Carbon Mitigation Initiative
CMI

CMI Integration and Outreach

CMI Integration and Outreach

CMI Integration and Outreach introduces new conceptual frameworks that are useful for climate change policy. One effort seeks to make the emerging statistical analyses of extreme events more accessible. A second effort focuses on improving the risk-assessment framework for the current scientific understanding of sea level rise. A third explores the value for climate policy analysis of adding a new component to traditional carbon accounting that tracks “committed emissions”— the future emissions that are likely to result when a power plant or vehicle or addition to infrastructure is placed into service.

Research Highlights – At a Glance

Stephen Pacala: Novel analyses of extreme weather data have revealed unanticipated statistical patterns in heat exchange between the oceans and atmosphere and have identified a trend of increasing frequency for extreme weather events in modern times.

Michael Oppenheimer: Probabilistic estimates of future sea level rise were developed with the help of detailed information about the Antarctic ice sheet. These estimates have been developed in collaboration with those engaged in coastal risk management against storm-driven flooding in several coastal cities around the world.

Alexander Glaser and M.V. Ramana: The technical characteristics of leading small nuclear reactor designs do not allow them to simultaneously address the major challenges confronting the expansion of nuclear power.

Robert Socolow: Fossil fuels are so abundant that, for any plausible carbon budget target, even a weak one, attractive fossil fuel will be left in the ground. Two new schemes—commitment accounting and carbon budgets—quantify constraints on this abundance for multi-decadal planetary fossil fuel use within two- and three-degree climate change targets.


Anthropogenic Signals in Extreme Climate Events
Principal Investigator: Stephen Pacala

At a Glance

Novel analyses of extreme weather data have revealed unanticipated statistical patterns in heat exchange between the oceans and atmosphere and have identified a trend of increasing frequency for extreme weather events in modern times.

Research Highlight

The Climate Variability Project for the last two years has been investigating the effects of climate change on climate variability in general and extreme weather in particular. The Pacala group has focused on extremes of heat and precipitation, on drought, and on the repeated instances of warming hiatus that have occurred since the late 19th century. In the past year, postdoctoral associate Monica Barcilowska has produced a new analysis of the periods of warming hiatus in data. The analysis identifies a periodic statistical pattern with a 66-year period of variation in heat exchange between all the ocean basins and the atmosphere. Barcilowska is also producing new global analyses of extreme precipitation, drought and heat waves. Postdoctoral associate Dan Li is focusing on urban environments and has built a new urban tile into climate models to analyze historical data and perform computational experiments to model the impact of large cities on local extreme weather, including extreme heat.

The research is motivated by the remarkable and counter-intuitive historical record of very large increases in the frequency of extreme weather since the 1960’s and 70’s. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5) shows that nighttime high temperatures that occurred only once in 20 years during the 1970’s, occurred on average once in 8 years by the 1990’s. For the last three years, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) has published an annual special issue with papers attempting to estimate how the odds of an extreme weather event have changed because of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols. Many of these papers calculate increases of 10- to 100-fold or more. How can the extremes change so much when the mean climate has changed very little? Figure 3.1 suggests one way to understand this phenomenon, expressing the probability density of a weather event as a plot of severity (e.g., maximum temperature in a heat wave or maximum 24-hour precipitation) versus return time (the reciprocal of the annual probability of occurence). These plots are almost invariably asymptotic at high return times, because physical laws prevent arbitrarily high levels of severity. A small increase in the mean severity shifts the climate from the blue to the red curve. There are many examples like this in the literature produced by climate models for extremes of temperature, precipitation and drought including several in each BAMS special issue. Very large changes in return time can occur for the most extreme events because the return time-severity plots are flat at levels of high severity.

The consequences of such changes in variability are significant. Extreme weather creates direct risks for many of the world’s capital assets, from ports and floating platforms lashed by storms to withered crops. Abrupt changes in public opinion and carbon policy might be triggered by damaging weather, whether or not the triggering event is caused by climate change due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. Schematic showing how a small change in the climate can result in a large decrease in the return time (measured in number of years between events) of a severe extreme event (in this example, measured as the maximum annual temperature in degrees Fahrenheit). The blue circle shows an event in the 1970’s with a return time of ~875 years and a severity of 130 °F. If the average severity changes a few degrees from the 1970’s to the 2000’s (shift from blue to red curve) then the return time of a 130 °F event decreases to ~350 years (the red circle) because the curve is flat at high severities. (Figure courtesy of the Pacala group.)

