US Climate Action Report – 2002 - UNFCCC

U.S. Climate Action Report – 2002Third National Communication of the United States of America Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

U.S. Climate Action Report – 2002Third National Communication of the United States of America Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

You may electronically download this document from the following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Web site:http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html.

To purchase copies of this report, visit the U.S. Government Printing Office Web site at http://bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone orders may be submitted at 1-866-512-1800 (toll-free) or 1-202-512-1800 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time.

This document may be cited as follows: U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report 2002, Washington, D.C., May 2002.

Introduction and Overview 2National Circumstances: The U.S. Context 4Greenhouse Gas Inventory 5Policies and Measures 5Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions 6Impacts and Adaptation 6Financial Resources and Transfer of Technology 6Research and Systematic Observation 6Education, Training, and Outreach 7

National Circumstances 8Climate Profile 9Geographic Profile 9Population Profile 10Government Structure 11

Federal Departments and Agencies 12The U.S. Congress 12States, Tribes, and Local Governments 12The U.S. Court System 13

Economic Profile 13Government and the Market Economy 13Composition and Growth 13

Energy Production and Consumption 14Resources 15Production 16Electricity Market Restructuring 17Consumption 18

Sectoral Activities 18Industry 18Residential and Commercial Buildings 19Transportation 20Government 22Waste 22

Agriculture 23Grazing Land 23Agricultural Land 23Forests 24

Other Natural Resources 24Wetlands 24Wildlife 25Water 25

Greenhouse Gas Inventory 26Recent Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 28Global Warming Potentials 32Carbon Dioxide Emissions 37

Energy 38Industrial Processes 41Land-Use Change and Forestry 42Waste 42

11

22

33

Methane Emissions 42Landfills 43Natural Gas and Petroleum Systems 43Coal Mining 44Agriculture 44Other Sources 44

Nitrous Oxide Emissions 45Agricultural Soil Management 45Fuel Combustion 45Nitric Acid Production 45Manure Management 46Adipic Acid Production 46Other Sources 46

HFC, PFC, and SF6 Emissions 46Substitution of Ozone-Depleting Substances 46Other Industrial Sources 46Emissions of Ozone-Depleting Substances 46

Criteria Pollutant Emissions 48

Policies and Measures 50National Policymaking Process 51Federal Policies and Measures 52

Energy: Residential and Commercial 53Energy: Industrial 54Energy: Supply 55Transportation 56Industry (Non-CO2) 58Agriculture 59Forestry 60Waste Management 60Cross-sectoral 61

Nonfederal Policies and Measures 61State Initiatives 61Local Initiatives 62Private-Sector and NGO Initiatives 62

Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions 70The NEMS Model and Policies Coverage 71

Assumptions Used to Estimate Future CO2 Emissions 71U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2000–2020 72

Net U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2000–2020 73CO2 Emissions 74Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 76Carbon Sequestration 78Adjustments to Greenhouse Gas Emissions 78Future of the President’s February 2002 Climate Change Initiative 78

Key Uncertainties Affecting Projections 79Technology Development (+ or -) 79Regulatory or Statutory Changes (+ or -) 80Energy Prices (+ or -) 80Economic Growth (+ or -) 80Weather (+ or -) 80

44

55

Impacts and Adaptation 81Summary of the National Assessment 81Introduction 83Weather and Climate Context 84

Projected Changes in the Mean Climate 84Projected Changes in Climate Variability 87

Potential Consequences of and Adaptation to Climate Change 88Potential Interactions with Land Cover 89Potential Interactions with Agriculture 92Potential Interactions with Forests 96Potential Interactions with Water Resources 99Potential Interactions with Coastal Areas and Marine Resources 103Potential Interactions with Human Health 106Potential Impacts in Various U.S. Regions 109

Federal Research Activities 109Interagency Research Subcommittees 110Individual Agency Research Activities 111

Other Research Activities 112

Financial Resources and Transfer of Technology 113Types and Sources of U.S. Assistance 114

U.S. Government Assistance 115NGO Assistance 116Private-Sector Assistance 117

Major U.S. Government Initiatives 117U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation 117U.S. Country Studies Program 118Climate Change Initiative 118

Public–Private Partnership Activities 119Technology Cooperation Agreement Pilot Project 119Climate Technology Initiative 120U.S.–Asia Environmental Partnership 120EcoLinks 121Energy Partnership Program 121Forest Conservation Partnerships 122

U.S. Government Assistance Addressing Vulnerability and Adaptation 122U.S. Financial Flow Information, 1997–2000 123

Financial Contributions to the Global Environment Facility 123Financial Contributions to Multilateral Institutions and Programs 123Bilateral and Regional Financial Contributions 124

Summary of Financial Flow Information for 1997–2000 125Funding Types 125Regional Trends 126Mitigation Activities 127Adaptation Activities 131Other Global Climate Change Activities 136

66

77

Research and Systematic Observation 137Research 139

U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative 139Ongoing Broader Agenda for U.S. Research 139National Climate Change Technology Initiative 139Human Effects on and Responses to Environmental Changes 141International Research Cooperation 141

Systematic Observation 144Documentation of U.S. Climate Observations 144In-situ Climate Observation 145Satellite Observation Programs 146Global Change Data and Information System 147

Education, Training, and Outreach 148U.S. Global Climate Research Program Education and Outreach 149

Regional Outreach 149National Outreach 149

Federal Agency Education Initiatives 150Department of Energy 150National Aeronautics and Space Administration 150Partnerships 150

Federal Agency Outreach 152Department of Energy 152Environmental Protection Agency 152National Aeronautics and Space Administration 153National Park Service 154National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 154Smithsonian Institution 155Partnerships 155

A: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends 156

B: Policies and Measures—Program Descriptions 163

C: Part 1—Selected Technology Transfer Activities 224Part 2—Table 7.3: U.S. Direct Financial Contributions 232and Commercial Sales Related to Implementation ofthe UNFCCC

D: Climate Change Science: An Analysis of 249Some Key Questions

E: Bibliography 256

88

99

Appendices

Chapter 1 Introductionand Overview

With this pledge, President Bush reiterated the seriousness of climatechange and ordered a Cabinet-level

review of U.S. climate change policy. Herequested working groups to developinnovative approaches that would: (1) beconsistent with the goal of stabilizinggreenhouse gas concentrations in theatmosphere; (2) be sufficiently flexible toallow for new findings; (3) support con-tinued economic growth and prosperity;(4) provide market-based incentives; (5)incorporate technological advances; and(6) promote global participation.

The President’s decision to take adeeper look at climate change policyarose from the recognition that the inter-national dialogue begun to date lackedthe requisite participatory breadth for aglobal response to climate change. Atthe 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro,the United Nations Framework Conven-tion on Climate Change (UNFCCC)was adopted, with the ultimate objectiveof providing a higher quality of life

“The Earth’s well-being is … an issue important to America—and it’s an issue that should be important to every nation andin every part of the world. My Administration is committed toa leadership role on the issue of climate change. We recognizeour responsibility, and we will meet it—at home, in our hemi-sphere, and in the world.”—George W. Bush, June 2001

Introduction and Overview ■ 3

for future generations. Signatoriespledged to:

achieve…stabilization of greenhouse gasconcentrations in the atmosphere at a levelthat would prevent dangerous anthro-pogenic interference with the climate system.Such a level should be achieved within atimeframe sufficient to allow ecosystems toadapt naturally to climate change, toensure that food production is not threat-ened, and to enable economic development toproceed in a sustainable manner.In Rio, ambitious plans were set in

motion to address climate change.However, participation in constructingmeasures for adapting to and mitigatingthe effects of climate change fell shortof the breadth necessary to confront aproblem that President Bush recentlysaid has “the potential to impact everycorner of the world.” A global problemdemands a truly participatory globalresponse, while at the same time takingnear-term action that would reduce pro-jected growth in emissions cost-effec-tively and enhance our ability to copewith climate change impacts.

Based on his Cabinet’s review andrecommendation, President Bush re-cently announced a commitment toreduce greenhouse gas intensity in theUnited States by 18 percent over thenext decade through a combination ofvoluntary, incentive-based, and existingmandatory measures. This represents a4.5 percent reduction from forecastemissions in 2012, a serious, sensible,and science-based response to thisglobal problem—despite the remaininguncertainties concerning the precisemagnitude, timing, and regional pat-terns of climate change. The President’scommitment also emphasized the needfor partners in this endeavor. All coun-tries must actively work together toachieve the long-term goal of stabilizinggreenhouse gas concentrations at a levelthat will prevent dangerous interferencewith the climate system.

For our part, the United Statesintends to continue to be a constructiveand active Party to the Framework Con-vention. We are leading global researchefforts to enhance the understanding ofthe science of climate change, as called

for under the Framework Convention.We lead the world in investment in cli-mate science and in recent years havespent $1.7 billion on federal researchannually. Since 1990, the United Stateshas provided over $18 billion for climatesystem research—more resources thanany other country. In June 2001, Presi-dent Bush announced a new ClimateChange Research Initiative to focus onkey remaining gaps in our understandingof anthropogenic climate change and itspotential impacts.

As envisioned by the FrameworkConvention, we are helping to developtechnologies to address climate change.The President has pledged to reprioritizeresearch budgets under the National Cli-mate Change Technology Initiative sothat funds will be available to developadvanced energy and sequestration tech-nologies. Energy policies improve effi-ciency and substitute cleaner fuels, whilesequestration technologies will promoteeconomic and environmentally soundmethods for the capture and storage ofgreenhouse gases.

We plan to increase bilateral supportfor climate observation systems and tofinance even more demonstration proj-ects of advanced energy technologies indeveloping countries. President Bush’sWestern Hemisphere Initiative—createdto enhance climate change cooperationwith developing countries in the Ameri-cas and elsewhere—will also strengthenimplementation of our Framework Con-vention commitments. In line with thosecommitments, we have provided over $1 billion in climate change-related assis-tance to developing countries over thelast five years. All of this is just the begin-ning: we intend to strengthen our coop-eration on climate science and advancedtechnologies around the world wheneverand wherever possible.

We continue to make progress in lim-iting U.S. emissions of greenhouse gasesby becoming more energy efficient. Inthe last decade, we have seen tremen-dous U.S. economic growth, and ourlevel of emissions per unit of economic

output has declined significantly. ThePresident has committed the UnitedStates to continue this improvement andreduce intensity beyond forecast levelsthrough enhanced voluntary measures.The United States is a world leader inaddressing and adapting to a variety ofnational and global scientific problemsthat could be exacerbated by climatechange, including malaria, hunger, mal-nourishment, property losses due toextreme weather events, and habitat lossand other threats to biological diversity.

Climate change is a long-term prob-lem, decades in the making, that cannotbe solved overnight. A real solution mustbe durable, science-based, and economi-cally sustainable. In particular, we seekan environmentally sound approach thatwill not harm the U.S. economy, whichremains a critically important engine ofglobal prosperity. We believe that eco-nomic development is key to protectingthe global environment. In the realworld, no one will forego meeting basicfamily needs to protect the global com-mons. Environmental protection is nei-ther achievable nor sustainable withoutopportunities for continued develop-ment and greater prosperity. Our objec-tive is to ensure a long-term solution thatis environmentally effective, economi-cally efficient and sustainable, andappropriate in terms of addressing theurgent problems of today while enhanc-ing our ability to deal with future prob-lems. Protecting the global environmentis too important a responsibility for any-thing less.

In this U.S. Climate Action Report, weprovide our third formal national com-munication under the Framework Convention, as envisioned under Arti-cles 4 and 12 of the Convention. Wedescribe our national circumstances,identify existing and planned policiesand measures, indicate future trends ingreenhouse gas emissions, outlineexpected impacts and adaptation meas-ures, and provide information on finan-cial resources, technology transfer,research, and systematic observations.1

1 Some sections of this report (e.g., the projections in Chapter 5) are included, despite the absence of a binding require-ment to do so under the Convention. Note that these projections do not include the impact of the President’s climatechange initiative announced in February 2002, nor do they include the effects of measures in the National Energy Pol-icy that have not yet been implemented.

4 ■ U . S . C L I M AT E A C T I O N R E P O RT 2 0 0 2

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities,causing global mean surface air temperature and subsurface ocean temperature to rise.

While the changes observed over the last several decades are likely due mostly to humanactivities, we cannot rule out that some significant part is also a reflection of natural vari-ability.

Reducing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current model predictions will requiremajor advances in understanding and modeling of the factors that determine atmosphericconcentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and the feedback processes that deter-mine the sensitivity of the climate system. Specifically, this will involve reducing uncer-tainty regarding:

• the future use of fossil fuels and future emissions of methane,

• the fraction of the future fossil fuel carbon that will remain in the atmosphere and pro-vide radiative forcing versus exchange with the oceans or net exchange with the landbiosphere,

• the feedbacks in the climate system that determine both the magnitude of the changeand the rate of energy uptake by the oceans,

• the impacts of climate change on regional and local levels,

• the nature and causes of the natural variability of climate and its interactions withforced changes, and

• the direct and indirect effects of the changing distributions of aerosols.

Knowledge of the climate system and of projections about the future climate is derivedfrom fundamental physics, chemistry, and observations. Data are then incorporated inglobal circulation models. However, model projections are limited by the paucity of dataavailable to evaluate the ability of coupled models to simulate important aspects of cli-mate. To overcome these limitations, it is essential to ensure the existence of a long-termobserving system and to make more comprehensive regional measurements of green-house gases.

Evidence is also emerging that black carbon aerosols (soot), which are formed by incom-plete combustion, may be a significant contributor to global warming, although their rela-tive importance is difficult to quantify at this point. These aerosols have significantnegative health impacts, particularly in developing countries.

While current analyses are unable to predict with confidence the timing, magnitude, orregional distribution of climate change, the best scientific information indicates that ifgreenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, changes are likely to occur. The U.S.National Research Council has cautioned, however, that “because there is considerableuncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reactsto emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude offuture warmings should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (eitherupward or downward).” Moreover, there is perhaps even greater uncertainty regardingthe social, environmental, and economic consequences of changes in climate.

Source: NRC 2001a.

The Sc ience

The remainder of this chapter providesa brief description of the climate systemscience that sets the context for U.S.action, as well as an overview of the U.S.program that is the focus of this report.

NATIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES:THE U.S. CONTEXT

The perspective of the United Stateson climate change is informed by oureconomic prosperity, the rich diversity

of our climate conditions and naturalresources, and the demographic trendsof over 280 million residents. Becauseof our diverse climatic zones, climatechange will not affect the country uni-formly. This diversity will also enhanceour economy’s resilience to future cli-mate change.

Higher anthropogenic greenhousegas emissions are a consequence of robusteconomic growth: higher incomes tradi-tionally promote increased expendituresof energy. During the 1990s, invest-ments in technology led to increases inenergy efficiency, which partly offset theincreases in greenhouse gas emissionsthat would normally attend strong eco-nomic growth. In addition, much of theeconomic growth in the United Stateshas occurred in less energy-intensivesectors (e.g., computer technologies).Consequently, in the 1990s the directand proportionate correlation betweeneconomic growth and greenhouse gasemissions was altered.

While the United States is the world’slargest consumer of energy, it is also theworld’s largest producer of energy, withvast reserves of coal, natural gas, andcrude oil. Nevertheless, our energy useper unit of output—i.e., the energyintensity of our economy—comparesrelatively well with the rest of the world.The President’s new National Energy Policy(NEP) includes recommendations thatwould reduce greenhouse gas emissionsby expanded use of both existing anddeveloping technologies (NEPD Group2001). The NEP’s recommendationsaddress expanded nuclear power genera-tion; improved energy efficiency forvehicles, buildings, appliances, andindustry; development of hydrogen fuelsand renewable technologies; increasedaccess to federal lands and expeditedlicensing practices; and expanded use ofcleaner fuels, including initiatives forcoal and natural gas. Tax incentives rec-ommended in the NEP and the Presi-dent’s FY 2003 Budget will promote useof renewable energy forms and com-bined heat-and-power systems and willencourage technology development.

The nation’s response to climatechange—our vulnerability and our


ability to adapt—is also influenced byU.S. governmental, economic, andsocial structures, as well as by the con-cerns of U.S. citizens. The political andinstitutional systems participating in thedevelopment and protection of environ-mental and natural resources in theUnited States are as diverse as theresources themselves.

President Bush said last year thattechnology offers great promise to significantly and cost-effectively reduceemissions in the long term. Ournational circumstances—our prosperityand our diversity—may shape ourresponse to climate change, but ourcommitment to invest in innovativetechnologies and research will ensurethe success of our response.

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORYThis report presents U.S. anthro-

pogenic greenhouse gas emission trendsfrom 1990 through 1999 and fulfills theU.S. commitment for 2001 for anannual inventory report to theUNFCCC. To ensure that the U.S.emissions inventory is comparable tothose of other UNFCCC signatorycountries, the emission estimates werecalculated using methodologies consis-tent with those recommended in theRevised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for NationalGreenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC/UNEP/OECD/IEA 1997).

Naturally occurring greenhousegases—that is, gases that trap heat—include water vapor, carbon dioxide(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide(N2O), and ozone (O3). Several classesof halogenated substances that containfluorine, chlorine, or bromine are alsogreenhouse gases, but for the most part,they are solely a product of industrialactivities. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs),and bromofluorocarbons (halons) arestratospheric ozone-depleting sub-stances covered under the Montreal Pro-tocol on Substances That Deplete the OzoneLayer and, hence, are not included innational greenhouse gas inventories.Some other halogenated substances—hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluoro-carbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride

(SF6)—do not deplete stratosphericozone but are potent greenhouse gasesand are accounted for in national green-house gas inventories.

Although CO2, CH4, and N2O occurnaturally in the atmosphere, their atmos-pheric concentrations have been affectedby human activities. Since pre-industrialtime (i.e., since about 1750), concentra-tions of these greenhouse gases haveincreased by 31, 151, and 17 percent,respectively (IPCC 2001d). Thisincrease has altered the chemical com-position of the Earth’s atmosphere andhas likely affected the global climatesystem.

In 1999, total U.S. greenhouse gasemissions were about 12 percent aboveemissions in 1990. A somewhat lower(0.9 percent) than average (1.2 percent)annual increase in emissions, especiallygiven the robust economic growth during this period, was primarily attrib-utable to the following factors: warmerthan average summer and winter condi-tions, increased output from nuclearpower plants, reduced CH4 emissionsfrom coal mines, and reduced HFC-23by-product emissions from the chemicalmanufacture of HCFC-22.

As the largest source of U.S. green-house gas emissions, CO2 accounted for82 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gasemissions in 1999. Carbon dioxide fromfossil fuel combustion was the dominantcontributor. Emissions from this sourcecategory grew by 13 percent between1990 and 1999.

Methane accounted for 9 percent oftotal U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in1999. Landfills, livestock operations, andnatural gas systems were the source of 75percent of total CH4 emissions. Nitrousoxide accounted for 6 percent of totalU.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 1999,and agricultural soil management repre-sented 69 percent of total N2O emis-sions. The main anthropogenic activitiesproducing N2O in the United Stateswere agricultural soil management, fuelcombustion in motor vehicles, andadipic and nitric acid productionprocesses. HFCs, PFCs, and SF6accounted for 2 percent of total U.S.greenhouse gas emissions in 1999, and

substitutes for ozone-depleting sub-stances comprised 42 percent of allHFC, PFC, and SF6 emissions.

Evidence is also emerging that blackcarbon aerosols (soot), which are formedby incomplete combustion, may be a sig-nificant anthropogenic agent. Althoughthe U.S. greenhouse gas inventory doesnot cover emissions of these particles,we anticipate that U.S. research willfocus more on them in coming years.

POLICIES AND MEASURESU.S. climate change programs

reduced the growth of greenhouse gasemissions by an estimated 240 teragrams(million metric tons) of CO2 equivalentin 2000 alone. This reduction helped tosignificantly lower (17 percent since1990) greenhouse gases emitted per unitof gross domestic product (GDP), andthus ranks as a step forward in addressingclimate change.

