Hi all, A faculty/student team here at Brown secured some funding to re-run the state of Rhode Island's greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan, which was originally completed in December of 2016. It modeled technical actions that would get the state to 80% emissions reductions by 2050. This goal, which we helped pass in 2014 in the Resilient Rhode Island Act, is based on 1999 science and is inadequate. As the IPCC Special Report on 1.5 degrees showed, we need to get to 100% carbon free by 2040 (we are also trying 2035, 2045 and 2050). Our governor has indicated she is open to more ambition on climate goals, if we can demonstrate it's possible to get there. Our goal in this re-do of the modeling is to see what it would take. We are also seeking to correct some choices that I believe made the earlier study unrealistic, like crazy low methane leakage rates from natural gas infrastructure and utilizing consumption-based accounting only for the electricity sector. These corrections make the (realistic) mountain of emissions reductions needed even higher.
We have rehired the same consulting group the state used (the Stockholm Environmental Group's Boston team), and they are open to making more ambitious plans to test feasibility and possible cost of deeper decarbonization. One can see from the Climate Solutions simulator featured in the Brad Plumer piece today <https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/13/climate/cut-us-emissions-with-policies-from-other-countries.html> in the New York Times that traditional policies get us some of the way but nowhere near far enough. I believe we are going to run into that situation here. We need more, different, not just technical solutions. So I think we need to do some modeling of behavioral change, and what that can get us in emissions reductions. We're just starting the list: reductions in airplane travel (say, to 80% less flying), lower vehicle miles traveled (what is feasible? realistic?), reduced red meat consumption (any modeling of local carbon impacts, not supply chain totals), transit-oriented development, education programs on energy waste, and so on? What else should be on this list, and what numbers are out there on both what CAN be done and what is LIKELY to be acceptable to people. I do not believe we should be constrained by the current politics and cultural denial about the urgency of this issue, but I don't want to propose things that simply won't fly...unless there is simply no other ways. This is an exercise in understanding what is possible with what actions when, not in developing one pathway forward. We have just a few weeks to get some numbers and curves to the modelers to put some of this stuff into the models. So any really top sources and approaches appreciated. My impression two years ago from organizing a session at the NAS was that the modeling on human behavior and even uptake of new technologies is barely existent. I hope I'm wrong. Our 2016 study, fyi, is here <http://climatechange.ri.gov/documents/ec4-ghg-emissions-reduction-plan-final-draft-2016-12-29-clean.pdf> . Thanks tremendously, I'll summarize what I get and report back to the list. Timmons -- Timmons Roberts @timmonsroberts Ittleson Professor of Environmental Studies and Sociology Director, the Climate and Development Lab www.climatedevlab.brown.edu Brown University https://vivo.brown.edu/display/jr17 Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution http://www.brookings.edu/experts/robertst -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gep-ed" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