Estimates of Local Sea Level Rise and Flood Probability for a Warmer World
Principal Investigator: Michael Oppenheimer

At a Glance

Probabilistic estimates of future sea level rise were developed with the help of detailed information about the Antarctic ice sheet. These estimates have been developed in collaboration with those engaged in coastal risk management against storm-driven flooding in several coastal cities around the world.

Research Highlight

The major uncertainty driving coastal risk management is the frequency of so-called “fat tail” probabilistic climate events, uncommon at the current time and in the past. However, sea level rise is leading to a gradual increase of this probability. According to some models, the current 100-year flood level could return with a yearly frequency by the year 2100. The Oppenheimer group’s studies show the uncertainty in the probability of such events is controlled by the future behavior of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, as they respond to global warming. At present, no reliable continental-scale process-based model for this behavior exists. This research program is developing alternative ways to project ice sheet behavior and sea level rise probabilities, in the absence of such a model. The program used methods combining multiple, independent lines of evidence to infer probabilities, including past measurements of ice sheet mass loss and regional-scale models of parts of the ice sheets, especially in Antarctica1,2.

A representative result is seen in in Figure 3.2. Panel (a) shows the projected sea level in 2100, in meters, under a commonly-referenced business-as-usual scenario for emissions. In northern Europe, values are notably lower than the Global Sea Level mean (GSL=0.79 m). The low values are due to the retreat of the Greenland ice sheet which reduces the gravitational pull of northern water toward Greenland and also produces crustal rebound—both effects offsetting some of the effect of ice loss. Panel (b) shows the uncertainty range for the estimate of sea level rise, also in meters. Estimates of the range are anomalously large in the same northern Europe region, reflecting uncertainties in the estimates of the ice sheet loss rate and in the resulting gravitational and crustal effects.

The program operates in collaboration with efforts in coastal cities around the world to plan risk management against higher sea levels. Oppenheimer is a member of the New York Panel on Climate Change, advising the New York City Mayor’s Office on how to build resilience in response to the increasing risk of climate change. This advisory role has resulted in a direct connection between the findings of this program and policy implementation. Other researchers at Princeton, such as Ning Lin of Civil and Environmental Engineering (also a member of the New York City Panel), have collaborated to implement the findings of this project for specific risk estimation methods that take into account flood damages, and the methods are now used by the city’s risk managers and planners. Interaction with New York City civic institutions reveals that climate risk management is only beginning to emerge as a continuous policy activity; planning and implementation of coastal reliance still lags far behind.

The next stage for this program will explore two different issues, critical to improving the utility of predictive modeling. (1) Other uncertainties in the basic calculation of flood probabilities will be explored: Sea level and storm intensity are not independent, yet current probabilistic methods treat them as such. The program will estimate the covariance of sea level and storm intensity, to refine flood probability estimates. Preliminary modeling suggests this effect is important. (2) Other lines of evidence will be included by a formalized methodology to produce a consistent approach to sea level estimation. In particular, an “expert elicitation” will be conducted.

Figure 3.2
Figure 3.2. (a) Median projection and (b) width of likely range of local-sea level rise (in meters) for the year 2100 under the IPCC’s high-emissions scenario for representative concentration pathway RCP 8.51.

References

  1. Kopp, R.E., R.M. Horton, C.M. Little, J.X. Mitrovica, M. Oppenheimer, D.J. Rasmussen, B.H. Strauss, and C. Tebaldi, 2014. Probabilistic 21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at a global network of tide gauge sites. Earth’s Future, 2(8): 383-406. doi:10.1002/2014EF000239.
  2. Little, C.M., R.M. Horton, R.E. Kopp, M. Oppenheimer, and S. Yip, 2015. Uncertainty in 21st century CMIP5 sea level projections. J. Climate, 28: 838-852. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00453.1.

Re-Engineering the Nuclear Future
Principal Investigators: Alexander Glaser and M.V. Ramana

At a Glance

The technical characteristics of leading small nuclear reactor designs do not allow them to simultaneously address the major challenges confronting the expansion of nuclear power.

