEP research may also lead to opportunities for
large-scale development or demonstration projects that could create
opportunities for government programs.

**Panelist #4 -- Integrative Science Perspective**

Panelist #4, Charles Kennel of the University of California, San Diego/
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, highlighted the importance of basic
research, and talked of the interfaces between the CCSP-CCRI and the
CCTP-NCCTI. He identified the absence of an assessment of impacts of
global deployment of potential mitigation technologies as a critical but
missing part of the CCSP Strategic Plan. For example, some have
suggested that iron fertilization can enhance carbon sequestration via
stimulation of biota in the upper ocean. Can this mitigation strategy
move forward without basic understanding?

Kennel pointed out that the CCSP and CCTP need to be better integrated
and not go on as independent initiatives. He underscored this point
using several examples. First, he said that the five technology thrusts
cited by Bob Marlay (see above) create a demand on the scientific
community for more supporting basic research to accelerate progress, as
well as better undrstanding of the environmental implications of their
deployment, if successful. Further, technologies for mitigation and
adaptation will stimulate new needs for basic science. He proposed that
regular integrated assessments of the scientific, technological,
environmental, and socioeconomic progress relevant to the technology
strategy, as outlined in the CCTP, be conducted.

**Panelist #5 -- Basic Ressearch Perspective**

Panelist #5, Linda Horton of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, wrapped up
by discussing some of the findings and conclusions of a recent workshop,
held by the Department of Energy\'s Basic Energy Sciences Advisory
Committee. The purpose of the Workshop was to identify the fundamental
scientific challenges that DOE\'s Basic Energy Sciences must consider in
addressing the DOE missions in energy efficiency, renewable energy
resources, improved use of fossil fuels, safe and publicly acceptable
nuclear energy, future energy sources, science-based stockpile
stewardship, and reduced environmental impacts of energy production and
use. A number of themes were identified, including:

-   Materials research to transcend energy barriers, such as
    nanomaterials, degradation of materials, solid-state lighting, novel
    materials for energy, radiation effects, and sensors

-   Biology for photovoltaics, biomass, and photosynthesis applications

-   Research towards a hydrogen economy

-   Energy storage,

-   Novel membrane assemblies,

-   Heterogeneous catalysis, including theoretical computational aspects
    and advanced experimental techniques,

-   Energy conversion, such as CO2-free energy, energy systems modeling,
    solar, and fuel cells,

-   Utilization/efficiency, which includes solid state lighting,
    multiplayer thin films, sensors, deposition processes, and

-   Nuclear fuel cycles and actinide chemistry.

    Horton concluded that the Workshop participants were optimistic
    about being able to meet the climate change challenge using the
    themes listed above. She indicated that there was agreement that
    there was no single focus or solution, but rather a broad
    application of knowledge to the challenge.

# Session Participation {#session-participation .unnumbered}

*1. Bob Hewitt, National Institute of Standards and Technology*. Mr.
Hewitt hopes that when considering a technology strategy, any and all
potential unintended consequences are kept in mind. For example, he
said, when everyone talks about the need for a hydrogen economy, that
the issue of hydrogen leaks needs to be considered. What will the impact
of hydrogen be on the environment?

*2. Walter Shab, U.S. Chamber of Commerce*: The challenge is diffusing
the technologies, any thoughts?

Response of Brian Flannery: Yes, diffusion is a huge challenge, even
when you consider just the OECD. When you consider developing countries
as well, the challenge is even greater. In some cases, there are certain
advantages in developing countries where the opportunity exists for
construction of grass roots facilities, rather than incremental retrofit
deployment that often occurs in the developed world. The issue of
diffusion requires a great deal of consideration in assessing how
technological innovation can contribute to global solutions.

Response of Rob Socolow: You must remember that diffusion within a
country is also an issue.

*3. Mr. Dubay, Los Alamos National Laboratory*: There needs to be a
"marriage" between the science and the technology. This has not happened
yet, and it is disheartening to see that the resource commitments are
not there yet either. The IPCC, for example, is way ahead in that they
are working on adaptation. As we transition to a new economy, we need to
assess before we do large-scale implementation.

*4. Marty Spitzer, House Science Committee*: The best measure of
technology is penetration into the market. Need to consider if the
portfolio between basic sciences, applied sciences and diffusion is
appropriately balanced and on the right scale.

Response by Charlie Kennel: The solution will lie in technology
development. But the question is about time scales. We can think about
technology initiatives as a long-term investment in technology research,
but we must consider both the short run and the long run to get there.
So the question is the balance between technology and science. This will
become clearer when we can compare the CCRI and the NCCTI programs
side-by-side.

Another question is resources. As our plans become better articulated,
there must be new money.

Response by Brian Flannery: There are a large number of existing
technologies that could make a big difference if they were used or
further commercialized. Working now to establish policies and enabling
frameworks for more rapid use of existing efficient technology will also
assist in deployment of innovative technology in the future.

*5. Dick Mitchell, Los Alamos National Laboratory*: When I think of the
interaction between science and technology, a major area of overlap is
measuring, monitoring and verification. Thinking about trying to manage
something that we can't measure makes me nervous. What do we have in the
current inventory? What do we need? How do we fill the gaps?

Response by Rob Socolow: Need to also consider that in some
technologies, for example, sequestration, instrumentation itself is a
problem.

Response by Bob Marlay: One of the six working groups in the CCTP is
dedicated to an ongoing effort to focus on measuring, monitoring, and
verification. Included in this group is the development of a hierarchy
of tools and inference models.

*6. Mr. McCormick, from a National Environmental Organization*: Climate
change is a daunting challenge. What is DOE's focus on
graduate/undergraduate education and the levels needed to meet these
challenges. DOE needs to look at technology (hardware) but also needs to
look at the knowledge base (software).