However, the U.S. effort was given apotentially greater boost in June 2001,when President Bush announced majornew initiatives to advance climatechange science and technology. Theseinitiatives came about after governmentconsultation with industry leaders, thescientific community, and environmen-tal advocacy groups indicated that morecould and should be done to addressscientific uncertainties and encouragetechnological innovation.

In February 2002, the Presidentannounced a new U.S. approach to thechallenge of global climate change.This approach contains policies thatwill harness the power of markets andtechnology to reduce greenhouse gasemissions. It will also create new part-nerships with the developing world toreduce the greenhouse gas intensity ofboth the U.S. economy and economiesworldwide through policies that sup-port the economic growth that makestechnological progress possible.

The U.S. plan will reduce the green-house gas intensity of the U.S. econ-omy by 18 percent in ten years. Thisreduction exceeds the 14 percent pro-jected reduction in greenhouse gasintensity in the absence of the addi-tional proposed policies and measures.


The new measures include an enhancedemission reduction registry; creation oftransferable credits for emission reduc-tion; tax incentives for investment inlow-emission energy equipment; sup-port for research for energy efficiencyand sequestration technology; emissionreduction agreements with specificindustrial sectors, with particular attention to reducing transportationemissions; international outreach, intandem with funding, to promote climate research globally; carbonsequestration on farms and forests; and,most important, review of progress in2012 to determine if additional stepsmay be needed—as the science justi-fies—to achieve further reductions inour national greenhouse gas emissionintensity.

The above strategies are expected toachieve emission reductions compara-ble to the average reductions pre-scribed by the Kyoto agreement, butwithout the threats to economicgrowth that rigid national emission lim-its would bring. The registry structurefor voluntary participation of U.S.industry in reducing emissions will seekcompatibility with emerging domesticand international approaches and prac-tices, and will include provisions toensure that early responders are notpenalized in future climate actions. Fur-thermore, the President’s approach pro-vides a model for developing nations,setting targets that reduce greenhousegas emissions without compromisingeconomic growth.

PROJECTED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Forecasts of economic growth,energy prices, program funding, andregulatory developments were inte-grated to project greenhouse gas emis-sions levels in 2005, 2010, 2015, and2020. When sequestration is accountedfor, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissionsare projected to increase by 43 percentbetween 2000 and 2020. This increasedgrowth in absolute emissions will beaccompanied by a decline in emissionsper unit of GDP. Note that these fore-casts exclude the impact of the

President’s climate change initiativeannounced in February 2002.

Despite best efforts, the uncertain-ties associated with the projected levelsof greenhouse gas emissions are prima-rily associated with forecast methodol-ogy, meteorological variations, andrates of economic growth and techno-logical development. In addition, sincethe model used to generate these projections does not completely incor-porate all current and future policiesand measures to address greenhouse gasemissions, these measures, as well aslegislative or regulatory actions not yetin force, add another layer of uncer-tainty to these projections.

IMPACTS AND ADAPTATIONOne of the weakest links in our

knowledge is the connection betweenglobal and regional projections of cli-mate change. The National ResearchCouncil’s response to the President’srequest for a review of climate changepolicy specifically noted that funda-mental scientific questions remainregarding the specifics of regional andlocal projections (NRC 2001a). Pre-dicting the potential impacts of climatechange is compounded by a lack ofunderstanding of the sensitivity ofmany environmental systems andresources—both managed and unman-aged—to climate change.

Chapter 6 provides an overview ofpotential negative and positive impactsand possible response options, basedprimarily on Climate Change Impacts on theUnited States: The Potential Consequences ofClimate Variability and Change (NAST2000). This assessment used historicalrecords, model simulations, and sensi-tivity analyses to explore our potentialvulnerability to climate change andhighlighted gaps in our knowledge.

The United States is engaged inmany efforts that will help our nationand the rest of the world—particularlythe developing world—reduce vulnera-bility and adapt to climate change. Byand large these efforts address publichealth and environmental problemsthat are of urgent concern today andthat may be exacerbated by climate

change. Examples include reducing thespread of malaria, increasing agricul-tural and forest productivity, reducingthe damages from extreme weatherevents, and improving methods to fore-cast their timings and locations. Besidesbenefiting society in the short term,these efforts will enhance our ability toadapt to climate change in the longerterm.

Challenges associated with climatechange will most likely increase duringthe 21st century. Although changes inthe environment will surely occur, ournation’s economy should continue toprovide the means for successful adap-tation to climate changes.

FINANCIAL RESOURCES ANDTRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY

To address climate change effec-tively, developed and developing coun-tries must meet environmentalchallenges together. The United Statesis committed to helping developingcountries and countries with economiesin transition meet these challenges inways that promote economic well-being and protect natural resources.This commitment has involved manyplayers, ranging from government tothe private sector, who have con-tributed significant resources to devel-oping countries. As recognized in theUNFCCC guidelines, this assistancecan take the form of hard and/or softtechnology transfer.

Projects targeting hard technologytransfer, such as equipment to controlemissions and increase energy effi-ciency, can be particularly effective inreducing emissions. And projects thattarget the transfer of soft technologies,such as capacity building and institu-tion strengthening through the sharingof technical expertise, can help coun-tries reduce their vulnerability to theimpacts of climate change. But whetherhard or soft, technology transfer pro-grams are most effective when they areapproached collaboratively and arecongruent with the development objec-tives and established legal framework ofthe target country. To this end, theUnited States works closely with


beneficiary countries to ensure a goodfit between the resources it providesand the country’s needs.

RESEARCH AND SYSTEMATICOBSERVATION

The United States leads the worldin research on climate and other global environmental changes, fundingapproximately half of the world’s climate change research expenditures.We intend to continue funding researchin order to ensure vigorous, ongoingprograms aimed at narrowing the uncer-tainties in our knowledge of climatechange. These research programs willhelp advance the understanding of cli-mate change.

The President’s major new initiatives

directed at addressing climate changeare informed by a wealth of input andare intended to result in significantimprovements in climate modeling,observation, and research efforts. Thelong-term vision embraced by the newinitiatives is to help government, theprivate sector, and communities makeinformed management decisions regard-ing climate change in light of persistentuncertainties.

EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND OUTREACH

The United States undertakes andsupports a broad range of activitiesaimed at enhancing public understand-ing and awareness of climate change.These activities range from educational

initiatives sponsored by federal agen-cies to cooperation with independentresearch and academic organizations.Nongovernmental organizations, in-dustry, and the press also play activeroles in increasing public awarenessand interest in climate change.

The goal of all of these endeavors—education, training, and public aware-ness—is to create an informedpopulace. The United States is commit-ted to providing citizens with access tothe information necessary to criticallyevaluate the consequences of policyoptions to address climate change in acost-effective manner that is sustainableand effective in achieving the Frame-work Convention’s long-term goal.

Chapter 2 NationalCircumstances

During the 1990s, greenhouse gasemissions per unit of gross domesticproduct (GDP) declined steadily

due to continued investments in newenergy-efficient technologies and anincrease in the portion of GDP attribut-able to the nonmanufacturing and lessenergy-intensive manufacturing sectors.However, aggregate U.S. greenhousegas emissions have continued toincrease over the past few years, prima-rily as a result of economic growth andthe accompanying rise in demand forenergy.

U.S. energy needs and, hence, emis-sions of greenhouse gases are also heav-ily influenced by a number of otherfactors, including climate, geography,land use, resource base, and populationgrowth. How the nation responds tothe issue of climate change is affectedby U.S. governmental, economic, andsocial structures, as well as by the avail-ability of technologies and wealth,which allows such technologies to be

National Circumstances ■ 9

F IGURE 2-1 C l imat ic D ivers i ty in the Cont iguous U.S.

Regions of the country with cooler climates may benefit from climate change through reduced demand for heating, while energy consumptionfor cooling may increase in warmer regions, which could result in higher emissions of greenhouse gases.

Notes:

• Cooling and heating degree-days represent the number of degrees that the daily average temperature is above (cooling) or below (heating) 65°F. The daily average temperature is themean of the maximum and minimum temperatures for a 24-hour period. For example, a weather station recording a mean daily temperature of 40°F would report 25 heating degree-days.

• Degree-day normals are simple arithmetic averages of annual degree-days from 1961 to 1990.

• Data for the Pacific region exclude Alaska and Hawaii.

Source: U.S. DOE/EIA 2000a.

NewEngland

SouthAtlantic

EastSouth

CentralWestSouth

Central

WestNorth

Central

Pacific

MiddleAtlantic

East NorthCentral

Mountain

Deg

ree-

Day

s

421

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

MountainPacific

United States

Heating Degree-Days, 30-Year Normals

Cooling Degree-Days, 30-Year Normals

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

6,621

5,8396,421 6,635

2,895

3,589

2,306

5,321

3,245

4,576

675 736 9811,565

2,460

1,174694

1,193

1,926

employed. All of these factors alsoaffect the nation’s vulnerability to cli-mate change and its ability to adapt toa changing natural environment.

Global climate change presentsunique challenges and opportunities forthe United States. This chapterdescribes U.S. national circumstancesas they relate to climate change: histor-ical developments, current conditions,and trends in those conditions.

CLIMATE PROFILEThe diverse U.S. climate zones,

topography, and soils support manyecological communities and supplyrenewable resources for many humanuses. The nature and distribution ofthese resources have played a criticalrole in the development of the U.S.economy, thus influencing the patternof U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

U.S. climate conditions are repre-sentative of all the major regions of theworld, except the ice cap. Averageannual temperatures range from –1 to+4°C (30–40°F) in the North to21–27°C (70–80°F) in the South, and

have significant implications for energydemand across the country. In theNorth, heating needs dominate coolingneeds, while the reverse is true in theSouth. The number of heating andcooling degree-days across U.S. regionsillustrates this climatic diversity (Figure2-1). Because of this diversity of climateand ecological zones, describing theeffects of climate change on the nationas either positive or negative overall isan oversimplification.

U.S. baseline rainfall levels also varysignificantly by region, with most ofthe western states being arid. Althoughthe eastern states only rarely experiencesevere drought, they are increasinglyvulnerable to flooding and storm surgesas sea level rises, particularly in increas-ingly densely populated coastal areas.In recent years, although deaths due totornadoes, floods, and tropical stormshave declined substantially, insurancelosses have increased. If extremeweather events of this kind were tooccur with greater frequency or inten-sity (which may or may not happen),damages could be extensive.

GEOGRAPHIC PROFILE The federal government owns slightly

more than 20 percent of the total U.S. landarea of nearly 920 million hectares (over 2billion acres). By contrast, the federal gov-ernment owns over 65 percent of Alaska’snearly 150 million hectares (370 millionacres), the state government owns nearly25 percent, private ownership accounts forabout 10 percent, and lands held in trust bythe Bureau of Indian Affairs account onlyfor about one-third of 1 percent.

The private sector plays a primary rolein developing and managing U.S. naturalresources. However, federal, state, andlocal governments also manage and pro-tect these resources through regulation,economic incentives, and education. Gov-ernments and private interests also managelands set aside for forests, parks, wildlifereserves, special research areas, recre-ational areas, and suburban and urban openspaces. Table 2-1 and Figure 2-2 illustratethe composition and share of the individ-ual components of U.S. land resources in1997. This snapshot is discussed in greaterdetail later in this chapter.


Land is used in many different ways in the United States. Much of the land is forested or used for agricultural purposes.

Land Use Hectares Acres (in millions)

Urban Land 25 65Residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional land. Also includes land for construction sites; sani-tary landfills; sewage treatment plants; water control structures and spillways; and airports, highways,railroads, and other transportation facilities.

Forest-Use Land 260 640 At least 10 percent stocked by single-stemmed forest trees of any size, which will be at least 4 meters (13 feet) tall at maturity. When viewed vertically, canopy cover is 25 percent or greater.

Cropland Used for Crops 140 350 Areas used for the production of adapted crops for harvest.

Cropland Idled, including Conservation Reserve Program 15 40Includes land in cover and soil improvement crops, and completely idle cropland. Some cropland is idleeach year for various physical and economic reasons. Acreage diverted from crops to soil-conservinguses under federal farm programs is included in this component. For example, cropland enrolled in theFederal Conservation Reserve Program is included.

Cropland Used for Pasture 30 70Generally considered as being tilled, planted in field crops, and then reseeded to pasture at varying inter-vals. However, some cropland pasture is marginal for crop uses and may remain in pasture indefinitely.Also includes some land that was used for pasture before crops reached maturity and some land thatcould have been cropped without additional improvement.

Grassland Pasture and Range 235 580Principally native grasses, grasslike plants, forbs or shrubs suitable for grazing and browsing, and intro-duced forage species that are managed with little or no chemicals or fertilizer being applied. Examplesinclude grasslands, savannas, many wetlands, some deserts, and tundra.

Special Uses 115 285Includes national and state parks and wildlife areas, defense installations, and rural transportation.

Miscellaneous Other Land 95 235Includes rural residential, marshes, open swamps, deserts, tundra, and other areas not inventoried.

TOTAL LAND, 50 STATES 915 2,265

TABLE 2-1 AND F IGURE 2-2 U.S. Land Use: 1997

Cropland Idled, including CRP – 2%

Grassland, Pasture, and Range – 26%

Forest-Use Land – 28%

Cropland Used for Crops – 15%

Special Uses – 13%

Miscellaneous Other Land – 10% Urban Land – 3%Cropland Used for Pasture – 3%

Note: Individual land uses may not sum to total land due to rounding.

Source: USDA/NRCS 2001.

POPULATION PROFILEPopulation levels and growth rates

drive a nation’s consumption of energyand other resources, as more peoplerequire more energy services. The popu-lation dispersion in the United Statesincreases the need for transportationservices, and population density andhousehold size influence housing sizes.Settlement patterns and population den-sity also affect the availability of land forvarious uses.

With a population of just over 280million in 2000, the United States is thethird most populous country in theworld, after China and India. U.S. popu-lation density, however, is relatively low(Figure 2-3). Population density alsovaries widely within the United States,and those patterns are changing as peo-ple move not only from rural to metro-politan areas, but also from denser citycores to surrounding suburbs. In addi-tion, populations in the warmer parts of

the country—the Sunbelt in the Southand Southwest—are growing more rap-idly than in other parts, showing a pref-erence for warmer climates.

Overall, the annual rate of U.S. pop-ulation growth has fallen from slightlyover 1 percent in 1990 to about 1 per-cent in 2000. But this is still high by thestandards of the Organization of Eco-nomic Cooperation and Development(OECD)—about five times the rate inJapan, and more than three times the


rate in the European Union. Among theOECD countries, the United States hasbeen and continues to be one of thelargest recipients of immigrants (inabsolute terms). Net immigration con-tributes about one-third of the totalannual population growth, and naturalincrease (births minus deaths) con-tributes the remaining two-thirds.

The U.S. population is aging. Thecurrent median age is about 35 years,compared to about 33 in 1990 and 28 in1970. This change in median age hasbeen a result of both an increase in lifeexpectancy, which now stands at 77years, and reduced fertility rates. Alongwith an aging population, trends alsoindicate a steady reduction in averagehousehold size, as people marry later,have fewer children, are more likely todivorce, and are more likely to livealone as they age. Thus, between 1970and 2000, while the population hasgrown by nearly 40 percent, the num-ber of households has grown by over 65percent.

Although the average householdsize has declined, the average size ofhousing units has been increasing.Between 1978 and 1997, the propor-tion of smaller housing units (with four

or fewer rooms) has decreased fromabout 35 to 30 percent, and the propor-tion of large housing units (with sevenor more rooms) has increased fromabout 20 to nearly 30 percent. In gen-eral, larger housing units result inincreased demands for heating, air con-ditioning, lighting, and other energy-related needs.

The share of the total U.S. popula-tion living in metropolitan areas of atleast one million people has increasedto nearly 60 percent in 2000, up fromnearly 30 percent in 1950. This growthhas been concentrated in suburbs,rather than in city centers. In fact, mostmajor cities have experienced declinesin population, as crime, congestion,high taxes, and the desire for betterschools have led people to move to thesuburbs. As a result, population densi-ties in the U.S. metropolitan areas arefar lower than in metropolitan areasaround the world, and they continue todecline. For example, the ten largestEuropean cities, on average, have popu-lation densities four times greater thanthe ten largest U.S. cities. Theincreased concentration of the U.Spopulation in the suburbs has resultedin both greater reliance on decentral-

ized travel modes, such as the automo-bile, and relatively high per capitaenergy use.

Another factor leading to higheremissions is the increasing mobility ofthe U.S. population. The average U.S.citizen tends to move more than tentimes in his or her lifetime. According tothe 1990 census, nearly 40 percent ofU.S. residents do not live in the statewhere they were born, as compared toabout 30 percent in 1980 and about 25percent in 1970. Families are often dis-persed across the country for education,career, or personal reasons. All of thesefactors have led to an ever-growing needfor transportation services.

GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE The U.S. political and institutional

systems participating in the develop-ment and protection of environmentaland natural resources are as varied asthe resources themselves. These sys-tems span federal, state, and local gov-ernment jurisdictions, and includelegislative, regulatory, judicial, andexecutive institutions.

The U.S. government is divided intothree separate branches: the executivebranch, which includes the Executive

F IGURE 2-3 U.S. Populat ion Dens i ty : 2000

Though the United States is the third most populous country in the world, U.S. population density is relatively low. This combination tends tohave negative implications for energy and automobile use and, hence, emissions of greenhouse gases.

Population perSquare Kilometer

50+

25 – 50

0 – 25

Popu

latio

n pe

r Squ

are

Kilo

met

er

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1030

135

235

335

Russia

United StatesChina

GermanyJapan

Note: International population density comparisons have been rounded.

Sources: U.S. DOC/Census 2000 and World Bank 2000.


Office of the President, executivedepartments, and independent agen-cies; the legislative branch (the U.S.Congress); and the judicial branch (the U.S. court system). The distinctseparation of powers in this tripartitesystem is quite different from parlia-mentary governments.

Federal Departments and Agencies

The executive branch is comprisedof 14 executive departments, 7 agen-cies, and a host of commissions, boards,other independent establishments, andgovernment corporations. The tradi-tional functions of a department or anagency are to help the President pro-pose legislation; to enact, administer,and enforce regulations and rules imple-menting legislation; to implement Exec-utive Orders; and to perform otheractivities in support of the institution’smission, such as encouraging and fund-ing the research, development, anddemonstration of new technologies.

No single department, agency, orlevel of government in the UnitedStates has sole responsibility for thepanoply of issues associated with cli-mate change. In many cases, theresponsibilities of federal agencies areestablished by law, with limited admin-istrative discretion. At the federal level,U.S. climate change policy is deter-mined by an interagency coordinatingcommittee, chaired from within theExecutive Office of the President, andstaffed with members of the executiveoffices and officials from the relevantdepartments and agencies, includingthe Departments of Agriculture, Com-merce, Defense, Energy, Justice, State,Transportation, and Treasury, as well asthe U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency and the U.S. Agency for Inter-national Development.

The U.S. CongressAs the legislative branch of the U.S.

government, Congress also exercisesresponsibility for climate change andother environmental and naturalresource issues at the national level. It influences environmental policy

through two principal vehicles: creationof laws and oversight of the federal exec-utive branch. Thus, Congress can enactlaws establishing regulatory regimes forenvironmental purposes, and can passbills to appropriate funds for environ-mental purposes. Under its constitu-tional authority, Congress ratifiesinternational treaties, such as the UnitedNations Framework Convention on Cli-mate Change.

The U.S. Congress comprises twoelected chambers—the Senate and theHouse of Representatives—having gen-erally equal functions in lawmaking.The Senate has 100 members, electedto six-year terms, with two representa-tives for each of the 50 states. TheHouse has 435 members, elected totwo-year terms, each of whom repre-sents an electoral district of roughlyequal population. The less populatedbut often resource-rich regions of thecountry, therefore, have proportion-ately greater representation in the Sen-ate than in the House.