Research Highlight

Nuclear power continues to be an important component for the planned energy infrastructure of several countries; one motivation for this choice is its potential for climate mitigation because of the low level of carbon emissions as compared to fossil fuels. During the past year, the Re-engineering the Nuclear Future project led by Alexander Glaser and M.V. Ramana has assessed the technology of various small modular reactors (SMRs)—with power outputs of 10 to 300 megawatts—currently proposed as a means to facilitate the expansion of nuclear power. A particular focus of this assessment is evaluating the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation that might come with the adoption of these different reactor designs.

Along with Zia Mian, Ramana examined the potential for SMRs that are being developed to overcome various specific challenges confronting nuclear power, in particular (1) economic competitiveness, (2) potential for catastrophic accidents, (3) production of radioactive waste, and (4) linkage to nuclear weapon proliferation1. Mian and Ramana analyzed the technical characteristics of different kinds of SMRs and argued that all four of the problems cannot be simultaneously solved. The leading SMR designs under development involve choices and trade-offs between desired features. For example, one way that nuclear engineers have tried to reduce the quantity of radioactive waste generated has been to design reactors that operate with fast neutrons (i.e., neutrons that haven’t been slowed down by a moderator). This feature results in the production of about twice as much plutonium per unit of electricity produced and at nearly six times the concentration (475% more) in the spent fuel, compared to standard light water reactors. This implies a higher risk of proliferation because a much smaller quantity of spent fuel is needed to separate enough plutonium to make one or more nuclear weapons. Historically, the production of plutonium through reprocessing of spent fuel has been the proliferation pathway of greatest concern. Although the initial build up of plutonium stockpiles globally was to manufacture weapons, since the end of the Cold War, the stockpile of plutonium from the reprocessing of civilian spent fuel has been fast growing (see Figure 3.3).

Glaser also supervised a student study of molten salt reactors, SMRs that use nuclear fuel dissolved in a liquid carrier salt2. Molten fuel is continuously cycled in and out of such a reactor; outside the reactor, unwanted fission products are removed and makeup fuel is added. This form of continuous fuel processing prevents build-up of various isotopes within the reactor that would otherwise slow down the fission process and impede a sustained chain reaction. Not all isotopes need to be removed, however, and different MSR designs do involve different levels of chemical processing. This continuous processing of fuel creates a proliferation risk, facilitating the extraction of weaponsusable materials (e.g. plutonium) from the fuel. Postdoctoral associate Ali Ahmad and Glaser’s computer simulations showed these reactors offer significant advantages in uranium requirement (when compared to conventional light-water reactors), and specific design choices could increase or decrease associated proliferation risks.

Over the last few years, there has been much hope invested in small modular reactors helping with a revival of nuclear reactor construction in countries with many existing nuclear plants as well as with allowing smaller countries with no nuclear plants currently to set up their first reactors. Several governments around the world are supporting the development and deployment of SMRs in a variety of ways. But if the construction of SMRs is to not lead to increased nuclear weapon proliferation, proliferation resistance must be adopted as an explicit criterion at the outset.

Glaser and Ramana propose to examine in detail some of the characteristics of SMRs that have been held out as distinctive, including the possibility of constructing them underground and their potential for relatively rapid changes in power output as a way to meet fluctuating electric demand, and study the impact of these deployment on the economic competitiveness of SMRs.

Figure 3.3
Figure 3.3. Evolution of the global plutonium stockpile from 1945 to the present. Figures for plutonium in mass units (kg) are converted into weapon equivalents by assuming that 3 kg of plutonium are used to make a weapon in case of plutonium explicitly produced for weapon purposes and that 5 kg of plutonium are needed to make a weapon in case of plutonium separated from spent fuel generated by civilian nuclear power reactors. Although the nuclear weapon stockpile has declined since the end of the Cold War, the plutonium content of weapons that have been dismantled is still part of the stockpile since there is so far no widely accepted method for disposing the plutonium. (Graph courtesy of the Glaser group.)

