United States

Climate Progress, By Joe Romm on October 18, 2013 at 11:13 am

Most claims that shale gas will significantly reduce US carbon emissions in the future are based on little more than hand-waving and wishful thinking. That’s because those claims assume natural gas is replacing coal only, rather than replacing some combination of coal, renewables, nuclear power, and energy efficiency — which is obviously what will happen in the real world.

To figure out what the impact of shale gas is actually going to be, you need an energy-economy model. And since the output of one model depends crucially on the specific assumptions it makes, the best approach would be to look at results of several models. And that is precisely what Stanford’s Energy Modeling Forum does in its new study, “Changing the Game? Emissions and Market Implications of New Natural Gas Supplies Report.”

MORE INFORMATION HERE

Climate Central,  April 14, 2013

Cutting CO2 emissions is critical in the long term, but readily achievable reductionsof non-CO2 pollutants would do far more to slow sea level rise this centurythan actions to reduce CO2 emissions alone, protecting millions of people and billions of dollars of real estate from rising seas.

The article, "Mitigation of short-lived climate pollutants slows sea level rise", by Hu et al., is a collaboration between scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and Climate Central, and examines how much the rate and amount of global sea level rise can be reduced by cutting emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and four short-lived climate pollutants (SLCP) — methane, tropospheric ozone, hydrofluorocarbons, and black carbon — by mid-century (2050) and in the long term (2100). These results are compared to a "Business As Usual" scenario and to mitigating CO2 only.

FULL ARTICLE AND INTERACTIVE MAP HERE

Report of the Maryland Commission on Climate Change -- Adaptation and Response Working Group -- July 2008

FULL REPORT HERE