Environmental proposals, like mostother laws, may be initiated in eitherchamber of the U.S. Congress. Aftertheir introduction, proposals or “bills” arereferred to specialized committees andsubcommittees, which hold public hear-ings on the bills to receive testimonyfrom interested and expert parties. Afterreviewing the testimony, the committeesand subcommittees deliberate and revisethe bills, and then submit them fordebate by the full membership of thatchamber. Differences between bills origi-nating in either the House or the Senateare resolved in a formal conferencebetween the two chambers. To become alaw, a bill must be approved by themajorities of both chambers, and thenmust be signed by the President. ThePresident may oppose and veto a bill, butCongress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority from each chamber.

As a rule, spending bills must gothrough this process twice. First, thecommittee responsible for the relevantissue must submit a bill to authorize theexpenditure. Then, once both chamberspass the authorization bill, the Appropri-ations Committee, in a separate process,

must submit a bill appropriating fundsfrom the budget. The funds that areactually appropriated often are less thanthe authorized amount.

States, Tribes, and Local Governments

States, Native American tribalorganizations, localities, and evenregional associations also exert significant influence over the passage,initiation, and administration of envi-ronmental, energy, natural resource,and other climate-related programs.For example, the authority to regulateelectricity production and distributionlies with state and local public utilitycommissions. In addition, the regula-tion of building codes—strongly tiedto the energy efficiency of buildings—is also controlled at the state and locallevels.

Although the federal governmentpromulgates and oversees environ-mental regulations at the nationallevel, the states and tribes often aredelegated the authority to implementsome federal laws by issuing permitsand monitoring compliance with regulatory standards. The states alsogenerally have the discretion to setenvironmental standards that are morestringent than the national standards.Individual states also enjoy autonomyin their approach to managing theirenvironmental resources that are notsubject to federal laws. In addition toregulation, some states and localitieshave developed voluntary and incen-tive programs that encourage energyefficiency and conservation, and/ormitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

Local power to regulate land use isderived from a state’s power to enactlegislation to promote the health,safety, and welfare of its citizens. Statesvary in the degree to which they dele-gate these “powers” to local govern-ments, but land use is usuallycontrolled to a considerable extent bylocal governments (county or city).This control may take the form ofauthority to adopt comprehensiveland-use plans to enact zoning ordi-nances and subdivision regulations or


accounting for over one-fourth of theglobal economy.

Government and the Market Economy

A number of principles, institutions,and technical factors have played a rolein the evolution of the U.S. marketeconomy. The first of these is therespect for property rights, whichincludes the right to own, use, andtransfer private property to one’s ownadvantage. The U.S. economic systemis also underpinned by a reliance onmarket forces, as opposed to traditionor force, as the most efficient means oforganizing economic activity. In otherwords, in a well-functioning market,relative prices are the primary basis onwhich economic agents within the U.S.economy make decisions about produc-tion and consumption. Ideally, the pricesystem, combined with a system ofwell-defined and well-protected privateproperty rights, allocates the resourcesof an economy in a way that producesthe greatest possible economic welfare.

However, in some cases, due toimperfect information, lack of clearlydefined property rights for publicgoods (such as air and water), and/orother market imperfections, the pro-duction of goods and services createsexternalities (i.e., costs or benefits) thatare not borne directly by the producersand consumers of those goods and serv-ices. For example, if the production of agood has environmental costs that arenot borne by its producers or con-sumers, that product may be priced toolow, thereby stimulating excess demandand pollution. Alternatively, researchand development (R&D) may producebenefits to society beyond those thataccrue to the firm doing the research,but if those benefits are not captured inthe price, firms will underinvest inR&D. Under such circumstances, theU.S. government intervenes to alter theallocation of resources.

Government intervention may in-clude limiting the physical quantity ofpollution that can be produced, orcharging polluters a fee for each unit ofpollution emitted. As a practical matter,

to restrict shoreline, floodplain, or wet-land development.

The U.S. Court SystemThe U.S. court system is also crucial

to the disposition of environmentalissues. Many environmental cases arelitigated in the federal courts. The roleof the courts is to settle disagreementson how to interpret the law. The fed-eral court system is three-tiered: thedistrict court level; the first appellate(or circuit) court level; and the secondand final appellate level (the U.S.Supreme Court). There are 94 federaldistrict courts, organized into federalcircuits, and 13 federal appeals courts.

Cases usually enter the federal courtsystem at the district court level,though some challenges to agencyactions are heard directly in appellatecourts, and disputes between states maybe brought directly before the U.S.Supreme Court. Generally, any person(regardless of citizenship) may file acomplaint alleging a grievance. In civilenforcement cases, complaints arebrought on behalf of the governmentby the U.S. attorney general and, insome instances, may be filed by citizensas well.

Sanctions and relief in civil environ-mental cases may include monetarypenalties, awards of damages, andinjunctive and declaratory relief. Courtsmay direct, for example, that pollutionbe controlled, that contaminated sitesbe cleaned up, or that environmentalimpacts be assessed before a project isinitiated. Criminal cases under federalenvironmental laws may be broughtonly by the government—i.e., theattorney general or state attorneys general. Criminal sanctions in environ-mental cases may include fines andimprisonment.

ECONOMIC PROFILE The U.S. is endowed with a large

and dynamic population, bountiful landand other natural resources, and vibrantcompetition in a market economy.These factors have contributed to mak-ing the U.S. economy (in terms of itsreal GDP) the largest in the world,

however, accurately establishing thecost of the externality to be internal-ized by a fee, a tax, or a regulation canbe very difficult. There is also a risk thatgovernment intervention could haveother, unintended consequences. Forthese reasons, the U.S. governmenttends to be cautious in its interventions,although it does take actions necessaryto protect the economy, the environ-ment, human health, natural resources,and national security.

In addition, many government inter-ventions are intended to correct marketimperfections and facilitate smoothfunctioning of markets. By protectingproperty rights, producing public goodssuch as roads and other types of infra-structure, formulating policies that inter-nalize external costs (e.g., environmentalpolicies), and enacting legislation toensure a minimum standard of living forall of its citizens, the U.S. governmentfosters an environment in which marketforces can function effectively. Finally,the government inevitably influencesthe economy through regulatory and fis-cal processes, which in turn affect thefunctioning of markets.

Composition and Growth Robust economic growth typically

leads to higher greenhouse gas emis-sions and degradation of environmentalresources in general. Nonetheless, it isoften the case that as the health of theeconomy improves and concerns aboutunemployment and economic growthlessen, greater emphasis is placed onenvironmental issues.

From 1960 to 2000, the U.S. econ-omy grew at an average annual rate ofover 3 percent, raising real GDP fromabout $2 trillion to over $9 trillion (in1996 constant dollars). This impliesthat, with population growth averagingabout 1 percent over the same period,real GDP per capita has increased at anaverage annual rate of over 2 percent toabout $32,800 in 2000 from nearly$13,300 in 1960 (all in 1996 constantdollars).

Between 1960 and 2000, the laborforce more than doubled from slightlyover 65 million to about 135 million,


FIGURE 2-4 U.S. Employment by Indust ry : 1970–2000

as the influx of women into the workforce raised the overall labor participa-tion rate from nearly 60 percent to over65 percent. The rapid growth in the sizeof the labor force has been led by theservice sector (which includes communi-cations, utilities, finance, insurance, andreal estate), as shown in Figure 2-4.While the size of the service sector laborforce more than doubled between 1970and 2000, its sectoral share in the U.S.labor force increased by more than 40percent over the same period. Employ-ment in several other industries, such asconstruction, trade, and finance alsoincreased significantly, along with theirsectoral shares in the U.S. labor force. Incontrast, employment in agriculture,along with its sectoral share in the U.S.labor force, declined during the sameperiod.

From the latter part of 1991 through2000, the United States experienced thelongest peacetime economic expansionin history. The average annual U.S. eco-nomic growth (in terms of real GDP)was about 3 percent per year between1991 and 1995 and more than 4 percentper year between 1996 and 2000. Dur-ing the second half of 2000, the econ-omy, nonetheless, showed signs ofmoderating, with real annual GDPgrowth registering at a little over 3 per-cent in 2000, relative to the previousyear. Overall, unemployment wasreduced to about 4 percent in 2000,while producing healthy increases in realwages and real disposable income. Bothpersonal consumption and industrialproduction have increased as a result ofthis economic growth and have, there-fore, contributed to greater energy con-

sumption and fossil fuel-related carbondioxide emissions. Much of this eco-nomic growth, however, has occurred insectors of the economy that are lessenergy-intensive (e.g., computer tech-nologies), which in turn has lowered theenergy intensity of the U.S. economy.

ENERGY PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION

The United States continues to bethe world’s largest energy producer andconsumer. The nation’s patterns ofenergy use are determined largely by itseconomic and population growth, largeland area, climate regimes, populationdispersion, average size of household,other population characteristics, andavailability of indigenous resources.Much of the infrastructure of U.S. cities,highways, and industries was developed

Between 1970 and 2000, employment rose most rapidly in the construction, trade, financial, utilities, and services sectors. The service sector isby far the largest in the United States, employing more than one-third of the population.

Agriculture

Millions of People

Mining

Construction

Manufacturing

Transportation,Communications, and

Other Public Utilities

Trade

Financial

Services

PublicAdministration

4

1

6

26

7

19

5

26

6

2

1970 2000

<0.5

7

15

7

21

7

37

4

0 10 20 30

Percent of Employment

40

1970

2000

33

11

59

2120

510

1528

2050

49

46

Note: All numbers are rounded to the nearest integer.

Sources: U.S. DOC/Census 1999 and U.S. DOL/BLS 2000.


F IGURE 2-5 Energy F low Through the U.S. Economy: 2000 (Quadr i l l ion Btus)

The U.S. energy system is the largest in the world and is composed of multiple energy sources and end users. Most of the energy is producedand consumed domestically, although imports constitute a significant portion, and a small fraction of energy is exported.

Coal2

Other3

Exports4

Residential Use20

Commercial and Industrial Use

51

Transportation Use27

TotalConsumption

99

FossilFuels

84

Coal23

Natural Gas20

Crude Oil12

Nuclear 8

Crude Oiland Products

24

Renewables 7

Adjustments 2

NGPL 3

Other 5

Coal22

TotalSupply

103

DomesticProduction

72

ImportedEnergy

29

Natural Gas23

Petroleum38

Nuclear 8

Renewables 7

FossilFuels

57

Note: Shares may not sum to totals due to rounding.


in response to abundant and relativelyinexpensive energy resources. Figure 2-5provides a comprehensive overview ofthe energy flows through the U.S. econ-omy in 2000.

Different regions of the country relyon different mixes of energy resources(reflecting their diverse resource endow-ments) to generate power and meetother energy needs. For example, thePacific Northwest and Tennessee Valleyhave abundant hydropower resources,while the Midwest relies heavily on coalfor power generation and industrialenergy needs.

ResourcesThe vast fossil fuel resources of the

United States have contributed to lowprices and specialization in relativelyenergy-intensive activities. Coal, which

has the highest emissions of greenhousegases per unit of energy, is particularlyabundant, with current domestic recov-erable reserves estimated at nearly 460billion metric tons (about 503 billionshort tons)—enough to last for over 460years at current recovery rates. Recentgains in mining productivity, coupledwith increased use of less-expensivewestern coal made possible by railroadderegulation, have led to a continualdecline in coal prices over the past twodecades. As a result, the low cost of coalon a Btu basis has made it the preferredfuel for power generation, supplyingover half of the energy consumed togenerate electricity.

Proved domestic reserves of oil(nearly 4 trillion liters or over 20 billionbarrels at the start of 2000) have been ona downward trend ever since the addi-

tion of reserves under Alaska’s NorthSlope in 1970. Restrictions on explo-ration in many promising but ecologi-cally sensitive areas have constrainedadditions to reserves. Reserves of naturalgas were nearly 5 trillion cubic meters(nearly 170 trillion cubic feet) at the startof 2000. The estimated natural gasresources of nearly 37 trillion cubicmeters (nearly 1,300 trillion cubic feet)are expected to last for more than 65years at current rates of production. U.S.energy resources also include over 120million kg (about 270 million pounds) ofuranium oxide, recoverable at about $65per kilogram ($30 per pound) or less (in2000 current dollars). Hydroelectricresources are abundant in certain areas ofthe country, where they have alreadylargely been exploited.


In May 2001, the Bush Administration published the National Energy Policy (NEP). Thislong-term, comprehensive strategy was primarily designed to assist the private sector,

states, and local governments in promoting “dependable, affordable, and environmentallysound production and distribution of energy for the future” (NEPD Group 2001). The NEPseeks to promote new, environmentally friendly technologies to increase energy suppliesand to encourage cleaner, more efficient energy use. It also seeks to raise the living stan-dards of Americans by fully integrating national energy, environmental, and economic poli-cies. The following goals are the NEP’s guiding principles.

Modernize Conservation

This NEP goal seeks to increase energy efficiency by applying new technology, which isexpected to raise productivity, reduce waste, and trim costs. Some of the recommenda-tions include: increased funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency research anddevelopment programs; income tax credits for the purchase of hybrid and fuel cell vehi-cles; extension of the ENERGY STAR® efficiency program; and tax incentives and streamlinedpermitting to promote clean combined heat and power (CHP) technology.

Modernize Energy Infrastructure

This NEP goal seeks to modernize and expand the national energy infrastructure such thatenergy supplies can be safely, reliably, and affordably transported to homes and busi-nesses. Some of the recommendations include: improving pipeline safety and expeditingpipeline permitting; expanding research and development on transmission reliability andsuperconductivity; and enacting comprehensive electricity legislation that promotes com-petition, encourages new generation, protects consumers, enhances reliability, and pro-motes renewable energy.

Increase Energy Supplies

This NEP goal seeks to increase and diversify the nation’s traditional and alternative fuelsources so as to provide “families and businesses with reliable and affordable energy, toenhance national security, and to improve the environment.” Some of the recommenda-tions include: environmentally regulated exploration and production of oil using leading-edge technology in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); regulated increase in oiland natural gas development on other federal lands; fiscal incentives for selected renew-able power generation technologies; and streamlining the relicensing of hydropower andnuclear facilities.

Accelerate Protection and Improvement of the Environment

This NEP goal seeks to integrate long-term national energy policy with national environ-mental goals. Some of the recommendations include multi-pollutant legislation to establisha flexible, market-based program to significantly reduce and cap emissions of sulfur diox-ide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury from electric power generators; land conservationefforts; and new guidelines to reduce truck-idling emissions at truck stops.

Increase Energy Security

This NEP goal seeks to lessen the impact of energy price volatility and supply uncertaintyon the American people. Some of the recommendations include increasing funding for theLow-Income Home Energy Assistance Program; preparing the Federal EmergencyManagement Administration for managing energy-related emergencies; and streamliningand expediting permitting procedures to expand and accelerate cross-border energyinvestment, oil and gas pipelines, and electricity grid connections with Mexico andCanada.

Nat iona l Energy Po l icy Goals ProductionCoal, natural gas, and crude oil con-

stitute the bulk of U.S. domestic energyproduction. In 1960, these fossil fuelsaccounted for nearly 95 percent of pro-duction. By 2000 their contribution hadfallen to about 80 percent, with thenuclear electric power displacing someof the fossil fuel production (Figure 2-6).Further displacement will most likely belimited, however, due to uncertaintiesrelated to deregulation of the electricindustry, difficulty in siting new nuclearfacilities, and management of commer-cial spent fuel. Renewable resources con-tribute a small but growing share.

Crude OilBefore 1970, the United States

imported only a small amount of energy,primarily in the form of petroleum.Beginning in the early 1970s, however,lower acquisition costs for importedcrude oil and rising costs of domesticproduction put domestic U.S. oil pro-ducers at a comparative disadvantage,leading to a divergence in trends ofenergy production and consumption. In2000, the United States produced over70 quadrillion Btus of energy andexported 4 quadrillion Btus, over 35 percent of which was coal. Consumptiontotaled nearly 100 quadrillion Btus,requiring imports of nearly 30 quadril-lion Btus. Domestic crude oil productionis projected to remain relatively stablethrough 2003 as a result of a favorableprice environment and increased successof offshore drilling. A decline in produc-tion is projected from 2004 through2010, followed by another period ofprojected stable production levelsthrough 2020 as a result of rising pricesand continuing improvements in tech-nology. In 2020, the projected domesticproduction level of slightly over 5 mil-lion barrels per day would be almost onemillion barrels per day less than the 1999level. In 2000, net imports of petroleumaccounted for over 60 percent of domes-tic petroleum consumption. Continueddependence on petroleum imports isprojected, reaching about 65 percent in2020.


Europe, and Asia was primarily attrib-uted to competition from lower-pricedcoal from Australia, South Africa,Columbia, and Venezuela. Coal exportsare projected to remain relatively sta-ble, settling at slightly more than 50million metric tons by 2020.

Natural GasRegulatory and legislative changes in

the mid-1980s led to market pricing ofnatural gas. These changes heighteneddemand and boosted natural gas produc-tion, reversing the decline it had experi-enced in the 1970s and early 1980s. Thisincreased production is projected tocontinue and even accelerate in the earlydecades of the 21st century. Nonethe-less, growth in consumption is expectedto outstrip that of production, leading to an increase in net imports, from the 1999 level of more than 85 billioncubic meters (3 trillion cubic feet) to a projected level of nearly 170 billion cubic meters (6 trillion cubic feet)in 2020.

Renewable EnergyRenewable sources currently consti-

tute about 9 percent of U.S. energyproduction, and hydropower con-tributes 4 percent. Projected growth inrenewable electricity generation isexpected from biomass (currently atnearly 5 percent) and from solar, wind,and geothermal energy (currently atless than 1 percent). The largestincrease in renewable electricity gener-ation is projected for biomass, frommore than 35 billion kilowatt hours in1999 to over 65 billion in 2020.

Electricity Market Restructuring The U.S. electric power generation

industry is evolving from a regulated toa competitive industry. In many juris-dictions, wholesale markets havealready become competitive, whileretail markets have been slow to follow.Where power generation was oncedominated by vertically integratedinvestor-owned utilities (IOUs) thatowned most of the generation capacity,transmission, and distribution facilities,the electric power industry now has

CoalCoal is the largest source of domesti-

cally produced energy. As the only fossilfuel for which domestic productionexceeds consumption, coal assumed aparticularly important role in the wakeof the oil shocks in the 1970s. Between1991 and 2000, U.S coal productionincreased by about 8 percent. However,more recently (between 1998 and 2000),coal production has declined by nearly 4percent from slightly over one billionmetric tons in 1998. This decline wasprimarily attributed to a large drop incoal exports and a smaller than usualgrowth in coal consumption for powergeneration.

From 1996 to 2000, U.S. coalexports have declined by about 35 percent. In particular, they declinedsharply between 1998 and 2000, fromover 70 million metric tons (over 77million short tons) to nearly 55 millionmetric tons (nearly 61 million shorttons). U.S. coal exports declined inalmost every major world region. Thedecline in coal exports to Canada,

many new companies that generate andtrade electricity. Although verticallyintegrated IOUs still produce most ofthe country’s electrical power today,this situation is rapidly changing.

Competition in wholesale powersales received a boost from the EnergyPolicy Act of 1992 (EPAct), whichexpanded the Federal Energy Regula-tory Commission’s (FERC’s) authorityto order vertically integrated IOUs toallow nonutility power producersaccess to the transmission grid to sellpower. In 1996, the FERC issued itsOrders 888 and 889, which establisheda regime for nondiscriminatory accessby all wholesale buyers and sellers totransmission facilities. More recently, inDecember 1999, FERC issued Order2000, calling for the creation ofregional transmission organizations(RTOs)—independent entities that willcontrol and operate the transmissiongrid free of any discriminatory prac-tices. Electric utilities were required tosubmit proposals to form RTOs by January 2001.

In addition to wholesale competi-tion, for the first time in the history ofthe industry, retail customers in somestates have been given a choice of elec-tricity suppliers. As of July 1, 2000, 24states and the District of Columbia hadpassed laws or regulatory orders toimplement retail competition, and moreare expected to follow. The introduc-tion of wholesale and retail competitionto the electric power industry has pro-duced and will continue to produce sig-nificant changes in the industry.