References

  1. Ramana, M.V., and Z. Mian, 2014. One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Social Priorities and Technical Conflicts for Small Modular Reactors. Energy Res. & Soc. Sci., 2: 115-124. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.015.
  2. Ahmad, A., E.B. McClamrock, and A. Glaser, 2015. Neutronics Calculations for Denatured Molten Salt Reactors: Assessing Resource Requirements and Proliferation-Risk Attributes. Ann. Nucl. Energy, 75: 261-267. doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2014.08.014.

Commitment Accounting, Committed Emissions, and Carbon Budgets
Principal Investigator: Robert Socolow

At a Glance

Fossil fuels are so abundant that, for any plausible carbon budget target, even a weak one, attractive fossil fuel will be left in the ground. Two new schemes—commitment accounting and carbon budgets— quantify constraints on this abundance for multi-decadal planetary fossil fuel use within two- and three-degree climate change targets.

Research Highlight

Recently1, Robert Socolow and Steve Davis (University of California at Irvine) introduced “commitment accounting” as a scheme for estimating total future greenhouse gas emissions (“committed emissions”) for durable capital investments. Their paper was restricted to power plants, but commitment accounting can be extended to vehicles, roads and infrastructure, refineries, oil and gas fields and oil and gas provinces. The “carbon budget” is a related concept: introduced in the recently released Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this budget is the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that can be emitted into the global atmosphere for a given climate change target. Together, commitment accounting and carbon budgets address the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Key Findings

At present, corporations and governments hardly ever estimate and report the total amount of CO2 that will be emitted by newly constructed coal or natural gas power plants during their period of operation. These institutions report only CO2 emissions year by year. Commitment accounting provides a second performance metric that highlights future emissions, once the number of years of operation is assumed. Commitment accounting updates its estimate of total remaining emissions for a plant throughout its lifetime, taking into account plans for early retirement, plant-life extension, retrofit, etc.

Figure 3.4.1 shows the committed emissions from global power plants, as of each of the years 1950 to 2012. The emissions are disaggregated by world region (panel a) and by fuel (panel b). It is assumed that power plants, irrespective of when they were built and what fuel they burn, will run for 40 years. Moreover, it is assumed that any plant operating in that year that is older than 40 years will be shut down immediately; the estimate of committed emissions increases very little when this assumption is relaxed. The two panels of Figure 3.4.1 show that total global committed CO2 emissions have risen steadily throughout this period—not heading downward even once, year to year—and are now approximately 300 billion tons. In addition, panel (a) shows that committed emissions are now dominated by newly industrializing regions. Panel (b) emphasizes the world’s continued reliance on coal power despite the rapidly growing share of natural-gas-fired power plants (the share of committed emissions for gas plants rose to 27% in 2012, from 15% in 1980). Not shown here, coal remains dominant everywhere in the developing world except for the Middle East, where natural gas is used for new power. These results reveal that a high-carbon future is being locked in by the world’s capital investment in power plants and fossil-fuel-based infrastructure, during the same period when societal pressures are mounting to limit the world’s commitments to future global emissions.

Implications for Targets and Policy

As the world takes climate change more seriously, the long-term implications of the production and use of fossil fuels will undergo increasing scrutiny. A disciplined discussion of multi-decadal issues is emerging.

According to the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Synthesis Report2, about 1700 billion tons of CO2 have been produced through combustion of fossil fuels in the industrial age (1870-2011), and almost one degree Celsius of warming of the earth’s surface has resulted. Much discussion of climate change policy today focuses on a target of no more than two degrees Celsius of warming of the planet’s surface, relative to pre-industrial times. The Synthesis Report finds that when another 1300 billion tons of CO2 have been emitted, the planet’s temperature will reach this ceiling. At today’s rate of fossil fuel CO2 emissions, 35 billion tons of CO2 per year, the budget for the two-degree target would be fully spent approximately in 2050. The commitment to 300 billion tons of future CO2 emissions from existing power plants uses up about a quarter of this budget. The budget is less strict if Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) becomes an important climate strategy: CCS reduces the committed emissions associated with investments in power plants and industrial facilities, thereby loosening the constraints imposed by carbon budgets.

The new IPCC report also provides results for a three-degree target, even though this target is rarely discussed by policy makers. The three-degree carbon budget is larger by an additional 1500 billion tons of CO2, corresponding to another 40 years of emissions at today’s rate and a fully spent budget around 2090. To the extent that the emissions rate continues to climb (it is now 50% greater than fifteen years ago), a fossil fuel era consistent with a three-degree target would be closed off even sooner.

