Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The major habitats impacted by new energy development also varied among
scenarios for certain energy production techniques. For example, scenarios where
continued coal power generation is viable, either because of no restrictions on carbon
emissions (Reference scenario) or because CCS is viable (e.g., CCS Scenario) have
greater impacts on those major habitat types with major coal seams (e.g., Temperate
Deciduous Forests). Conversely, scenarios where coal power generation is less vi-
able have greater production from wind, affecting specifi c habitat types where those
production techniques are favorable (e.g., Temperate Conifer Forests). Climate policy
thus controls the extent to which specifi c habitat types are at risk from new energy
development.
DISCUSSION
Our analyses show that, regardless of scenario, at least 206,000 km
2
of new land will
be required to meet US energy demand by 2030. Further, implementing a cap-and-
trade system may increase the total new area impacted by energy development and
change its distribution among habitat types, relative to the Reference Scenario. Energy
production will shift from fossil fuels to energy production techniques that draw more
diffuse energy from a broader spatial area. Note that because the EIA analysis assumes
that the energy market responds to price signals and does not explicitly attempt to min-
imize land-use per se, it is theoretically possible that there are other, more expensive
mixes of energy production that would satisfy US energy needs in 2030 but would take
less space. Although policies that reduce carbon emissions with minimal new land use
are possible, none of the different policy EIA scenarios we considered were designed
with that goal in mind. As shown by Wise et al. [21], if there were financial incentives
to minimize land-use in energy production like a tax on greenhouse gas emissions
from land-use change, the energy market response to a Cap-and-Trade might be very
different from the response depicted in the EIA scenarios.
There are at least four ways to achieve emissions reduction but avoid the poten-
tial side effect of energy sprawl. First, energy conservation can help reduce the new
energy needed by the US, reducing the area impacted by new energy development.
Second, because end-use generation of electricity often occurs on already developed
sites, it has minimal habitat impacts, and policy instruments that encourage end-use
generation can also decrease the total area impacted. Third, our results suggest that
energy sprawl is less severe when the cap-and-trade bill is more fl exible, allowing
for CCS, new nuclear plants, and international offsets. Fourth, many areal impacts
can be mitigated or eliminated with appropriate site selection and planning for energy
development. The new area affected by energy development within each major habitat
type might, for example, have minimal biodiversity effects if sited in already disturbed
places.
The areal impacts on habitat types will vary among scenarios, along with the po-
tential biodiversity impacts of US climate policy. While not all impacts on biodiversity
are strictly related to the areal impact, it is likely that energy production techniques
with a large areal impact will have a relatively large biodiversity impact. Thus, the
details of climate change policy, by favoring particular energy production techniques,
Search WWH ::
Custom Search