In 2000, coal-fired power plantsgenerated more than 50 percent of elec-tricity produced in the United States,followed by nuclear power (nearly 20percent), natural gas (a little over 15percent), conventional hydropower(nearly 10 percent), petroleum (3 per-cent), and other fuels and renewables (2percent). Over the past few years, and innear-term projections, natural gas hasbeen the fuel of choice for new electricity-generating capacity. The restructuring of the electric power industry may accelerate this trend, due to the fact thatnatural gas generation is less capital-

F IGURE 2-6 U.S. Domest ic Energy Product ion : 1970–2000

Coal is the largest source of domestic energy,followed by natural gas and oil. Since 1970,the production of coal, nuclear, and renew-ables has risen to offset the decline in oil andnatural gas production.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

19701975

19801985

19901995

2000

Coal 32%

Natural Gas 31%

Oil 17%

Nuclear 11%

Hydroelectric 4%Other Renewables 1%

Biomass 5%

Qua

drill

ion

Btu

s

Notes: Fuel share estimates correspond to2000 data. Shares may not sum to 100percent due to rounding



Several titles of the U.S. Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1992 continue to beextremely important to the overall U.S. strategy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Important provisions of this Act were reauthorized in the Energy ConservationReauthorization Act of 1998. Relevant titles of the original Act are summarized below.

Title I—Energy Efficiency

This title establishes energy efficiency standards, promotes electric utility energy manage-ment programs and dissemination of energy-saving information, and provides incentives tostate and local authorities to promote energy efficiency.

Titles III, IV, V, and VI—Alternative Fuels and Vehicles

These titles provide monetary incentives, establish federal requirements, and support theresearch, design, and development of fuels and vehicles that can reduce oil use and, insome cases, carbon emissions as well.

Titles XII, XIX, XXI, and XXII—Renewable Energy, Revenue Provisions, Energy and Environment, and Energy and Economic Growth

These titles promote increased research, development, production, and use of renewableenergy sources and more energy-efficient technologies.

Title XVI—Global Climate Change

This title provides for the collection, analysis, and reporting of information pertaining toglobal climate change, including a voluntary reporting program to recognize electric utilityand industry efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Title XXIV—Hydroelectric Facilities

This title facilitates efforts to increase the efficiency and electric power production of exist-ing federal and nonfederal hydroelectric facilities.

Title XXVIII—Nuclear Plant Licensing

This title streamlines licensing for nuclear plants.

The U.S. Energy Pol icy and Conservat ion Act

intensive than other technologies, andthe cost of capital to the industry isexpected to increase.

Consumption On the consumption side, rapid eco-

nomic and population growth, com-bined with the increasing energydemands of the transportation andbuildings sectors, resulted in an 80 per-cent increase in energy demand from1960 to 1979. Most of the increaseddemand was met by oil imports and byincreased consumption of coal and nat-ural gas. Total energy demand damp-ened during and after the internationaloil price shocks in 1973–74 and1979–80, and overall energy consump-tion actually fell through the early1980s. Energy consumption resumed itsupward trend in the latter half of the1980s, in response to declining oil and

gas prices and renewed economicgrowth.

Another lingering effect of the oilprice shocks was a shift in consumptionaway from oil. Power generation shiftedtoward natural gas, coal, and nuclearpower, and space heating became moredependent on natural gas and electric-ity. Most of the shift away from oil tonatural gas, however, occurred after thesecond oil price shock.

From 1949 to 2000, while the U.S.population expanded by nearly 90 per-cent, the amount of electricity sold byutilities grew by over 1,200 percent.Average per capita consumption of elec-tricity in 2000 was seven times as highas in 1949. The growth in the economy,population, and distances traveled hascontributed to increased U.S energyconsumption. However, by 2000,energy use per dollar of GDP (or

energy intensity) had decreased bynearly 45 percent from its peak in 1970. Most of these energy intensityimprovements are due to an increase inthe less energy-intensive industries anda decrease in the more energy-intensiveindustries. The household and thetransportation sectors also experiencedsignificant gains in efficiency. TodayU.S. energy intensity is just slightlyabove OECD’s average energy intensity(at 0.43 kg of oil equivalent per dollarof GDP, versus 0.41 kg for the OECD).

SECTORAL ACTIVITIES In 2000, end users consumed about

75 quadrillion Btus (quads) of energydirectly, including over 10 quads of elec-tricity. In addition, about 25 quads ofenergy were used in the generation,transmission, and distribution of electric-ity. Industry and transportation con-sumed three-quarters of this directenergy, while the residential and com-mercial sectors used one-quarter. However, because most electricity isdelivered to residential and commercialusers, total primary energy consumptionof nearly 100 quads is distributed fairlyevenly among final users (Figure 2-7).

The remainder of this section dis-cusses energy use by and emissionsfrom industry, residential and commer-cial buildings, transportation, and theU.S. government, as well as waste.Agricultural and forest practices areaddressed elsewhere in this chapter.

Industry Comprised of manufacturing, con-

struction, agriculture, and mining, theindustrial sector accounted for morethan 35 percent of total U.S. energy usein 2000 and slightly over 30 percent oftotal U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.Industry’s energy consumption rosesteadily until the early 1970s, and thendropped markedly, particularly in theearly 1980s, following the second oilshock. Since the late 1980s, industrialenergy consumption has resumed a grad-ual upward trend.

Similarly, from 1978 to 1999, indus-trial energy intensity (energy consumedby the individual sector per unit of


Figure 2-7 Energy Consumpt ion by Sector : 1970–2000

0

20

40

60

80

100

19701975

19801985

19901995

2000

Buildings 36%

Industrial 38%

Transportation 26%

Qua

drill

ion

Btu

s

Notes: Sectoral share estimates correspondto 2000 data. Shares may not sum to100 percent due to rounding.


Energy consumption is divided fairly evenlyamong the three sectors, with industrialbeing the largest and the buildings sectorclose behind. The rate of growth in energyconsumption since 1970 has been highest inthe buildings and transportation sectors.

industrial output) fell by about 25 per-cent. Approximately two-thirds of thisdecline is attributable to structural shifts,such as the changing array of productsthat industry produced during theperiod, while roughly one-third is attrib-utable to efficiency improvements.

Over 80 percent of the energy con-sumed in the industrial sector is used formanufacturing (including feedstocks),with the remainder of the energy con-sumed by mining, construction, agricul-ture, fisheries, and forestry. In 1998, fuel consumption for manufacturingamounted to nearly 25 quadrillion Btus,an increase of nearly 10 percent since1994. Of this, four subsectors accountedfor nearly 80 percent of the total manu-facturing fuel consumption: chemicalsand allied products (25 percent), petro-leum and coal products (over 30 per-cent), paper and allied products (over 10percent), and primary metal industries(over 10 percent). Natural gas was themost commonly consumed energysource in manufacturing.

Natural gas and electricity togethercomprised nearly 45 percent of allenergy sources (in terms of Btus). Overthe past two decades energy intensity inthe manufacturing sector has declined,although the rate of decline has slowedsince energy prices fell in 1985. Of the20 major energy-consuming industrygroups in the manufacturing sector, mostcontinued to reduce their energy inten-sity between 1985 and 1994.

Residential and Commercial Buildings

The number, size, and geographicdistribution of residential and commer-cial buildings, as well as the market pen-etration of heating and coolingtechnologies and major appliances, allcombine to influence the energy con-sumption and greenhouse gases associ-ated with residential and commercialactivities.

Residential and commercial buildingstogether account for roughly 35 percentof the U.S. carbon emissions associatedwith energy consumption. Commercialbuildings—which encompass all nonres-idential, privately owned, and publicbuildings—account for slightly over 15percent of U.S. carbon emissions. Totalenergy use in the buildings sector hasbeen increasing gradually, rising frommore than 20 quadrillion Btus in 1970 tonearly 35 quadrillion Btus in 1998. Thesector’s share of total energy consump-tion relative to other end-use sectors has remained roughly stable over thisperiod.

In 1997 the United States had morethan 100 million households, approxi-mately half of which lived in detached,single-family dwellings. Demographicchanges have led to a steep decline inthe average number of people per resi-dence—from 3.3 in 1960 to 2.6 in1990—and the sizes of houses have alsoincreased. Since then, that number hasremained fairly stable through 1996.The average heated space per personhad increased to nearly 65 square meters(nearly 680 square feet) in 1990, com-pared to nearly 60 square meters (nearly630 square feet) in 1980.

In addition, major energy-consuming

appliances and equipment came intowidespread use during this period. By1990, essentially all U.S. households hadspace and water heating, refrigerationand cooking appliances, and color televi-sion sets. In 1997, over 70 percent of thehouseholds had some form of air condi-tioning, over 75 percent had clotheswashers, over 70 percent had clothesdryers, and about 50 percent had dish-washers (Figure 2-8).

New products have continued to pen-etrate the market. For example, in 1978,only 8 percent of U.S. households had amicrowave oven; by 1997, nearly 85 per-cent had a microwave oven. Similarly,household survey data on personal com-puters were first collected in 1990, whenslightly over 15 percent of householdsowned one or more PCs. By 1997 thatshare had more than doubled to 35 per-cent.

Despite this growth in appliances,products, and per capita heating andcooling space, large gains in the energyefficiency of appliances and buildingshells (e.g., through better insulation)have resulted in a modest decline in res-idential energy use per person and onlymodest increases in total U.S. energydemand in the residential sector. Theincreased use of nontraditional electricalappliances, such as computers and cord-less (rechargeable) tools, is expected todrive a gradual (one half of 1 percent peryear) rise in per-household residentialenergy consumption between 1990 and2015.

The type of fuel used to heat U.S.homes has changed significantly overtime. More than one-third of all U.S.housing units were warmed by coal in1950, but by 1997 that share fell to lessthan one-half of 1 percent. During thesame period, distillate fuel oil lost justover half of its share of the home-heatingmarket, falling to 10 percent. Natural gasand electricity gained as home-heatingsources. The share of natural gas rosefrom about a quarter of all homes in 1950to over half in 1997, while electricity’sshare shot up from less than 1 percent in1950 to nearly 30 percent in 1997.

In recent years, electricity and naturalgas have been the most common sources


of energy used by commercial buildingsas well. Commercial buildings house therapidly growing financial and servicessectors. Accordingly, their number andtheir total square footage have increasedsteadily. Over 85 percent of all commer-cial buildings are heated, and more than75 percent are cooled. In addition, thepast decade has seen a major increase inthe use of computers and other energy-consuming office equipment, such ashigh-resolution printers, copiers, andscanners.

Rapid growth in the financial andservices sectors has substantiallyincreased the energy services required

by commercial buildings. However, as inthe residential sector, substantial effi-ciency gains have reduced the netincreases in energy demand and carbonemissions. The widespread introductionof efficient lighting and more efficientoffice equipment, such as ENERGY STAR®

labeled products, should help to con-tinue this trend. The entry into the mar-ket of energy service companies, whichcontract with firms or government agen-cies to improve building energy effi-ciency and are paid out of the stream ofenergy savings, has aided the trendtoward greater energy efficiency in thecommercial buildings sector.

Transportation Reflecting the nation’s low popula-

tion density, the U.S. transportationsector has evolved into a multimodalsystem that includes waterborne, high-way, mass transit, air, rail, and pipelinetransport, capable of moving large vol-umes of people and freight long dis-tances. Automobiles and light trucksdominate the passenger transportationsystem. In 1997, the highway share ofpassenger miles traveled was nearly 90percent, while air travel accounted for10 percent. In contrast, transit and railtravel’s combined share was only 1 per-cent (Figure 2-9).

35% have personal computers

100% have at least one refrigerator15% have two or more33% have separate freezers

61% have ceiling fans

100% have water heaters52% natural gas40% electricity

72% have air conditioning47% have central air25% have window units

77% have clothes washer71% have clothes dryer

99% have a television

99% have stoves83% have microwave ovens50% have dishwashers19% use dishwashers daily

99% have central heating51% natural gas29% electricity10% fuel oil5% liquefied gas

F IGURE 2-8 Energy Character is t i cs o f U.S. Households

In 1997, household energy consumption was 10.25 quadrillion Btus. The primary energy source was natural gas, followed by electricity and oil.The graphic below depicts the percentage of households with a variety of energy-consuming appliances.



F IGURE 2-9 U.S. Transpor ta t ion : Character is t i cs and Trends

The U.S. transportation system relies heavily on private vehicles. Although fuel efficiency in automobiles has been rising steadily, there has alsobeen a trend toward larger vehicles, such as light trucks and sport utility vehicles. Coupled with an increase in vehicle miles traveled, overallenergy consumption has been increasing. Air travel has also experienced impressive growth, and the performance of freight modes has not off-set these increases in consumption.

Passenger Miles Traveled: 1998Of the nearly 5 trillion passenger miles traveled in 1998, passengercars accounted for the single largest mode of transportation.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

19801985

19901995

1999

Fuel Efficiency(miles per gallon)

Vehicle Miles Traveled(millions of miles)

Fuel Consumption(millions of gallons)

*Includes motor and trolley buses; light, heavy, and commuter rail; and ferry boats.

19781985

19801990

19952000

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Gasoline Price (dollars per gallon)

Fuel Consumption(millions of barrels per day)

Air Transport (Billions of Miles)

Air transport has been rising over the past decade: revenue aircraftmiles and available seat miles have been increasing at averageannual rates of nearly 4 and 3 percent, respectively.

19871990

19952000

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

0

2

4

6

8

10

Available Seat Miles

Revenue Aircraft Miles

Ava

ilabl

e Se

at M

iles

Revenue Aircraft M

iles

Passenger Car Use Index: 1980 = 1

Generally, although fuel efficiency has been improving as a result ofCAFE standards, fuel consumption continues to rise due to increasedU.S. vehicle miles traveled.

Energy Use by Transportation Mode: 1998In 1998 the transportation sector consumed nearly 26 quadrillion Btus.Highway vehicles accounted for about 80 percent of this consumption.

Gasoline Prices and Fuel Use Index: 1978 = 1

As real gasoline prices declined in the early 1990s, fuel consumptionon our nation’s highways increased.

Efficiency of Freight ModesThe fuel efficiency of U.S. freight transportation is steadily improving.Most notably, the energy intensity of railroads decreased by nearly 45 percent during 1970–98.

Year Trucks Class I Freight Domestic Waterborne(mpg) Railroads Commerce

(Btus per Ton Mile) (Ton Miles per Barrel)

1970 5.5 645 4,820

1980 5.4 590 3,680

1990 6.0 420 3,370

1995 6.2 370 3,580

1996 6.2 365 3,580

1997 6.4 370 3,770

1998 6.1 360 3,660

Cars & light-duty vehicles 63%

Heavy-duty trucks & buses18%

Air 8%

Water 5% Transit 1%

Pipeline 3% Rail 2%

Passenger Cars 52%

Motorcycles <0.5%

Other 2-axle, 4-tire vehicles 30%

Buses 3%Trucks 4%

Air 10%Rail <0.5%

Transit 1%*Other Transport

Highway Transport

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.Sources: U.S. DOE/EIA 2000a, U.S. DOT/BTS 2000a and 2000b, U.S. DOT/FAA 1998.


Because of the dominance of motorvehicles in the U.S. transportation sys-tem, motor vehicle ownership rates,use, and efficiency drive energy con-sumption and greenhouse gas emissionsin the transportation sector. Between1960 and 1998, the number of cars andtrucks registered in the United Statesalmost tripled, from nearly 75 million tomore than 210 million. Overall, thetransportation sector consumed slightlyover 25 quadrillion Btus in 1998,accounting for approximately one-thirdof U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Ris-ing incomes, population growth, andsettlement patterns were the primaryfactors in this trend.

Both the number of vehicles on theroad and the average distance they aredriven have increased. In 1999, on aver-age, passenger cars were driven over19,000 kilometers (nearly 12,000 miles)per year, compared to approximately16,000 kilometers (about 10,000 miles)in 1970. The distance traveled per carhas increased steadily over the last twodecades, interrupted only by the oilshocks in 1974 and 1979. Total U.S.vehicle miles traveled have increased bynearly 140 percent since 1970.

These increases have been signifi-cantly offset by enhanced efficiency.This can be attributed to a combinationof factors, including the implementationof Corporate Average Fuel Economy(CAFE) standards for new cars, andimproved average fuel consumption perkilometer—from a low of 18 liters per100 kilometers (slightly over 13 milesper gallon) for the on-road passenger carfleet in 1973, to 11 liters per 100 kilo-meters (slightly over 21 miles per gallon)in 1999. Between 1998 and 1999, thefuel efficiency of passenger cars declinedby about 1 percent, halting the growthtrend in improvement of energy effi-ciency.

The fuel economy of light trucks andsport utility vehicles has also improved,although the increased share of lighttrucks in the total light-duty-vehiclefleet has diminished these overall gains.Thus, as in other sectors, efficiencyimprovements moderated the increase inmotor fuel consumption (including air,

water, pipeline, and rail) in the trans-portation sector from nearly 8 millionbarrels per day in 1970 to about 12 mil-lion barrels per day in 1999.

The causes for the rapid rise in vehi-cle miles traveled are numerous,although their relative importance isunclear. In 1997, there was slightlyover one vehicle per licensed driver—an increase of about 25 percent over1970. This increase in ownership trans-lates into a decrease in the use of car-pools and public transportation, and anaccompanying increase in personalvehicle use. Increased vehicle owner-ship and use are related to a host of fac-tors, including changing patterns ofland use, such as location of work andshopping centers; the changing com-position of the work force, such as thegrowing number of women in the workforce; and the reduced marginal costsof driving.

U.S. freight transportation, meas-ured in ton-miles, grew at an average of2 percent annually from 1970 to 1997,when it reached nearly three trillionton-miles. In 1997, the predominantmode of freight transportation wastrucks, followed closely by rail, thenwaterways, pipelines, and air.• Heavy trucks account for most of the

freight sector’s energy use. From1970 to 1997, their energy consump-tion more than doubled. While theirfuel efficiency increased slightly,U.S. ton-miles of freight transportedon intercity trucks nearly tripledbetween 1970 and 1997.

• Between 1970 and 1997, the numberof railroad cars in use declined.However, they carried more freightfor greater distances, resulting innearly a 1 percent reduction in totalfuel consumed for rail freight servicesince 1970, and nearly a 50 percentimprovement in energy consumed(in terms of Btus) per freight ton-mile.

• Ton-miles shipped by air increasedrapidly—by over 6 percent a yearfrom 1970 to 1997.

• Water-transport and oil-pipelineshipments grew steadily over thatsame period.

GovernmentThe U.S. government is the nation’s

single largest energy consumer. It usesenergy in government buildings andoperations widely dispersed across theentire nation and every climate zone,providing services to the U.S. popula-tion. Based on reports submitted to theDepartment of Energy by 28 federalagencies, the U.S. government con-sumed slightly over one quad ofenergy during fiscal year 1999 (about 1percent of U.S. energy consumption),when measured in terms of energyactually delivered to the point of use.This total net energy consumptionrepresented a 30 percent decrease from1990. Based on these figures, the fed-eral government was responsible fornearly 25 million metric tons of carbonemissions in 1999—a reduction ofnearly 9 million metric tons, or over 25percent, from 1990. The largest contri-bution to this reduction was from vehi-cle and equipment end-uses, whichreduced their carbon emissions bynearly 35 percent.

The Department of Defense is thefederal government’s largest energyconsumer, accounting for just over 80percent of total federal energy use.The Postal Service is the secondlargest consumer of federal energy, andaccounted for nearly 4 percent of totalfederal energy use. Overall in 1999,energy consumption by vehicles andequipment accounted for 60 percent ofthe total, buildings for 34 percent, andenergy-intensive operations for 7 per-cent. In terms of energy use by fueltype, jet fuel accounted for nearly 55percent; fuel oil, nearly 20 percent;electricity, more than 10 percent; nat-ural gas, 10 percent; and other fuels, 6 percent.

WasteIn 1999, the United States generated

approximately 230 million tons ofmunicipal solid waste (MSW). Paperand paperboard products made up thelargest component of MSW generatedby weight (nearly 40 percent), and yardtrimmings comprised the second largestmaterial component (more than 10


percent). Glass, metals, plastics, wood,and food each constituted between 5and over 10 percent of the total MSWgenerated. Rubber, leather, and textilescombined made up about 7 percent ofthe MSW, while other miscellaneouswastes made up approximately 2 per-cent of the MSW generated in 1999.