To what can be compared the 1300 and 2800 billion tons of CO2 emissions that are the IPCC’s central estimates for the two-degree and three-degree targets, respectively? 1000 billion tons of CO2 would be produced from the combustion of about 2 trillion barrels of oil, or 20,000 trillion cubic feet of gas, or 300 billion tons of coal. Using these equivalencies, estimates of the resource base by Rogner3 (including “additional” resources) can be restated in units of billions of tons of CO2 produced via burning: oil at 8000, gas excluding clathrates at 3000, clathrates at 40,000, and coal at 20,000. Thus, Rogner’s findings reveal the carbon in the world’s buried hydrocarbons today greatly exceeds the carbon that would bring three degrees Celsius of warming. For another comparison, see Figure 3.4.2, drawn by Ian Vann4, which shows one view of the future of oil consumption, with one trillion barrels already produced and four trillion barrels (2000 billion tons of CO2 emissions) of production ahead; by itself (i.e., neglecting gas and coal), these emissions will be nearly sufficient to produce three degrees of warming.

The carbon budget concept is going to lead to new conversations about inexorable choices:

  • How should fossil fuel production be spread over the next decades?
  • How should fossil fuel production be spread over the countries of the world?
  • Should any uses be favored over others?
  • Should natural gas be extracted in preference to coal, because nearly twice as much energy can be delivered from natural gas when it is burned, for the same quantity of CO2 emissions?
  • How large could be the role of CCS, including CCS in combination with Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)?

Future Plans

Estimation of committed emissions for infrastructure and upstream fossil fuel activity will be quantified and introduced into the emerging discussion of carbon budgets.

Figure 3.4.1
Figure 3.4.1. Remaining cumulative emissions for the world’s power plants, as of each year from 1950 through 2013. Panels (a) and (b) are disaggregated by regions of the world and by fuel, respectively1.
Figure 3.4.2
Figure 3.4.2. Schematic scenario for future production of crude oil4. 1 T is one trillion barrels. Alternate scenarios are obtained by adding or removing 1T rectangles. Burning 1 T of crude oil produces approximately 500 billion tons of CO2.

References

  1. Davis, S.J., and R.H. Socolow, 2014. Commitment accounting of CO2 emissions. Environ. Res. Lett., 9: 084018. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/8/084018. One of 25 articles published in Environmental Research Letters in 2014 that has been selected by the journal’s editors for inclusion in the exclusive ‘Highlights of 2014’ collection. Papers are chosen on the basis of referee endorsement, novelty, scientific impact and breadth of appeal.
  2. IPCC Climate Change 2014, Synthesis Report. The relevant table is on p. 68.
  3. Rogner, H-H, 1997. An assessment of world hydrocarbon resources. Ann. Rev. Energy and Env. 22: 217-262. The table reworked here is on p. 249.
  4. Vann, Ian, 2005. Talk at London Geological Society, October 12, 2005.

Enhanced Integration and Outreach to Provide Sound Information to Foster Effective Public Policy Discussion

At a Glance

Several new communications and outreach initiatives are being conducted within and alongside CMI, designed to provide various audiences with information about the climate problem and potential solutions in ways that enhance participation.

Outreach Highlight

The outreach component of the Integration and Outreach Group has three targets: our sponsors at BP; the Princeton University community; and the larger world of government, business, and civil society (including the major environmental non-governmental organizations).

Outreach to CMI sponsors takes the form of tailored summaries of CMI research and inputs to BP publications, designed to stimulate and augment BP’s engagement with climate change issues. In 2014, emphasis was placed on communicating insight into climate variability, in an ongoing project led by Stephen Pacala that draws heavily on the expertise of Princeton’s neighbor, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, one of the two major global climate modeling centers in the U.S.