Response by Bob Marlay: You are right we need to grow a new generation
of skilled individuals. Universities are DOE\'s largest performers and
DOE spends a lot of money on academic grants. There are also a lot of
opportunities for NSF grants and some fellowship programs.

Response by Rob Socolow: There are two requirements to get talent. First
of all you need funding. Second, you need excitement about the topic.
Climate change is exciting and I think students will be attracted to
this field. I would be amazed if talent was our limiting factor.

*7. Dan Day, Eprida, President*: I agree that funding from industry has
a great impact. But what is the role of the entrepreneurs? Involvement
of ambitious people from developing countries will be critical? It is
also important that the people in developing countries be empowered with
the belief that they are participants in addressing climate change. How
do corporations and entrepreneurs get involved and how will this be
promoted?

*8. John (last name?), Tellus Institute*: Quoted someone involved in the
IPCC TAR (WGII)---in order to reach 450/550 ppmv, you can get 1/3 of the
way there by picking up \$20's off the street, 1/3 of the way by
investment and 1/3 of the way by lifestyle changes and compromises. Now
if we think about the second commitment period, what type of normative
framework will, or should be, imposed? I think it will probably be a per
capita system. The hardest challenge is in the U.S. What sort of
approaches can be implemented to affect human behavior? If that is the
case, how do we get from where we are today to where we will need to be?

Reply from Rob Socolow: There\'s one chapter in the CCSP Strategic Plan
that addresses the human dimension to climate change and offers some
interesting points to your question.

*9. Klaus Lackner, Colombia University*: There was a graph about what it
will require to stabilize emissions. Considering the basic interactions
between science and technology, how do we get there? There are many
questions that are raised. How much carbon will have to be removed and
how much will be allowed to come out? Is it one gigantic step or a
number of little steps over the next years? What is the annual allowance
in future emissions?

Response from Rob Socolow: Science itself will direct technology. Recall
the slide in my presentation that showed the horizontal lines. In order
to achieve stabilization, these lines would have to head downward.

Response from Bob Marlay: Undersecretary Card has often spoken of the
need to understand the relationship of anthropogenic emissions to
natural. We have a long way to go on the modeling capabilities. We also
need to look at the interface between CCSP and CCTP.

Response from Charlie Kennel: The policy question is, is there a safe
level of CO~2~. Science can pick certain geophysical limits and when
they will occur. For example, at what point will the snowpack melt?
Science can undertake a program evaluating the regional and sectoral
impacts. That is important because every participant needs to know the
impacts on their interests. If that is the case, then you need to
discuss the particulars of different regions. If is very difficult for
political systems to understand time scales.

*10. Kurt Davies, Greenpeace*: I would like to note the real urgency
suggested in Ken Caldeira's presentation, it is the first real note of
urgency. With this, it should be known that some options are off the
table as solutions to the challenge. 1) Emissions are getting worse and
going slowly is not an option, 2) Allowing emissions to get worse is not
an option, and 3) certain technologies are not an option. When will
Exxon Mobil realize what Shell/BP have already realized, that there will
be a fossil-free future. ExxonMobil may be spending \$100 M on the GCEP
initiative but are spending \$100 B over the same time on fossil fuels.

Response from Brian Flannery: Every mainstream energy institution, such
as the International Energy Agency and the U.S. Energy Information
Administration, projects a growing demand for petroleum products to meet
societies needs. Meeting that need will require significant investment.
In our own effort to help meet that market demand, ExxonMobil does
intend to invest \$100 B over the next 10 years in petroleum resources,
At the same time all of our competitors are also investing to increase
their production. At ExxonMobil, we also intend to invest heavily in R&D
for climate technologies.

*11. Mary Gant, Health and Human Services*: Those working on the
strategic plan should consider the necessary research to understand
impacts on human health and well being related to technology.

Response from Rob Socolow: There are gaps in understanding the health
impacts.

Response by Bob Marlay: It would be most helpful if we could identify
some people at HHS to become involved in this process.

*12. Bert (last name?), Netherlands*: Technology is key to solving the
climate change problem. But there are barriers, including the social
acceptance, culture, institutions, etc. for deployment of new
technologies. It is also necessary to evaluate the technology deployment
in light of these barriers.

Response: Yes, we are considering the barriers and how to overcome them.

*13. Javis, NYU and the World Sustainability Coalition to the UN*:
Biomass is the future, but it is not in crop residues, but other
agriculture. Land can be led to productive use. However, current U.S.
agriculture policy is to pay farmers to leave fields dormant by
providing subsidies and set aside programs to support the price of
commodities. So the current agriculture policy is inconsistent with the
desire to advance climate change policies that would promote the use of
farmland in growing biomass and using crop residues for carbon-free
fuel, such as bio-diesel.

The second point regards the end-user that generates 85% of greenhouse
gas emissions. I would compare this to what has happened with the
tobacco industry and smokers. The end-user, in the case of the smoker,
isn\'t held liable for poor choices and the tobacco industry is held
responsible. Will the same thing happen with the end users of energy
that generates GHG emissions? I would suggest that the end user can't be
held responsible because for years they didn't know (my comment: this is
the argument of the US).

Response by Ken Calderia: Yes, ethanol is one option. This is a prime
example of an area were there's a real need for a science-based
approach. But it is also necessary to have market incentives to reflect
the exogenous costs.

*14. Cronin, National Energy Technology Laboratory*: It is also
necessary to continue to build framework consider to technology for
adaptation of climate change.

15\. *Representative from Congressman Inslee's Office*: Is the Federal
government trying to create a new Apollo program on climate change
technologies? What is the proper framework for this initiative; will it
be like putting a man on the moon? What percentage of non-carbon
technologies are going to be needed and when?