Waste management practices in-clude source reduction, recycling, anddisposal (including waste combustionand landfilling). Management patternschanged dramatically in the late 1990sin response to changes in economic andregulatory conditions. The most signif-icant change from a greenhouse gasperspective was the increase in thenational average recycling rate, whichrose from over 15 percent in 1990 tonearly 30 percent in 1999 (nearly 65million tons). Of the remaining MSWgenerated, about 15 percent is com-busted and nearly 60 percent is dis-posed of at landfills. The number ofoperating MSW landfills has decreasedsubstantially over the last decade, fromabout 8,000 in 1988 to under 2,000 in1999, while the average landfill size hasincreased.

Overall, waste management andtreatment activities accounted for about260 teragrams of carbon dioxide equiv-alent (Tg CO2 Eq.), or nearly 4 percent

of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissionsin 1999. Of this, landfill emissions wereover 210 Tg CO2 Eq. Waste combus-tion, human sewage, and wastewatertreatment constituted the rest of theemissions.

AGRICULTUREDespite their decreased acreage,

U.S. grazing lands are sustaining moreanimals, and agricultural lands are feed-ing more people. Enlightened landmanagement policies and improvedtechnologies are major contributors totheir enhanced productivity.

Grazing LandU.S. grazing lands—both grassland

pasture and range and cropland used forpasture—are environmentally impor-tant. They include major recreationaland scenic areas, serve as a principalsource of wildlife habitat, and comprisea large area of the nation’s watersheds.These ecosystems, like forest ecosys-tems, are vulnerable to rapid changes inclimate, particularly shifts in tempera-ture and moisture regimes. However,range ecosystems tend to be moreresilient than forest ecosystems becauseof their ability to survive long-termdroughts.

Grassland pasture and range ecosys-

tems can include a variety of differentflora and fauna communities, usuallydenoted by the dominant vegetation.They are generally managed by varyinggrazing pressure, by using fire to shiftspecies abundance, and by occasionallydisturbing the soil surface to improvewater infiltration.

In contrast, cropland used for pastureis a grazing ecosystem that relies onmore intensive management inputs, suchas fertilizer, chemical pest management,and introduced or domesticated species.U.S. cropland used for pasture includesnative grasslands, savannas, alpine mead-ows, tundra, many wetlands, somedeserts, and areas seeded by introducedand genetically improved species.

Grassland pasture and rangeaccounted for nearly 240 millionhectares (580 million acres), or over 25 percent of major land uses in 1997(see Figure 2-2). However, the area ofgrassland pasture and range hasdeclined since 1945, when it was nearly270 million hectares (nearly 660 millionacres). One reason for this decline isthat farmers have improved the produc-tivity of grazing lands. A second reasonis that some of these land areas werealso converted to cropland, rural resi-dential, suburban, and urban land uses,as demand for grazing lands declined inrecent years due to the decrease in thenumber of domestic animals—particu-larly sheep and draft animals—raised ongrazing lands.

Agricultural Land The United States enjoys a natural

abundance of productive agriculturallands and a favorable climate for pro-ducing food crops, feed grains, andother agricultural commodities, such asoil seed crops. The area of the U.S.cropland used for crop productiondeclined by 10 percent during the 16-year period between 1981 and 1997,from nearly 160 million hectares (nearly390 million acres) to about 140 millionhectares (nearly 350 million acres).During this same period, conservationprograms for the most environmentallysensitive and highly erodible lands haveremoved nearly 15 million hectares

Initially in response to the energy crises of the 1970s, and later because it just made goodfinancial sense, federal agencies have been steadily pursuing energy and cost savings in

their buildings and operations. Under the Federal Energy Management Program, federalagencies have invested several billion dollars in energy efficiency over the past 20 yearsand have substantially reduced their energy consumption. In federal buildings, the primaryfocus of the program, 1999 energy consumption was down nearly 30 percent from 1985 lev-els and nearly 25 percent from 1990 levels. Within the same sector, carbon emissions havedecreased by nearly 20 percent since 1990. This has been partly due to a 10 percent reduc-tion in gross square footage since 1990 and about an 8 percent reduction in primary energyintensity (in terms of Btus per gross square footage).

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 and Executive Order 13123 further challenge federal energymanagers to reduce energy use in federal buildings by 35 percent by 2010 from 1985 levels.With declining federal resources available, the Federal Energy Management Program isemphasizing the use of private-sector investment through energy-saving performance con-tracting and utility financing of energy efficiency to meet these goals. The combination offederal funding and the anticipated private-sector funding of about $4 billion through 2005should make these goals attainable. In addition, agencies are making cost-effective invest-ments in renewable-energy and water-conservation projects, and further savings are beingpursued through an energy-efficient procurement initiative.

Energy Savings in Federa l Agenc ies


(35 million acres) from cropping sys-tems.

Although the United States harvestsabout the same area as it did in 1910, itfeeds a population that has grown twoand one-half times since then, and itsfood exports have also expanded con-siderably. Agricultural productivityincreases are due primarily to techno-logical change in the food and agricul-tural sectors. In the absence of theseimprovements in productivity, substan-tially more land would need to be culti-vated to achieve today’s level ofproductivity.

The increase in no-till, low-till, andother erosion control practices reducederosion on cropland and grazing land by40 percent between 1982 and 1997.These practices also have helped to con-serve carbon associated with those soils,protect soil productivity, and reduceother environmental impacts, such aspesticide and nutrient loadings in waterbodies.

Although the number of cattle andsheep has been declining, greenhousegas emissions from agricultural activitieshave been steadily rising, largely due togrowth in emissions of nitrous oxidesfrom agricultural soil management andmethane emissions from manure man-agement.

Forests U.S. forests vary from the complex

juniper forests of the arid interior Westto the highly productive forests of thePacific Coast and the Southeast. In 1997,forests covered about one-third (about300 million hectares, or nearly 750 mil-lion acres) of the total U.S. land area.This includes both the forest-use landsand a portion of the special-use landslisted in Table 2-1 and Figure 2-2.

Excluding Alaska, U.S. forestlandcovers about 250 million hectares (620million acres). Of this, nearly 200 mil-lion hectares are timberland, most ofwhich is privately owned. However,much of the forested land is dedicated tospecial uses (i.e., parks, wilderness areas,and wildlife areas), which prohibits usingthe land for such activities as timber pro-duction. These areas increased from

about 9 million hectares (over 20 millionacres) in 1945 to nearly 45 millionhectares (about 100 million acres) in1997. As a result, land defined as “forest-use land” declined consistently from the1960s to 1997, while land defined as“special uses” increased.

Management inputs over the pastseveral decades have been graduallyincreasing the production of marketablewood in U.S. forests. The United Statescurrently grows more wood than it har-vests, with a growth-to-harvest ratio ofnearly 1.5. This ratio reflects substantialnew forest growth; however, old-growthforests have continued to decline overthe same period.

OTHER NATURAL RESOURCESClimate change significantly affects

other U.S. natural resources, includingwetlands, wildlife, and water.

Wetlands Wetland ecosystems are some of the

more biologically important and ecolog-ically significant systems on the planet.Because they represent a boundary con-dition (“ecotone”) between land andaquatic ecosystems, wetlands have manyfunctions. They provide habitats formany types of organisms, both plant andanimal; serve as diverse ecological nichesthat promote preservation of biodiver-sity; are the source of economic productsfor food, clothing, and recreation; trapsediment, assimilate pollution, andrecharge ground water; regulate waterflow to protect against storms and flood-ing; and anchor shorelines and preventerosion. The United States has a broadvariety of wetland types, ranging frompermafrost-underlain wetlands in Alaskato tropical rainforests in Hawaii.

Wetland ecosystems are highlydependent upon upland ecosystems.

In September 2001, the U.S. Department of Agriculture presented its long-term view of thenation’s agriculture and food system and a framework to foster strategic thinking and

guiding principles for agricultural policies, including policies for environmental conserva-tion. These Principles for Conservation were identified as key policy directives.

Sustain past environmental gains. Improvements in losses from soil erosion and wetlandsbenefit farmers and all Americans. These and other gains resulting from existing conserva-tion programs should be maintained.

Accommodate new and emerging environmental concerns. Conservation policy shouldadapt to emerging environmental and community needs and incorporate the latest science.These new and emerging issues include the need for sources of renewable energy and thepotential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Design and adopt a portfolio approach to conservation policies. Targeted technical assis-tance, incentives for improved practices on working farms and forest lands, compensationfor environmental achievements, and limited dedication of farmland and private forest landsto environmental use will provide a coordinated and flexible portfolio approach to agri-envi-ronmental goals.

Reaffirm market-oriented policies. Competition in the supply of environmental goods andservices and targeted incentives ensure the maximum environmental benefits for each pub-lic dollar spent.

Ensure compatibility of conservation, farm, and trade policies. Producer compensation forconservation practices and environmental achievements should be consistent with “greenbox” criteria under World Trade Organization obligations.

Recognize the importance of collaboration. Nonfederal government agencies as well asprivate for-profit and not-for-profit organizations are playing an ever-increasing role in thedelivery of technical assistance and in incentive programs for conservation.

Source: USDA 2001.

Pr inc ip les fo r Conservat ion


Therefore, they are vulnerable to changesin the health of upland ecosystems as wellas to environmental change broughtabout by shifts in climate regimes. Wet-lands, including riparian zones alongwaterways and areas of perennial wet soilsor standing water, are both sources of andsinks for greenhouse gases.

Since the nation’s settlement in the18th century, the continental UnitedStates has lost about 40–45 millionhectares (about 100–110 million acres)of approximately 90 million hectares(over 220 million acres) of its originalwetlands. Most wetland conversion inthe 19th century was originally for agri-cultural purposes, although convertedland subsequently was often used forurban development. A significant addi-tional share of wetlands was lost as aresult of federal flood control anddrainage projects.

The pace of wetland loss has slowedconsiderably in the past two decades.For example, while net wetland lossesfrom the mid-1950s to the mid-1970saveraged 185,400 hectares (458,000acres) a year, they fell to about 117,400hectares (290,000 acres) a year from themid-1970s to mid-1980s. Between 1982and 1992, the net average rate of wet-land conversion further dropped toabout 32,000 hectares (80,000 acres) ayear. During 1992–97, net wetlandlosses fell even further to roughly 13,000hectares (32,600 acres) a year. Urbandevelopment accounted for nearly halfof these losses, while agricultural con-version accounted for about one-quarter.

The reduced rate of wetland losssince the mid-1980s is attributable to anumber of factors. Both governmentpolicies for protecting wetlands and lowcrop prices have decreased conversionsof wetlands to agricultural uses. In addi-tion, the majority of wetland restora-tions have occurred on agricultural land.Government programs, such as the Wet-land Reserve Program, which providesfunds and technical assistance to restoreformerly drained wetlands, have aided

such gains. Thus, agricultural land man-agement has most likely contributed tooverall gains in wetland areas, as lossesto agricultural conversion are greatlyreduced and previously drained areas arerestored. Future losses are likely to beeven smaller, because the United Stateshas implemented a “no net loss” policyfor wetlands.

Alaska’s over 70 million hectares (175million acres) of wetlands easily exceedthe 45–50 million hectares (over110–125 million acres) of wetlands inthe continental United States. Many ofthese areas are federally owned. Totalwetland losses in Alaska have been lessthan 1 percent since the mid-1800s,although in coastal areas, losses havebeen higher.

WildlifeDuring the past 20 years, the United

States has become more aware of thereduction in the diversity of life at all lev-els, both nationwide and worldwide. Tobetter understand and catalog both previ-ous and future changes, the United Statesis conducting a comprehensive, nation-wide survey of its wildlife and biodiver-sity, referred to as the National BiologicalSurvey.

Information on endangered species isalready available through other sources.As of November 2000, over 960 specieswere listed as endangered, of which about590 are plants and 370 are animals. Inaddition, over 140 plant and nearly 130animal species were listed as threatened,for a total of nearly 1,240 threatened orendangered species. The United Statescontinues to work to conserve speciesdiversity through programs and laws likethe Endangered Species Act.

WaterThe development of water resources

has been key to the nation’s growth andprosperity. Abundant and reliable watersystems have enabled urban and agricul-tural centers to flourish in arid and semi-arid regions of the country. For instance,

between 1959 and 1997, irrigated agricul-tural land increased by nearly 70 percent,from less than 15 million hectares (nearly35 million acres) to over 20 millionhectares (55 million acres).

Currently, most of the nation’s fresh-water demands are met by diversions fromstreams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs andby withdrawals from ground-wateraquifers. Even though total withdrawals ofsurface water more than doubled from1950 to 1980, withdrawals remained atabout 20 percent of the renewable watersupply in 1980. However, some areas ofthe country still experience intermittentwater shortages during droughts.

There is increasing competition forwater in the arid western sections of thecountry, not only to meet traditionalagricultural and hydropower needs, butalso for drinking water in growingurban areas; for American Indian waterrights; and for industry, recreation, andnatural ecosystems. The flows of manystreams in the West are fully allocatedto current users, limiting opportunitiesfor expanded water use by major newfacilities. Several states have adopted amarket-based approach to water pricingand allocation, thus offering the poten-tial to alleviate projected shortfalls.Also pertinent is the federal govern-ment’s insistence that certain minimum-flow requirements be met to preservethreatened and endangered species.

These forces have contributed to adecline in per capita water use in the lasttwo decades. After continual increases inthe nation’s total water withdrawals foroff-stream use from 1950 to 1980, with-drawals declined from 1980 to 1995. The1995 estimate of average withdrawals,which is over 400 million gallons a day, is2 percent less than the 1990 estimate andnearly 10 percent less than the 1980 esti-mate, which was the peak year of wateruse. This decline in water withdrawalsoccurred even though populationincreased by over 15 percent from 1980to 1995.

Chapter 3 GreenhouseGas Inventory

Central to any study of climate changeis the development of an emissionsinventory that identifies and quanti-

fies a country’s primary anthropogenic1

sources and sinks of greenhouse gases.The Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emis-sions and Sinks: 1990–1999 (U.S. EPA2001d) adheres to both (1) a compre-hensive and detailed methodology for estimating sources and sinks of anthro-pogenic greenhouse gases, and (2) acommon and consistent mechanismthat enables signatory countries to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) to compare the relativecontribution of different emissionsources and greenhouse gases to climatechange. Moreover, systematically andconsistently estimating national and

1 In this context, the term “anthropogenic” refers togreenhouse gas emissions and removals that are adirect result of human activities or are the result of nat-ural processes that have been affected by human activ-ities (IPCC/UNEP/OECD/IEA 1997).

Greenhouse Gas Inventory ■ 27

international emissions is a prerequisitefor accounting for reductions and eval-uating mitigation strategies.

In June 1992, the United Statessigned, and later ratified in October, theUNFCCC. The objective of theUNFCCC is “to achieve … stabilizationof greenhouse gas concentrations in theatmosphere at a level that would pre-vent dangerous anthropogenic interfer-ence with the climate system.”2 Bysigning the Convention, Parties makecommitments “to develop, periodicallyupdate, publish and make available…national inventories of anthropogenicemissions by sources and removals bysinks of all greenhouse gases not con-trolled by the Montreal Protocol, usingcomparable methodologies….”3 TheUnited States views the Inventory of U.S.Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks as anopportunity to fulfill this commitment.

This chapter summarizes informationon U.S. anthropogenic greenhouse gasemission trends from 1990 through1999. To ensure that the U.S. emissionsinventory is comparable to those ofother UNFCCC signatory countries, theemission estimates were calculated usingmethodologies consistent with thoserecommended in the Revised 1996 IPCCGuidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Invento-ries (IPCC/UNEP/OECD/IEA 1997). Formost source categories, the IPCC defaultmethodologies were expanded, resultingin a more comprehensive and detailedestimate of emissions.

Naturally occurring greenhousegases include water vapor, carbon diox-ide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrousoxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Severalclasses of halogenated substances thatcontain fluorine, chlorine, or bromineare also greenhouse gases, but they are,for the most part, solely a product ofindustrial activities. Chlorofluorocar-bons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocar-bons (HCFCs) are halocarbons thatcontain chlorine, while halocarbonsthat contain bromine are referred to as

bromofluorocarbons (i.e., halons).Because CFCs, HCFCs, and halons arestratospheric ozone-depleting sub-stances, they are covered under the Mon-treal Protocol on Substances That Deplete theOzone Layer. The UNFCCC defers tothis earlier international treaty; conse-quently these gases are not included innational greenhouse gas inventories.4

Some other fluorine-containing halo-genated substances—hydrofluorocar-bons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs),and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—do notdeplete stratospheric ozone but arepotent greenhouse gases. These lattersubstances are addressed by theUNFCCC and are accounted for innational greenhouse gas inventories.

There are also several gases that do not have a direct global warmingeffect but indirectly affect terrestrialradiation absorption by influencing theformation and destruction of tropos-pheric and stratospheric ozone. These gases include carbon monoxide(CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and non-methane volatile organic compounds(NMVOCs).5 Aerosols, which are

extremely small particles or liquiddroplets, such as those produced bysulfur dioxide (SO2) or elemental car-bon emissions, can also affect theabsorptive characteristics of the atmos-phere.

Although CO2, CH4, and N2Ooccur naturally in the atmosphere,their atmospheric concentrations havebeen affected by human activities.Since pre-industrial time (i.e., sinceabout 1750), concentrations of thesegreenhouse gases have increased by 31,151, and 17 percent, respectively(IPCC 2001b). Because this build-uphas altered the chemical compositionof the Earth’s atmosphere, it hasaffected the global climate system.

Beginning in the 1950s, the use ofCFCs and other stratospheric ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) increasedby nearly 10 percent per year until themid-1980s, when international concernabout ozone depletion led to the sign-ing of the Montreal Protocol. Since then,the production of ODSs is beingphased out. In recent years, use of ODSsubstitutes, such as HFCs and PFCs, has

The global warming potential (GWP)-weighted emissions of all direct greenhouse gasesthroughout this report are presented in terms of equivalent emissions of carbon dioxide

(CO2), using units of teragrams of CO2 equivalents (Tg CO2 Eq.). Previous years’ inventoriesreported U.S. emissions in terms of carbon—versus CO2-equivalent—emissions, usingunits of millions of metric tons of carbon equivalents (MMTCE). This change of units forreporting was implemented so that the U.S. inventory would be more consistent with inter-national practices, which are to report emissions in units of CO2 equivalents.

The following equation can be used to convert the emission estimates presented in thisreport to those provided previously:

Tg CO2 Eq. = MMTCE (44/12)

There are two elements to the conversion. The first element is simply nomenclature, sinceone teragram is equal to one million metric tons:

Tg = 109 kg = 106 metric tons = 1 million metric tons

The second element is the conversion, by weight, from carbon to CO2. The molecularweight of carbon is 12, and the molecular weight of oxygen is 16. Therefore, the molecularweight of CO2 is 44 (i.e., 12+[16(2)], as compared to 12 for carbon alone. Thus, carbon com-prises 12/44ths of CO2 by weight.

Emiss ion Repor t ing Nomenc la tu re

2 Article 2 of the Framework Convention on Climate Change published by the UNEP/WMO Information Unit on Climate Change. See http://www.unfccc.de.3 Article 4 of the Framework Convention on Climate Change published by the UNEP/WMO Information Unit on Climate Change (also identified in Article 12). See

http://www.unfccc.de.4 Emission estimates of CFCs, HCFCs, halons, and other ozone-depleting substances are included in this chapter for informational purposes (see Table 3-12).5 Also referred to in the U.S. Clean Air Act as “criteria pollutants.”


grown as they begin to be phased in asreplacements for CFCs and HCFCs.