Outreach at Princeton aims to broaden the faculty’s involvement with climate change. One example is the newly created Climate Futures Initiative, co-led by Melissa Lane (Professor of Politics), Marc Fleurbaey (Professor in Economics and Humanistic Studies, Professor of Public Affairs), and Robert Socolow. The initiative focuses on “climate and ethics.” It evaluates and contrasts normative and positive concepts and methodologies now being used in analyses of the future, especially as that future is affected by climate change. The project is an outgrowth of a three-year (2011-2014) project, Communicating Uncertainty: Science, Institutions, and Ethics in the Politics of Global Climate Change, sponsored by the Princeton Institute for international and Regional Studies.

Outreach to the wider world is achieved through the participation of CMI researchers in numerous venues. Michael Oppenheimer played major roles in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He served as a coordinating lead author of Chapter 19 of the Working Group II report, a member of the writing team for the Summary for Policy Makers of that report, and a member of the core writing team of the Synthesis Report, forming the ultimate piece of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Pacala chairs the board of Climate Central, a non-profit organization in Princeton dedicated to providing the public and policy-makers with clear and objective information on climate change trends and impacts. He is also a board member of the Environmental Defense Fund. Socolow is on the advisory board of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Socolow also leads the “distillate project” of Princeton’s Andlinger Center of Energy and the Environment. Aimed at interested non-experts, the project prepares introductions to specific low-carbon technologies. The first distillate, completed in 2014, addresses grid-scale electricity storage and intermittent renewable energy.


Integration and Outreach Publications

Ahmad, A., 2014. Can SMRs Rescue Jordan’s Nuclear Program? Nuclear Intelligence Weekly, June 27, 2014.

Ahmad, A., E.B. McClamrock, and A. Glaser, 2015. Neutronics Calculations for Denatured Molten Salt Reactors: Assessing Resource Requirements and Proliferation- Risk Attributes. Ann. Nucl. Energy, 75: 261- 267. doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2014.08.014.

Ahmad, A., and M. V. Ramana, 2014. Too Costly to Matter: Economics of Nuclear Power for Saudi Arabia. Energy, 69: 682- 694. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.064

Davis, S.J., and R.H. Socolow, 2014. Commitment accounting of CO2 emissions. Environ. Res. Lett., 9: 084018. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/8/084018. One of 25 articles published in Environmental Research Letters in 2014 that has been selected by the journal’s editors for inclusion in the exclusive ‘Highlights of 2014’ collection. Papers are chosen on the basis of referee endorsement, novelty, scientific impact and breadth of appeal.

Kopp, R.E., R.M. Horton, C.M. Little, J.X. Mitrovica, M. Oppenheimer, D.J. Rasmussen, B.H. Strauss, and C. Tebaldi, 2014. Probabilistic 21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at a global network of tide gauge sites. Earth’s Future, 2(8): 383- 406. doi:10.1002/2014EF000239.

Little, C.M., R.M. Horton, R.E. Kopp, M. Oppenheimer, and S. Yip, 2015. Uncertainty in 21st century CMIP5 sea level projections. J. Climate, 28: 838–852. doi:10.1175/ JCLI-D-14-00453.1.

Ramana, M.V., and Z. Mian, 2014. One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Social Priorities and Technical Conflicts for Small Modular Reactors. Energy Res. & Soc. Sci., 2: 115- 124. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.015

Ramana, M.V., and Z. Mian, 2014. Too Much to Ask: Why Small Modular Reactors may not be able to Solve the Problems Confronting Nuclear Power. Nuclear Monitor, September, 2014.


Acknowledgments

Principal funding support for the Carbon Mitigation Initiative has been provided by BP International Limited.

Carbon Mitigation Initiative Leadership and Administration
Stephen W. Pacala, co-director
Robert H. Socolow, co-director

Rajeshri D. Chokshi, technical support specialist
Stacey T. Christian, business administration
Caitlin Daley, administrative assistant
Katharine B. Hackett, associate director, Princeton Environmental Institute
Axel Haenssen, technical support specialist
Igor Heifetz, webmaster
Roberta M. Hotinski, former science communication consultant
Shavonne L. Malone, former administrative assistant
Sajan Saini, editorial consultant
Holly P. Welles, manager, communications and outreach

Contributing Editors
Sajan Sain
Holly P. Welles

<< Previous  |  Table of Contents

 
Feedback: cmi@princeton.edu
Last update: April 13 2015
BP Princeton Environmental Institute © 2017 The Trustees of Princeton University
CMI is sponsored by BP.