RECENT TRENDS IN U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

In 1999, total U.S. greenhouse gasemissions were 6,746 teragrams of CO2equivalents (Tg CO2 Eq.),6 11.7 per-cent above emissions in 1990. The

single-year increase in emissions from1998 to 1999 was 0.9 percent (59.2 TgCO2 Eq.), which was less than the 1.2percent average annual rate of increasefor 1990 through 1999. The lower thanaverage increase in emissions, especiallygiven the robust economic growth in1999, was primarily attributable to thefollowing factors: (1) warmer than nor-

mal summer and winter conditions, (2) significantly increased output fromexisting nuclear power plants, (3) reduced CH4 emissions from coalmines, and (4) HFC-23 by-productemissions from the chemical manufac-ture of HCFC-22. Figures 3-1 through3-3 illustrate the overall trends in totalU.S. emissions by gas, annual changes,and absolute change since 1990. Table3-1 provides a detailed summary of U.S.greenhouse gas emissions and sinks for1990 through 1999.

Figure 3-4 illustrates the relativecontribution of the direct greenhousegases to total U.S. emissions in 1999.The primary greenhouse gas emitted byhuman activities was CO2. The largestsource of CO2, and of overall green-house gas emissions in the UnitedStates, was fossil fuel combustion. Emis-sions of CH4 resulted primarily fromdecomposition of wastes in landfills,enteric fermentation associated withdomestic livestock, natural gas systems,and coal mining. Most N2O emissions

F IGURE 3-1 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions by Gas: 1990–1999 (Tg CO2 Eq. )

In 1999, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions rose to 6,746 teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalents (Tg CO2 Eq.), which was 11.7 percent above 1990 emissions.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

19901991

19921993

19941995

19961997

19981999

6,038 5,987 6,108 6,211 6,345 6,401 6,598 6,678 6,687 6,746

Tg C

O2 E

q.

N2O

HFCs, PFCs, & SF6

CH4

CO2

6 Estimates are presented in units of teragrams of carbondioxide equivalents (Tg CO2 Eq.), which weight eachgas by its global warming potential, or GWP, value(see the following section).

F IGURE 3-3 Abso lu te Change in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions S ince 1990

Greenhouse gas emissions increased a total of 707.9 Tg CO2 Eq.between 1990 and 1999, or 11.7 percent since 1990.

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

19911992

19931994

19951996

19971998

1999

Tg C

O2 E

q.

-51.2

70.2

172.7

307.2

363.2

559.6

639.9 648.6

707.9

F IGURE 3-2 Annual Change in U.S. Greenhouse GasEmiss ions S ince 1990

The single-year increase in greenhouse gas emissions from 1998 to1999 was 0.9 percent (59.2 Tg CO2 Eq.), which was less than the 1.2percent average annual rate of increase for 1990 through 1999.

19911992

19931994

19951996

19971998

1999

Perc

ent C

hang

e

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

-0.8%

2.0%

1.7%

2.2%

0.9%

3.1%

1.2%

0.1%

0.9%

From 1990 through 1999, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased by 11.7 percent. Specifically, CO2 emissions increased by 13.1 percent,CH4 emissions decreased by 3.9 percent, N2O emissions increased by 9.0 percent, and HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 emissions increased by 61.7 percent.

Gas/Source 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

CO2 4,913.0 5,219.8 5,403.2 5,478.7 5,489.7 5,558.1Fossil Fuel Combustion 4,835.7 5,121.3 5,303.0 5,374.9 5,386.8 5,453.1Cement Manufacture 33.3 36.8 37.1 38.3 39.2 39.9Waste Combustion 17.6 23.1 24.0 25.7 25.1 26.0Lime Manufacture 11.2 12.8 13.5 13.7 13.9 13.4Natural Gas Flaring 5.1 13.6 13.0 12.0 10.8 11.7Limestone and Dolomite Use 5.1 7.0 7.3 8.3 8.1 8.3Soda Ash Manufacture and Consumption 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.2Carbon Dioxide Consumption 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6Land-Use Change and Forestry (Sink)a (1,059.9) (1,019.1) (1,021.6) (981.9) (983.3) (990.4)International Bunker Fuelsb 114.0 101.0 102.2 109.8 112.8 107.3

CH4 644.5 650.5 638.0 632.0 624.8 619.6Landfills 217.3 222.9 219.1 217.8 213.6 214.6Enteric Fermentation 129.5 136.3 132.2 129.6 127.5 127.2Natural Gas Systems 121.2 124.2 125.8 122.7 122.1 121.8Coal Mining 87.9 74.6 69.3 68.8 66.5 61.8Manure Management 26.4 31.0 30.7 32.6 35.2 34.4Petroleum Systems 27.2 24.5 24.0 24.0 23.3 21.9Wastewater Treatment 11.2 11.8 11.9 12.0 12.1 12.2Rice Cultivation 8.7 9.5 8.8 9.6 10.1 10.7Stationary Combustion 8.5 8.9 9.0 8.1 7.6 8.1Mobile Combustion 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.5Petrochemical Production 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7Agricultural Residue Burning 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6Silicon Carbide Production + + + + + +International Bunker Fuelsb + + + + + +

N2O 396.9 431.9 441.6 444.1 433.7 432.6Agricultural Soil Management 269.0 285.4 294.6 299.8 300.3 298.3Mobile Combustion 54.3 66.8 65.3 65.2 64.2 63.4Nitric Acid 17.8 19.9 20.7 21.2 20.9 20.2Manure Management 16.0 16.4 16.8 17.1 17.2 17.2Stationary Combustion 13.6 14.3 14.9 15.0 15.1 15.7Adipic Acid 18.3 20.3 20.8 17.1 7.3 9.0Human Sewage 7.1 8.2 7.8 7.9 8.1 8.2Agricultural Residue Burning 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4Waste Combustion 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2International Bunker Fuelsb 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0

HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 83.9 99.0 115.1 123.3 138.6 135.7Substitution of Ozone-Depleting Substances 0.9 24.0 34.0 42.1 49.6 56.7HCFC-22 Production 34.8 27.1 31.2 30.1 40.0 30.4Electrical Transmission and Distribution 20.5 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7Aluminum Production 19.3 11.2 11.6 10.8 10.1 10.0Semiconductor Manufacture 2.9 5.5 7.0 7.0 6.8 6.8Magnesium Production and Processing 5.5 5.5 5.6 7.5 6.3 6.1

Total Emissions 6,038.2 6,401.3 6,597.8 6,678.0 6,686.8 6,746.0

Net Emissions (Sources and Sinks) 4,978.3 5,382.3 5,576.2 5,696.2 5,703.5 5,755.7

+ Does not exceed 0.05 Tg CO2 Eq.a Sinks are only included in net emissions total, and are based partly on projected activity data.b Emissions from international bunker fuels are not included in totals.Notes: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Parentheses indicate negative values (or sequestration).


TABLE 3-1 Recent Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions and S inks (Tg CO2 Eq. )


FIGURE 3-4 1999 Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions by Gas

were the result of agricultural soil management and mobile source fossilfuel combustion. The emissions of substitutes for ozone-depleting sub-stances and emissions of HFC-23 dur-ing the production of HCFC-22 werethe primary contributors to aggregateHFC emissions. Electrical transmissionand distribution systems accounted formost SF6 emissions, while the majorityof PFC emissions were a by-product ofprimary aluminum production.

As the largest source of U.S. green-house gas emissions, CO2 from fossilfuel combustion accounted for a nearlyconstant 80 percent of global warmingpotential (GWP)-weighted emissions inthe 1990s.7 Emissions from this sourcecategory grew by 13 percent (617.4 TgCO2 Eq.) from 1990 to 1999 and wereresponsible for most of the increase innational emissions during this period.The annual increase in CO2 emissionsfrom fossil fuel combustion was 1.2 per-cent in 1999, a figure close to thesource’s average annual rate of 1.4 per-

Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuelcombustion grew rapidly in 1996, dueprimarily to two factors: (1) fuel switch-ing by electric utilities from natural gasto more carbon-intensive coal as colderwinter conditions and the associated risein demand for natural gas from residen-tial, commercial, and industrial cus-tomers for heating caused gas prices torise sharply; and (2) higher consumptionof petroleum fuels for transportation.Milder weather conditions in summerand winter moderated the growth inemissions in 1997; however, the shut-down of several nuclear power plants ledelectric utilities to increase their con-sumption of coal and other fuels to offsetthe lost capacity. In 1998, weather con-ditions were again a dominant factor inslowing the growth in emissions. Warmwinter temperatures resulted in a signifi-cant drop in residential, commercial, andindustrial natural gas consumption. Thisdrop in emissions from natural gas usedfor heating was primarily offset by twofactors: (1) electric utility emissions,which increased in part due to a hot sum-mer and its associated air conditioningdemand; and (2) increased gasoline con-sumption for transportation.

In 1999, the increase in emissionsfrom fossil fuel combustion was causedlargely by growth in petroleum con-sumption for transportation. In addi-tion, heating fuel demand partlyrecovered in the residential, commer-cial, and industrial sectors as wintertemperatures dropped relative to 1998,although temperatures were stillwarmer than normal. These increaseswere offset, in part, by a decline inemissions from electric utilities due pri-marily to: (1) an increase in net genera-tion of electricity by nuclear plants (8percent) to record levels, whichreduced demand from fossil fuel plants;and (2) moderated summer tempera-tures compared to the previous year,thereby reducing electricity demand forair conditioning. Utilization of existingnuclear power plants, measured by a

7 If a full accounting of emissions from fossil fuel combustion is made by including emissions from the combustion of international bunker fuels and CH4 and N2O emissions associ-ated with fuel combustion, then this percentage increases to a constant 82 percent during the 1990s.

8 The capacity factor is defined as the ratio of the electrical energy produced by a generating unit for a given period of time to the electrical energy that could have been produced atcontinuous full-power operation during the same period (U.S. DOE/EIA 2000a).

CO2 was the principal greenhouse gas emit-ted by human activities, driven primarily byemissions from fossil fuel combustion.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

82.4% CO2

9.2% CH4

6.4% N2O

2.0% HFCs, PFCs & SF6

cent during the 1990s. Historically,changes in emissions from fossil fuelcombustion have been the dominantfactor affecting U.S. emission trends.

Changes in CO2 emissions from fos-sil fuel combustion are influenced bymany long-term and short-term factors,including population and economicgrowth, energy price fluctuations, tech-nological changes, and seasonal tem-peratures. On an annual basis, theoverall consumption of fossil fuels inthe United States and other countriesgenerally fluctuates in response tochanges in general economic condi-tions, energy prices, weather, and theavailability of non-fossil alternatives.For example, a year with increased con-sumption of goods and services, lowfuel prices, severe summer and winterweather conditions, nuclear plant clo-sures, and lower precipitation feedinghydroelectric output would be expectedto have proportionally greater fossil fuelconsumption than a year with poor eco-nomic performance, high fuel prices,mild temperatures, and increased outputfrom nuclear and hydroelectric plants.

Longer-term changes in energy con-sumption patterns, however, tend to bemore a function of changes that affectthe scale of consumption (e.g., popula-tion, number of cars, and size ofhouses), the efficiency with whichenergy is used in equipment (e.g., cars,power plants, steel mills, and lightbulbs), and consumer behavior (e.g.,walking, bicycling, or telecommuting towork instead of driving).

Energy-related CO2 emissions arealso a function of the type of fuel orenergy consumed and its carbon inten-sity. Producing heat or electricity usingnatural gas instead of coal, for example,can reduce the CO2 emissions associatedwith energy consumption because of thelower carbon content of natural gas perunit of useful energy produced. Table 3-2 shows annual changes in emissionsduring the last few years of the 1990s forparticular fuel types and sectors.


plant’s capacity factor,8 increased fromjust over 70 percent in 1990 to over 85percent in 1999.

Another factor that does not affecttotal emissions, but does affect the inter-pretation of emission trends, is the allo-cation of emissions from nonutilitypower producers. The Energy Informa-tion Administration (EIA) currentlyincludes fuel consumption by nonutilitieswith the industrial end-use sector. In1999, there was a large shift in generatingcapacity from regulated utilities to nonu-tilities, as restructuring legislation spurredthe sale of 7 percent of utility generatingcapability (U.S. DOE/EIA 2000b). Thisshift is illustrated by the increase inindustrial end-use sector emissions fromcoal and the associated decrease in elec-tric utility emissions. However, emissionsfrom the industrial end-use sector did notincrease as much as would be expected,even though net generation by nonutili-ties increased from 11 to 15 percent oftotal U.S. electricity production (U.S.DOE/EIA 2000b).9

Overall, from 1990 to 1999, totalemissions of CO2 and N2O increased by645.2 (13 percent) and 35.7 Tg CO2 Eq.

(9 percent), respectively, while CH4emissions decreased by 24.9 Tg CO2 Eq.(4 percent). During the same period,aggregate weighted emissions of HFCs,PFCs, and SF6 rose by 51.8 Tg CO2 Eq.(62 percent). Despite being emitted insmaller quantities relative to the otherprincipal greenhouse gases, emissions ofHFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are significantbecause many of them have extremelyhigh global warming potentials and, inthe cases of PFCs and SF6, long atmos-pheric lifetimes. Conversely, U.S. green-house gas emissions were partly offset bycarbon sequestration in forests and land-filled carbon, which were estimated to be15 percent of total emissions in 1999.

Other significant trends in emissionsfrom source categories over the nine-year period from 1990 through 1999included the following:• Aggregate HFC and PFC emissions

resulting from the substitution ofozone-depleting substances (e.g.,CFCs) increased by 55.8 Tg CO2Eq. This increase was partly offset,however, by reductions in PFC emis-sions from aluminum production(9.2 Tg CO2 Eq. or 48 percent), and

reductions in emissions of HFC-23from the production of HCFC-22(4.4 Tg CO2 Eq. or 13 percent).Reductions in PFC emissions fromaluminum production were the resultof both voluntary industry emissionreduction efforts and lower domesticaluminum production. HFC-23 emis-sions from the production of HCFC-22 decreased due to a reduction inthe intensity of emissions from thatsource, despite increased HCFC-22production.

• Emissions of N2O from mobile com-bustion rose by 9.1 Tg CO2 Eq. (17percent), primarily due to increasedrates of N2O generation in highwayvehicles.

• CH4 emissions from coal miningdropped by 26 Tg CO2 Eq. (30 per-cent) as a result of the mining of lessgassy coal from underground minesand the increased use of CH4 fromdegasification systems.

Changes in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion are influenced by many long- and short-term factors, including population and economicgrowth, energy price fluctuations, technological changes, and seasonal temperatures.

End-Use Sector /Fuel Type 1995–1996 1996–1997 1997–1998 1998–1999

Tg CO2 Eq. Percent Tg CO2 Eq. Percent Tg CO2 Eq. Percent Tg CO2 Eq. PercentElectric UtilityCoal 89.9 5.7 52.0 3.1 14.3 0.8 -32.1 -1.8Natural Gas -25.3 -14.7 13.1 9.0 16.2 10.1 -7.8 -4.4Petroleum 5.1 10.0 8.1 14.4 26.7 41.6 -17.4 -19.1

Transportationa

Petroleum 38.8 2.5 7.6 0.5 34.1 2.1 57.6 3.6

Residential Natural Gas 21.4 8.1 -14.0 -4.9 -24.0 -8.9 8.5 3.4

CommercialNatural Gas 7.0 4.3 3.1 1.8 -11.1 -6.4 2.9 1.8

Industrial Coal -7.3 -2.7 2.0 0.8 -1.1 -0.4 29.2 11.2Natural Gas 17.8 3.4 -0.5 -0.1 -14.5 -2.7 1.6 0.3

All Sectors/All Fuelsb 181.7 3.5 71.9 1.4 11.9 0.2 66.4 1.2

a Excludes emissions from international bunker fuels.b Includes fuels and sectors not shown in table.

TABLE 3-2 Annual Change in CO2 Emiss ions f rom Foss i l Fue l Combust ion fo r Se lected Fue ls and Sectors

9 It is unclear whether reporting problems for electricutilities and the industrial end-use sector haveincreased with the dramatic growth in nonutilities andthe opening of the electric power industry to increasedcompetition.


There are several ways to assess a nation’s greenhouse gas-emitting intensity. The basisfor measures of intensity can be (1) per unit of aggregate energy consumption, because

energy-related activities are the largest sources of emissions; (2) per unit of fossil fuel con-sumption, because almost all energy-related emissions involve the combustion of fossilfuels; (3) per unit of electricity consumption, because the electric power industry—utilitiesand nonutilities combined—was the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in1999; (4) per unit of total gross domestic product as a measure of national economic activi-ty; or (5) on a per capita basis. Depending on the measure used, the United States couldappear to have reduced or increased its national greenhouse gas intensity during the 1990s.Table 3-3 provides data on various statistics related to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions nor-malized to 1990 as a baseline year.

Greenhouse gas emissions in the United States have grown at an average annual rate of 1.2percent since 1990. This rate is slightly slower than that for total energy or fossil fuel con-sumption—indicating an improved or lower greenhouse gas-emitting intensity—and muchslower than that for either electricity consumption or overall gross domestic product.

Variable 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Growth Ratef

GHG Emissionsa 99 101 103 105 106 109 111 111 112 1.2%

Energy Consumptionb 100 101 104 106 108 111 112 112 115 1.5%

Fossil Fuel Consumptionb 99 101 103 105 107 110 112 112 113 1.4%

Electricity Consumptionb 102 102 105 108 111 114 116 119 120 2.1%

Gross Domestic Productc 100 103 105 110 112 116 122 127 132 3.2%

Populationd 101 103 104 105 106 108 109 110 112 1.2%

Atmospheric CO2Concentratione 100 101 101 101 102 102 103 104 104 0.4%

a GWP weighted values. d U.S. DOC/Census 2000.b Energy content weighted values (U.S. DOE/EIA 2000a). e Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii (Keeling and Whorf 2000).c GDP in chained 1996 dollars (U.S. DOC/BEA 2000). f Average annual growth rate.

TABLE 3-3 AND F IGURE 3-5 Recent Trends in Var ious U.S. Data ( Index: 1990 = 100)

• N2O emissions from agricultural soilmanagement increased by 29.3 TgCO2 Eq. (11 percent), as fertilizer con-sumption and cultivation of nitrogen-fixing crops rose.

• By 1998, all of the three major adipicacid-producing plants had voluntarilyimplemented N2O abatement tech-nology. As a result, emissions fell by9.3 Tg CO2 Eq. (51 percent). Themajority of this decline occurred from1997 to 1998, despite increased pro-duction.The following sections describe the

concept of global warming potentials(GWPs), present the anthropogenicsources and sinks of greenhouse gas emis-sions in the United States, briefly discussemission pathways, further summarizethe emission estimates, and explain therelative importance of emissions fromeach source category.

GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS

Gases in the atmosphere can con-tribute to the greenhouse effect bothdirectly and indirectly. Direct effectsoccur when the gas itself is a green-house gas. Indirect radiative forcingoccurs when chemical transformationsof the original gas produce a gas orgases that are greenhouse gases, when agas influences the atmospheric lifetimesof other gases, and/or when a gas affectsother atmospheric processes that alterthe radiative balance of the Earth (e.g.,affect cloud formation or albedo). Theconcept of a global warming potential(GWP) has been developed to comparethe ability of each greenhouse gas totrap heat in the atmosphere relative toanother gas. Carbon dioxide (CO2) waschosen as the reference gas to be con-sistent with IPCC guidelines.

Global warming potentials are notprovided for CO, NOx, NMVOCs,SO2, and aerosols (e.g., sulfate and ele-mental carbon) because there is noagreed-upon method to estimate thecontribution of gases that are short-lived in the atmosphere and have onlyindirect effects on radiative forcing(IPCC 1996b).

Recent Trends in Var ious U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions-Related Data

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

Real GDP

Population

Emissions per Capita

Emissions per $ GDP

19911990

19921993

19941995

19961997

19981999

Inde

x: 1

990

= 10

0

Sources: U.S. DOC/BEA 2000, U.S. DOC/Census 2001, and U.S. EPA 2001d.

At the same time, total U.S.greenhouse gas emissionshave grown at about thesame rate as the nationalpopulation during the lastdecade. Overall, globalatmospheric CO2 concen-trations (a function of manycomplex anthropogenicand natural processes) areincreasing at 0.4 percentper year.


An analysis was performed using EIA’s Short-Term Integrated Forecasting System (STIFS) model to examine the effects of variations in weath-er and output from nuclear and hydroelectric generating plants on U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions.10 Weather conditions affect energy

demand because of the impact they have on residential, commercial, and industrial end-use sector heating and cooling demands. Warmer win-ters tend to reduce demand for heating fuels—especially natural gas—while cooler summers tend to reduce air conditioning-related electric-ity demand. Although changes in electricity output from hydroelectric and nuclear power plants do not necessarily affect final energy demand,increased output from these plants offsets electricity generation by fossil fuel power plants, and therefore leads to reduced CO2 emissions.

Weather and Non-foss i l Energy Adjustments to CO2 f rom Foss i l Fue l Combust ion Trends

10 The STIFS model is employed in producing EIA’s Short-Term Energy Outlook (U.S. DOE/EIA 2000d). Complete model documentation can be found at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html. Various other factors that influence energy-related CO2 emissions were also examined, such as changes in output from energy-intensive manufacturing indus-tries, and changes in fossil fuel prices. These additional factors, however, were not found to have a significant effect on emission trends.

11 Normal levels are defined by decadal power generation trends.12 Degree-days are relative measurements of outdoor air temperature. Heating degree-days are deviations of the mean daily temperature below 65ºF, while cooling degree-days are devi-

ations of the mean daily temperature above 65ºF. Excludes Alaska and Hawaii. Normals are based on data from 1961 through 1990. The variations in these normals during this timeperiod were 10 percent and 14 percent for heating and cooling degree-days, respectively (99 percent confidence interval).

13 The capacity factor is defined as the ratio of the electrical energy produced by a generating unit for a given period of time to the electrical energy that could have been produced atcontinuous full-power operation during the same period (U.S. DOE/EIA 2000a).

Warmer winter conditions in both 1998 and 1999 had a significant effect on U.S. CO2 emissions by reducing demand for heating fuels. Heatingdegree-days in the United States in 1998 and 1999 were 14 and 7 percent below normal, respectively (see Figure 3-8).12 These warm winters,however, were partly countered by increased electricity demand that resulted from hotter summers. Cooling degree-days in 1998 and 1999 were18 and 3 percent above normal, respectively (see Figure 3-9).

Although no new U.S. nuclear power plants have been constructed in many years, the capacity factors13 of existing plants reached record lev-els in 1998 and 1999, approaching 90 percent. This increase in utilization translated into increased electricity output by nuclear plants—slightlymore than 7 percent in both years. Increased output, however, was partly offset by reduced electricity output by hydroelectric power plants,which declined by 10 and 4 percent in 1998 and 1999, respectively. Electricity generated by nuclear plants provides approximately twice as muchof the energy consumed in the United States as hydroelectric plants. Figure 3-10 shows nuclear and hydroelectric power plant capacity factorssince 1973 and 1989, respectively.

The results of this analysis show that CO2 emissions from fossil fuelcombustion would have been roughly 1.9 percent higher (102 Tg CO2Eq.) if weather conditions and hydroelectric and nuclear power gen-eration had remained at normal levels.11 Similarly, emissions in 1997and 1998 would have been roughly 0.5 and 1.2 percent (7 and 17 Tg CO2Eq.) greater under normal conditions, respectively.

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.51.0 2.0

Percent

Hydro & Nuclear Electricity

Generation

Cooling Degree-Days

Heating Degree-Days

Total Adjusted Emissions

1997

1998

1999

0.2

0.5

1.1

0.3

-0.7

-0.2

0.0

1.4

1.0

0.5

1.2

1.9

F IGURE 3-7 Recent Trends in Adjusted and Actua l Energy-Related CO2 Emiss ions : 1997–1999

100

101

102

103

19971998

1999

Inde

x: 1

997

= 10

0Hydro & Nuclear

Actual

Total Adjusted

Weather Adjusted

F IGURE 3-6 Percent D i f fe rence in Adjusted and Actua l Energy-Related CO2 Emiss ions : 1997–1999

In addition to the absolute level of emissions being greater, the growthrate in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion from 1998 to 1999would have been 2.0 percent instead of the actual 1.2 percent if bothweather conditions and non-fossil electricity generation had been nor-mal. Similarly, emissions in 1998 would have increased by 0.9 percentunder normal conditions versus the actual rate of 0.2 percent.


FIGURE 3-8 Annual Devia t ions f rom Normal U.S. Heat ing Degree-Days: 1949–1999

Warmer winter conditions in both 1998 and 1999 had a significant effect on U.S. CO2 emissions by reducing demand for heating fuels. Heatingdegree-days in the United States in 1998 and 1999 were 14 and 7 percent below normal, respectively.

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

19491954

19591964

19691974

19791984

19891994

1999

Inde

x: n

orm

al =

100

(d

evia

tion

from

nor

mal

)

Normal(4,576 heating degree-days)

10.2 (99% Confidence Lower Bound)

-10.2 (99% Confidence Upper Bound)

Note: Climatological normal data (1961–1990) are highlighted. Statistical confidence interval for “normal” climatology period of 1961 through 1990.

Sources: U.S. DOC/NOAA 1998a, b; 1999a, b; and 2001a, b.

F IGURE 3-9 Annual Devia t ions f rom Normal U.S. Coo l ing Degree-Days: 1949–1999

Warmer winters were partly countered by increased electricity demand that resulted from hotter summers. Cooling degree-days in 1998 and1999 were 18 and 3 percent above normal, respectively.

-20

-10

0

10

20

19491954

19591964

19691974

19791984

19891994

1999

Inde

x: n

orm

al =

100

(d

evia

tion

from

nor

mal

)

Normal(1,183 cooling degree-days)

14.1 (99% Confidence Upper Bound)

-14.1 (99% Confidence Lower Bound)

Note: Climatological normal data (1961–1990) are highlighted. Statistical confidence interval for “normal” climatology period of 1961 through 1990.

Sources: U.S. DOC/NOAA 1998a, b; 1999a, b; and 2001a, b.


Motor vehicle use is increasing all over the world, including in the United States. Since the 1970s, the number of highway vehicles registeredin the United States has increased faster than the overall population (U.S. DOT/FHWA 1999). Likewise, the number of miles driven—up

13 percent from 1990 to 1999 (U.S. DOT/FHWA 1999)—and gallons of gasoline consumed each year in the United States (U.S. DOC/EIA 2000a)have increased steadily since the 1980s. These increases in motor vehicle use are the result of a confluence of factors, including populationgrowth, economic growth, urban sprawl, low fuel prices, and increasing popularity of sport utility vehicles and other light-duty trucks that tendto have lower fuel efficiency.14 A similar set of social and economic trends led to a significant increase in air travel and freight transportation—by both air and road modes—during the 1990s.

Passenger cars, trucks, motorcycles, and buses emit significant quantities of air pollutants with local, regional, and global effects. Motor vehi-cles are major sources of CO, CO2, CH4, nonmethane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), NOx, N2O, and HFCs. They are also important con-tributors to many serious environmental pollution problems, including ground-level ozone (i.e., smog), acid rain, fine particulate matter, and globalwarming. Within the United States and abroad, government agencies have taken actions to reduce these emissions. Since the 1970s, theEnvironmental Protection Agency has required the reduction of lead in gasoline, developed strict emission standards for new passenger carsand trucks, directed states to enact comprehensive motor vehicle emission control programs, required inspection and maintenance programs,and, more recently, introduced the use of reformulated gasoline. New vehicles are now equipped with advanced emissions controls, which aredesigned to reduce emissions of NOx, hydrocarbons, and CO.

Table 3-4 summarizes greenhouse gas emissions from all transportation-related activities. Overall, transportation activities, excluding interna-tional bunker fuels, accounted for an almost constant 26 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 1999. These emissions wereprimarily CO2 from fuel combustion, which increased by 16 percent from 1990 to 1999. However, because of larger increases in N2O and HFC emis-sions during this period, overall emissions from transportation activities actually increased by 18 percent.

14 The average miles per gallon achieved by the U.S. highway vehicle fleet decreased by slightly less than one percent in both 1998 and 1999.

F IGURE 3-10 U.S. Nuc lear and Hydroe lect r i c Power P lant Capac i ty Factors : 1973–1999

0

20

10

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

19731978

19831988

19931998

Capa

city

Fac

tor (

perc

ent) Hydro

Nuclear

The utilization (i.e., capacity factors) of existing nuclear power plants reached record levels in 1998 and 1999, approaching 90 percent. Thisincrease in utilization translated into an increase in electricity output by nuclear plants of slightly more than 7 percent in both years. However,it was partly offset by 10 and 14 percent respective declines in electricity output by hydroelectric power plants in 1998 and 1999.

Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions f rom Transpor ta t ion Act iv i t ies

Overall, transportation activities (excluding international bunker fuels) accounted for an almost constant 26 percent of total U.S. greenhousegas emissions from 1990 to 1999. These emissions were primarily CO2 from fuel combustion, which increased by 16 percent during that period.However, because of larger increases in N2O and HFC emissions, overall emissions from transportation activities actually increased by 18percent.

Gas/Vehicle Type 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

CO2 1,474.4 1,581.8 1,621.2 1,631.4 1,659.0 1,716.4Passenger Cars 620.0 641.9 654.1 660.2 674.5 688.9 Light-Duty Trucks 283.1 325.3 333.5 337.3 356.9 364.8Other Trucks 206.0 235.9 248.1 257.0 257.9 269.7Aircrafta 176.7 171.5 180.2 179.0 183.0 184.6Boats and Vessels 59.4 66.9 63.8 50.2 47.9 65.6Locomotives 28.4 31.5 33.4 34.4 33.6 35.1Buses 10.7 13.5 11.3 12.0 12.3 12.9Otherb 90.1 95.3 96.7 101.4 93.0 94.9International Bunker Fuelsc 114.0 101.0 102.2 109.8 112.8 107.3

CH4 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.5 Passenger Cars 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9Light-Duty Trucks 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4Other Trucks and Buses 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7Aircraft 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2Boats and Vessels 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Locomotives 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 + +Otherd 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2International Bunker Fuelsc + + + + + +

N2O 54.3 66.8 65.3 65.2 64.2 63.4 Passenger Cars 31.0 33.0 32.7 32.4 32.1 31.5Light-Duty Trucks 17.8 27.1 23.9 24.0 23.3 22.7Other Trucks and Buses 2.6 3.6 5.6 5.8 5.9 6.1Aircrafta 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8Boats and Vessels 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4Locomotives 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2Otherd 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6International Bunker Fuelsc 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0

HFCs + 9.5 13.5 17.2 20.6 23.7 Mobile Air Conditionerse + 9.5 13.5 17.2 20.6 23.7

Totalc 1,533.7 1,663.0 1,704.8 1,718.5 1,748.4 1,808.0

+ Does not exceed 0.05 Tg CO2 Eq.a Aircraft emissions consist of emissions from all jet fuel (less bunker fuels) and aviation gas consumption.b “Other” CO2 emissions include motorcycles, construction equipment, agricultural machinery, pipelines, and lubricants.c Emissions from international bunker fuels include emissions from both civilian and military activities, but are not included in totals.d “Other” CH4 and N2O emissions include motorcycles; construction equipment; agricultural machinery; gasoline-powered recreational, industrial, lawn and garden, light

commercial, logging, airport service, and other equipment; and diesel-powered recreational, industrial, lawn and garden, light construction, and airport service.e Includes primarily HFC-134a.Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.


TABLE 3-4 Transpor ta t ion-Related Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions (Tg CO2 Eq. )


The concept of a global warmingpotential (GWP) has been developed tocompare the ability of each greenhousegas to trap heat in the atmosphererelative to another gas. Carbon dioxidewas chosen as the reference gas to beconsistent with IPCC guidelines.

Gas GWP

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Methane (CH4)* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Nitrous Oxide (N2O) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .310HFC-23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11,700HFC-125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,800HFC-134a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,300HFC-143a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,800HFC-152a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140HFC-227ea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,900HFC-236fa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6,300HFC-4310mee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,300CF4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6,500C2F6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9,200C4F10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7,000C6F14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7,400Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) . . . . . . . .23,900

* The methane GWP includes direct effects andthose indirect effects due to the production oftropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor.The indirect effects due to the production of CO2 arenot included. Source: IPCC 1996b.

TABLE 3-5 Globa l Warming Potent ia ls(100-Year Time Hor i zon)

All gases in this report are presentedin units of teragrams of carbon dioxideequivalents (Tg CO2 Eq.). The relation-ship between gigagrams (Gg) of a gasand Tg CO2 Eq. can be expressed asfollows:

The GWP of a greenhouse gas is theratio of global warming from one unitmass of a greenhouse gas to that of oneunit mass of CO2 over a specifiedperiod of time. While any time periodcan be selected, the 100-year GWPsrecommended by the IPCC andemployed by the United States for pol-icymaking and reporting purposes wereused in this report (IPCC 1996b). GWPvalues are listed in Table 3-5.

CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONSThe global carbon cycle is made up

of large carbon flows and reservoirs. Bil-lions of tons of carbon in the form ofCO2 are absorbed by oceans and livingbiomass (sinks) and are emitted to the

Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions f rom E lec t r i c Ut i l i t ies

Like transportation, activities related to the generation, transmission, and distribution ofelectricity in the United States resulted in a significant fraction of total U.S. greenhouse

gas emissions. The electric power industry in the United States is composed of traditionalelectric utilities, as well as other entities, such as power marketers and nonutility powerproducers. Table 3-6 presents emissions from electric utility-related activities.

Aggregate emissions from electric utilities of all greenhouse gases increased by 11 per-cent from 1990 to 1999, and accounted for a relatively constant 29 percent of U.S. emissionsduring the same period. Emissions from nonutility generators are not included in these esti-mates. Nonutilities were estimated to have produced about 15 percent of the electricitygenerated in the United States in 1999, up from 11 percent in 1998 (U.S. DOE/EIA 2000b).Therefore, a more complete accounting of greenhouse gas emissions from the electricpower industry (i.e., utilities and nonutilities combined) would account for roughly 40 per-cent of U.S. CO2 emissions (U.S. U.S. DOE/EIA 2000c).

The majority of electric utility-related emissions resulted from the combustion of coal inboilers to produce steam that is passed through a turbine to generate electricity. Overall,the generation of electricity—especially when nonutility generators are included—resultsin a larger portion of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions than any other activity.

TABLE 3-6 E lec t r i c Ut i l i ty-Related Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions (Tg CO2 Eq. )

Gas/Fuel Typeor Source 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

CO2 1,757.3 1,810.6 1,880.3 1,953.5 2,010.7 1,953.4Coal 1,509.3 1,587.7 1,677.7 1,729.7 1,744.0 1,711.9Natural Gas 151.1 171.8 146.5 159.6 175.8 168.0Petroleum 96.8 51.0 56.0 64.1 90.8 73.4Geothermal 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 +

CH4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5Stationary Combustion (Utilities) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

N2O 7.4 7.8 8.2 8.5 8.7 8.6Stationary Combustion (Utilities) 7.4 7.8 8.2 8.5 8.7 8.6

SF6 20.5 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7Electrical Transmission and Distribution 20.5 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7

Total 1,785.7 1,844.5 1,914.7 1,988.2 2,045.6 1,988.2

+ Does not exceed 0.05 Tg CO2 Eq.Notes: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Excludes emissions from nonutilities, which are currently

accounted for under the industrial end-use sector.

atmosphere annually through naturalprocesses (sources). When in equilib-rium, carbon fluxes among these reser-voirs are balanced.

Since the Industrial Revolution, thisequilibrium of atmospheric carbon hasbeen altered. Atmospheric concentra-tions of CO2 have risen by about 31percent (IPCC 2001b), principallybecause of fossil fuel combustion, whichaccounted for 98 percent of total U.S.

CO2 emissions in 1999. Changes inland use and forestry practices can alsoemit CO2 (e.g., through conversion offorest land to agricultural or urban use)or can act as a sink for CO2 (e.g.,through net additions to forest bio-mass).

Figure 3-11 and Table 3-7 summarizeU.S. sources and sinks of CO2. Theremainder of this section discusses CO2emission trends in greater detail.


EnergyEnergy-related activities accounted

for the vast majority of U.S. CO2 emis-sions from 1990 through 1999. Carbondioxide from fossil fuel combustion wasthe dominant contributor. In 1999,approximately 84 percent of the energyconsumed in the United States was pro-duced through the combustion of fossilfuels. The remaining 16 percent camefrom other sources, such as hydropower,biomass, nuclear, wind, and solar energy(see Figures 3-12 and 3-13). This sectiondiscusses specific trends related to CO2emissions from energy consumption.

Fossil Fuel CombustionAs fossil fuels are combusted, the car-

bon stored in them is almost entirelyemitted as CO2. The amount of carbonin fuels per unit of energy content variessignificantly by fuel type. For example,coal contains the highest amount of car-bon per unit of energy, while petroleumhas about 25 percent less carbon thancoal, and natural gas about 45 percentless.

From 1990 through 1999, petroleumsupplied the largest share of U.S.energy demands, accounting for anaverage of 39 percent of total energy

consumption. Natural gas and coal fol-lowed in order of importance, account-ing for an average of 24 and 23 percentof total energy consumption, respec-tively. Most petroleum was consumed inthe transportation end-use sector, thevast majority of coal was used by elec-tric utilities, and natural gas was con-sumed largely in the industrial andresidential sectors.

Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuelcombustion increased at an averageannual rate of 1.4 percent from 1990 to1999. The fundamental factors behindthis trend included (1) a robust domestic

Carbon dioxide accounted for 82 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 1999, and fossil fuel combustion accounted for 98 percentof total CO2 emissions. Changes in land use and forestry practices resulted in a net decrease of 990.4 Tg CO2 Eq., or 18 percent, of CO2 emissions.

Source or Sink 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Fossil Fuel Combustion 4,835.7 5,121.3 5,303.0 5,374.9 5,386.8 5,453.1

Cement Manufacture 33.3 36.8 37.1 38.3 39.2 39.9

Waste Combustion 17.6 23.1 24.0 25.7 25.1 26.0

Lime Manufacture 11.2 12.8 13.5 13.7 13.9 13.4

Natural Gas Flaring 5.1 13.6 13.0 12.0 10.8 11.7

Limestone and Dolomite Use 5.1 7.0 7.3 8.3 8.1 8.3

Soda Ash Manufacture and Consumption 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.2

Carbon Dioxide Consumption 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6

Land-Use Change and Forestry (Sink)a (1,059.9) (1,019.1) (1,021.6) (981.9) (983.3) (990.4)

International Bunker Fuelsb 114.0 101.0 102.2 109.8 112.8 107.3

Total Emissions 4,913.0 5,219.8 5,403.2 5,478.7 5,489.7 5,558.1

Net Emissions (Sources and Sinks) 3,853.0 4,200.8 4,381.6 4,496.8 4,506.4 4,567.8

a Sinks are only included in net emissions total, and are based partly on projected activity data.b Emissions from international bunker fuels are not included in totals.Notes: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Parentheses indicate negative values (or sequestration).

F IGURE 3-11 AND TABLE 3-7 U.S. Sources o f CO2 Emiss ions and S inks (Tg CO2 Eq. )

5,453.1

39.9

26.0

13.4

11.7

8.3

4.2

1.6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Tg CO2 Eq. in 1999

Fossil Fuel Combustion

Cement Manufacture

Waste Combustion

Lime Manufacture

Natural Gas Flaring

Limestone and Dolomite Use

Soda Ash Manufacture and Consumption

Carbon Dioxide Consumption

CO2 as a portion of all GHG emissions

82.4%


economy, (2) relatively low energyprices as compared to 1990, (3) fuelswitching by electric utilities, and (4)heavier reliance on nuclear energy.Between 1990 and 1999, CO2 emis-sions from fossil fuel combustionsteadily increased from 4,835.7 to5,453.1 Tg CO2 Eq.—a 13 percenttotal increase over the ten-year period.

In 1999, fossil fuel emission trendswere primarily driven by similar fac-tors—a strong economy and anincreased reliance on carbon-neutralnuclear power for electricity genera-tion. Although the price of crude oilincreased by over 40 percent between1998 and 1999, and relatively mildweather conditions in 1999 moderatedenergy consumption for heating andcooling, emissions from fossil fuels stillrose by 1.2 percent. Emissions from thecombustion of petroleum products in1999 grew the most (64 Tg CO2 Eq., orabout 3 percent), although emissionsfrom the combustion of petroleum byelectric utilities decreased by 19 per-cent. That decrease was offset byincreased emissions from petroleumcombustion in the residential, commer-

cial, industrial, and especially trans-portation end-use sectors. Emissionsfrom the combustion of natural gas in1999 increased slightly (5 Tg CO2 Eq.,or 0.4 percent), and emissions fromcoal consumption decreased slightly (3 Tg CO2 Eq., or 0.1 percent) as theindustrial end-use sector substitutedmore natural gas for coal in 1999.

Along with the four end-use sectors,electric utilities also emit CO2,although these emissions are producedas they consume fossil fuel to provideelectricity to one of the four end-usesectors. For the discussion in this chap-ter, electric utility emissions have beendistributed to each end-use sector basedupon their fraction of aggregate elec-tricity consumption. This method ofdistributing emissions assumes that eachend-use sector consumes electricity thatis generated with the national averagemix of fuels according to their carbonintensity. In reality, sources of electricityvary widely in carbon intensity. Byassuming the same carbon intensity foreach end-use sector’s electricity con-sumption, for example, emissions attrib-uted to the residential sector may be

overestimated, while emissions attrib-uted to the industrial sector may beunderestimated. Emissions from electricutilities are addressed separately afterthe end-use sectors have been dis-cussed.

It is important to note, though, thatall emissions resulting from the genera-tion of electricity by the growing num-ber of nonutility power plants arecurrently allocated to the industrial sec-tor. Nonutilities supplied 15 percent ofthe electricity consumed in the UnitedStates in 1999. Emissions from U.S. ter-ritories are also calculated separatelydue to a lack of specific consumptiondata for the individual end-use sectors.Table 3-8, Figure 3-14, and Figure 3-15summarize CO2 emissions from fossilfuel combustion by end-use sector.

Industrial End-Use Sector. IndustrialCO2 emissions—resulting both directlyfrom the combustion of fossil fuels andindirectly from the generation of elec-tricity by utilities that is consumed byindustry—accounted for 33 percent ofCO2 from fossil fuel combustion in1999. About two-thirds of these

Source: U.S. DOE/EIA 2000a. Source: U.S. DOE/EIA 2000a.

F IGURE 3-12 1999 U.S. Energy Consumption by Energy Source

Petroleum supplied the largest share of U.S. energy demands in 1999,accounting for 39 percent of total energy consumption. Natural gasand coal followed in order of importance, each accounting for 23 per-cent of total energy consumption.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

7.6% Renewable

8.0% Nuclear

22.5% Coal

22.9% Natural Gas

39.0% Petroleum

F IGURE 3-13 U.S. Energy Consumpt ion : 1990–1999

0

20

40

60

80

100

Renewable & Nuclear

Fossil Fuels

Total Consumption

19911990

19921993

19941995

19961997

19981999

Qua

drill

ion

Btu

s

In 1999, approximately 84 percent of the energy consumed in theUnited States was produced through the combustion of fossil fuels.The remaining 16 percent came from other energy sources, such ashydropower, biomass, nuclear, wind, and solar.


emissions resulted from direct fossil fuelcombustion to produce steam and/orheat for industrial processes or bynonutility electricity generators that areclassified as industrial, the latter ofwhich are growing rapidly. The remain-ing third of emissions resulted fromconsuming electricity from electric util-ities for motors, electric furnaces,ovens, lighting, and other applications.

Transportation End-Use Sector. Trans-portation activities (excluding interna-tional bunker fuels) accounted for 31percent of CO2 emissions from fossilfuel combustion in 1999.15 Virtually allof the energy consumed in this end-usesector came from petroleum products.Slightly less than two-thirds of theemissions resulted from gasoline con-sumption in motor vehicles. Theremaining emissions came from othertransportation activities, including the

F IGURE 3-14 1999 CO2 Emiss ions f rom Foss i l Fue l Combust ion by Sector and Fue l Type

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

U.S. TerritoriesElectric UtilitiesTransportationIndustrialCommercialResidential

Tg C

O2 E

q.

Petroleum

Natural Gas

Coal

255.095.0

289.4

1,679.2

34.8

52.1

73.4168.0

520.5

166.44.2 6.3

50.5 345.6Coal 0.9

1,711.9 Relative Contributionby Fuel Type

42%31%

37%

Of the emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 1999, most petroleum was consumed in the transportation end-use sector. The vast majority ofcoal was consumed by electric utilities, and natural gas was consumed largely in the industrial and residential end-use sectors.

F IGURE 3-15 1999 End-Use Sector Emiss ions o f CO2 f rom Foss i l Fue l Combust ion

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

U.S. TerritoriesTransportationIndustrialCommercialResidential

Tg C

O2 E

q.

Electricity Consumption

Direct Fossil Fuel Combustion

681.6

354.1

641.0

223.0

628.3

1,155.6

2.4

1,714.0

0.053.0

Electric utilities were responsible for 36 percent of the U.S. emissions of CO2 from fossil fuelcombustion in 1999. The remaining 64 percent of emissions resulted from the direct combus-tion of fuel for heat and other uses in the residential, commercial, industrial, and transporta-tion end-use sectors.

15 If emissions from international bunker fuels areincluded, the transportation end-use sector accountedfor 33 percent of U.S. emissions from fossil fuel com-bustion in 1999.


on coal for over half of their total ener-gy requirements and accounted for 85percent of all coal consumed in theUnited States in 1999. Consequently,changes in electricity demand have asignificant impact on coal consumptionand associated CO2 emissions. Note,again, that all emissions resulting fromthe generation of electricity by nonutil-ity plants are currently allocated to theindustrial end-use sector.

Natural Gas FlaringCarbon dioxide is produced when

natural gas from oil wells is flared (i.e.,combusted) to relieve rising pressure orto dispose of small quantities of gas thatare not commercially marketable. In1999, flaring activities emitted approxi-mately 11.7 Tg CO2 Eq., or about 0.2percent of U.S. CO2 emissions.

Biomass CombustionBiomass in the form of fuel wood and

wood waste was used primarily by theindustrial end-use sector. The trans-portation end-use sector was the pre-dominant user of biomass-based fuels,such as ethanol from corn and woodycrops. Ethanol and ethanol blends, suchas gasohol, are typically used to fuelpublic transport vehicles.

Although these fuels emit CO2, inthe long run the CO2 emitted from bio-fuel consumption does not increase

atmospheric CO2 concentrations if thebiogenic carbon emitted is offset by thegrowth of new biomass. For example,fuel wood burned one year but regrownthe next only recycles carbon, ratherthan creating a net increase in totalatmospheric carbon. Net carbon fluxesfrom changes in biogenic carbon reser-voirs in wooded areas or croplands areaccounted for under the Land-UseChange and Forestry section of thischapter.

Gross CO2 emissions from biomasscombustion were 234.1 Tg CO2 Eq. in1999, with the industrial sector account-ing for 81 percent and the residentialsector 14 percent of the emissions.Ethanol consumption by the transporta-tion sector accounted for only 3 percentof CO2 emissions from biomass com-bustion.

Industrial ProcessesEmissions are produced as a by-prod-

uct of many nonenergy-related activi-ties. For example, industrial processescan chemically transform raw materials.This transformation often releases suchgreenhouse gases as CO2. The majorproduction processes that emit CO2include cement manufacture, lime man-ufacture, limestone and dolomite use,soda ash manufacture and consumption,and CO2 consumption. Total CO2emissions from these sources were

In 1999, industrial CO2 emissions resulting from direct fossil fuel combustion and from the generation of electricity by utilities accounted for 33percent of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion. Transportation activities (excluding international bunker fuels) accounted for 31 percent of CO2emissions from fossil fuel combustion the same year, and the residential and commercial sectors accounted for 19 and 16 percent, respectively.

End-Use Sector* 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Industrial 1,636.0 1,709.5 1,766.0 1,783.6 1,758.8 1,783.9

Transportation 1,474.4 1,581.8 1,621.2 1,631.4 1,659.0 1,716.4

Residential 930.7 988.7 1,047.5 1,044.2 1,040.9 1,035.8

Commercial 760.8 797.2 828.2 872.9 880.2 864.0

U.S. Territories 33.7 44.0 40.1 42.8 47.9 53.0

Total 4,835.7 5,121.3 5,303.0 5,374.9 5,386.8 5,453.1

* Emissions from electric utilities are allocated based on aggregate electricity consumption in each end-use sector.Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

TABLE 3-8 CO2 Emiss ions f rom Foss i l Fue l Combust ion by End-Use Sector (Tg CO2 Eq. )

combustion of diesel fuel in heavy-dutyvehicles and jet fuel in aircraft.

Residential and Commercial End-UseSectors. The residential and commer-cial end-use sectors accounted for 19and 16 percent, respectively, of CO2emissions from fossil fuel consumptionin 1999. Both sectors relied heavily onelectricity for meeting energy needs,with 66 and 74 percent, respectively, oftheir emissions attributable to electricityconsumption for lighting, heating, cool-ing, and operating appliances. Theremaining emissions were largely due tothe consumption of natural gas andpetroleum, primarily for meeting heat-ing and cooking needs.

Electric Utilities. The United Statesrelies on electricity to meet a significantportion of its energy demands, especial-ly for lighting, electric motors, heating,and air conditioning. Electric utilitiesare responsible for consuming 27 per-cent of U.S. energy from fossil fuels andemitted 36 percent of the CO2 from fos-sil fuel combustion in 1999. The type offuel combusted by utilities significantlyaffects their emissions. For example,some electricity is generated with lowCO2-emitting energy technologies, par-ticularly non-fossil fuel options, such asnuclear, hydroelectric, or geothermalenergy. However, electric utilities rely


approximately 67.4 Tg CO2 Eq. in1999, or about 1 percent of all CO2emissions. Between 1990 and 1999,emissions from most of these sourcesincreased, except for emissions fromsoda ash manufacture and consumption,which have remained relatively con-stant.

Cement Manufacture (39.9 Tg CO2 Eq.)

Carbon dioxide is emitted primarilyduring the production of clinker, anintermediate product from which finished Portland and masonry cementare made. When calcium carbonate(CaCO3) is heated in a cement kiln toform lime and CO2, the lime combineswith other materials to produce clinker,and the CO2 is released to the atmos-phere.

Lime Manufacture (13.4 Tg CO2 Eq.)

Lime is used in steel making, con-struction, pulp and paper manufactur-ing, and water and sewage treatment. Itis manufactured by heating limestone(mostly calcium carbonate, CaCO3) ina kiln, creating calcium oxide (quick-lime) and CO2, which is normally emit-ted to the atmosphere.

Limestone and Dolomite Use (8.3 Tg CO2 Eq.)

Limestone (CaCO3) and dolomite(Ca Mg(CO3)2) are basic raw materialsused by a wide variety of industries,including the construction, agriculture,chemical, and metallurgical industries.For example, limestone can be used as apurifier in refining metals. In the case ofiron ore, limestone heated in a blast fur-nace reacts with impurities in the ironore and fuels, generating CO2 as a by-product. Limestone is also used in fluegas desulfurization systems to removesulfur dioxide from the exhaust gases

Soda Ash Manufacture andConsumption (4.2 Tg CO2 Eq.)

Commercial soda ash (sodium car-bonate, Na2CO3) is used in many con-sumer products, such as glass, soap anddetergents, paper, textiles, and food.

During the manufacture of soda ash,some natural sources of sodium carbon-ate are heated and transformed into acrude soda ash, in which CO2 is gener-ated as a by-product. In addition, CO2is often released when the soda ash isconsumed.

Carbon Dioxide Consumption (1.6 Tg CO2 Eq.)

Carbon dioxide is used directly inmany segments of the economy,including food processing, beveragemanufacturing, chemical processing,and a host of industrial and other mis-cellaneous applications. This CO2 maybe produced as a by-product from theproduction of certain chemicals (e.g.,ammonia) from select natural gas wells,or by separating it from crude oil andnatural gas. For the most part, the CO2used in these applications is eventuallyreleased to the atmosphere.

Land-Use Change and Forestry

(Sink) (990.4 Tg CO2 Eq.)When humans alter the terrestrial

biosphere through land use, changes inland use, and forest management prac-tices, they alter the natural carbon fluxbetween biomass, soils, and the atmos-phere. Forest management practices, themanagement of agricultural soils, andlandfilling of yard trimmings haveresulted in a net uptake (sequestration)of carbon in the United States that isequivalent to about 15 percent of totalU.S. gross emissions.

Forests (including vegetation, soils,and harvested wood) accounted forapproximately 91 percent of the totalsequestration, agricultural soils (includ-ing mineral and organic soils and theapplication of lime) accounted for 8 per-cent, and landfilled yard trimmingsaccounted for less than 1 percent. Thenet forest sequestration is largely a resultof improved forest management prac-tices, the regeneration of previouslycleared forest areas, and timber harvest-ing. Agricultural mineral soils accountfor a net carbon sink that is more thanthree times larger than the sum of emis-sions from organic soils and liming. Net

sequestration in these soils is largely dueto improved management practices oncropland and grazing land, especiallyusing conservation tillage (leavingresidues on the field after harvest), andtaking erodible lands out of productionand planting them with grass or treesthrough the Conservation Reserve Pro-gram. Finally, the net sequestration fromyard trimmings is due to their long-termaccumulation in landfills.

Waste

Waste Combustion (26.0 Tg CO2 Eq.)Waste combustion involves the burn-

ing of garbage and nonhazardous solids,referred to as municipal solid waste(MSW), as well as the burning of haz-ardous waste. Carbon dioxide emissionsarise from the organic (i.e., carbon)materials found in these wastes. WithinMSW, many products contain carbon ofbiogenic origin, and the CO2 emissionsfrom their combustion are reportedunder the Land-Use Change andForestry section. However, several com-ponents of MSW—plastics, syntheticrubber, synthetic fibers, and carbonblack—are of fossil fuel origin, and areincluded as sources of CO2 emissions.

METHANE EMISSIONSAtmospheric methane (CH4) is an

integral component of the greenhouseeffect, second only to CO2 as a contrib-utor to anthropogenic greenhouse gasemissions. The overall contribution ofCH4 to global warming is significantbecause it has been estimated to be 21 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2(i.e., the GWP value of CH4 is 21)(IPCC1996b). Over the last two cen-turies, the concentration of CH4 in theatmosphere has more than doubled(IPCC 2001b). Experts believe theseatmospheric increases were due largelyto increasing emissions from anthro-pogenic sources, such as landfills, naturalgas and petroleum systems, agriculturalactivities, coal mining, stationary andmobile combustion, wastewater treat-ment, and certain industrial processes(see Figure 3-16 and Table 3-9).


LandfillsLandfills are the largest source of

anthropogenic CH4 emissions in theUnited States. In an environmentwhere the oxygen content is low ornonexistent, organic materials—such as

yard waste, household waste, foodwaste, and paper—can be decomposedby bacteria, resulting in the generationof CH4 and biogenic CO2. Methaneemissions from landfills are affected bysite-specific factors, such as waste com-

position, moisture, and landfill size.In 1999, CH4 emissions from U.S.

landfills were 214.6 Tg CO2 Eq., downby 1 percent since 1990. The relativelyconstant emission estimates are a resultof two offsetting trends: (1) the amountof municipal solid waste in landfillscontributing to CH4 emissions hasincreased, thereby increasing thepotential for emissions; and (2) theamount of landfill gas collected andcombusted by landfill operators hasalso increased, thereby reducing emis-sions. Emissions from U.S. municipalsolid waste landfills accounted for 94percent of total landfill emissions, whileindustrial landfills accounted for theremainder. Approximately 28 percentof the CH4 generated in U.S. landfillsin 1999 was recovered and combusted,often for energy.

A regulation promulgated in March1996 requires the largest U.S. landfillsto collect and combust their landfill gas to reduce emissions of non-methane volatile organic compounds(NMVOCs). It is estimated that by theyear 2000 this regulation will havereduced landfill CH4 emissions bymore than 50 percent.

Natural Gas and Petroleum Systems

Methane is the major component ofnatural gas. During the production,processing, transmission, and distribu-tion of natural gas, fugitive emissions ofCH4 often occur. Because natural gas isoften found in conjunction with petro-leum deposits, leakage from petroleumsystems is also a source of emissions.Emissions vary greatly from facility tofacility and are largely a function ofoperation and maintenance proceduresand equipment conditions. In 1999,CH4 emissions from U.S. natural gassystems were estimated to be 121.8 TgCO2 Eq., accounting for approximately20 percent of U.S. CH4 emissions.

Petroleum is found in the same geo-logical structures as natural gas, and thetwo are retrieved together. Methane isalso saturated in crude oil, andvolatilizes as the oil is exposed to theatmosphere at various points along the

Methane accounted for 9 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 1999. Landfills,enteric fermentation, and natural gas systems were the source of 75 percent of total CH4emissions.

Source 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Landfills 217.3 222.9 219.1 217.8 213.6 214.6

Enteric Fermentation 129.5 136.3 132.2 129.6 127.5 127.2

Natural Gas Systems 121.2 124.2 125.8 122.7 122.1 121.8

Coal Mining 87.9 74.6 69.3 68.8 66.5 61.8

Manure Management 26.4 31.0 30.7 32.6 35.2 34.4

Petroleum Systems 27.2 24.5 24.0 24.0 23.3 21.9

Wastewater Treatment 11.2 11.8 11.9 12.0 12.1 12.2

Rice Cultivation 8.7 9.5 8.8 9.6 10.1 10.7

Stationary Combustion 8.5 8.9 9.0 8.1 7.6 8.1

Mobile Combustion 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.5

Petrochemical Production 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7

Agricultural Residue Burning 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Silicon Carbide Production + + + + + +

International Bunker Fuels* + + + + + +

Total* 644.5 650.5 638.0 632.0 624.8 619.6

+ Does not exceed 0.05 Tg CO2 Eq.* Emissions from international bunker fuels are not included in totals.Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

F IGURE 3-16 AND TABLE 3-9 U.S. Sources o f Methane Emiss ions (Tg CO2 Eq. )

0 50 100 150 200 250

Tg CO2 Eq. in 1999

Landfills

Enteric Fermentation

Natural Gas Systems

Coal Mining

Manure Management

Petroleum Systems

Wastewater Treatment

Rice Cultivation

Stationary Sources

Mobile Sources

Petrochemical Production

Agricultural Residue Burning

Silicon Carbide Production

214.6

127.2

121.8

61.8

34.4

21.9

12.2

10.7

8.1

4.5

1.7

0.6

<0.05

CH4 as a portion of all GHG emissions

9.2%


system. Emissions of CH4 from thecomponents of petroleum systems—including crude oil production, crudeoil refining, transportation, and distri-bution—generally occur as a result ofsystem leaks, disruptions, and routinemaintenance. In 1999, emissions frompetroleum systems were estimated to be21.9 Tg CO2 Eq., or just less than 4 per-cent of U.S. CH4 emissions.

From 1990 to 1999, combined CH4emissions from natural gas and petro-leum systems decreased by 3 percent.Emissions from natural gas systems haveremained fairly constant, while emis-sions from petroleum systems havedeclined gradually since 1990, primarilydue to production declines.

Coal MiningProduced millions of years ago dur-

ing the formation of coal, CH4 trappedwithin coal seams and surrounding rockstrata is released when the coal ismined. The quantity of CH4 released tothe atmosphere during coal miningoperations depends primarily upon thedepth and type of the coal that ismined.

Methane from surface mines is emit-ted directly to the atmosphere as therock strata overlying the coal seam areremoved. Because CH4 in undergroundmines is explosive at concentrations of5 to 15 percent in air, most activeunderground mines are required to ventthis CH4. At some mines, CH4 recoverysystems may supplement these ventila-tion systems. Recovery of CH4 in theUnited States has increased in recentyears. During 1999, coal mining activi-ties emitted 61.8 Tg CO2 Eq. of CH4,or 10 percent of U.S. CH4 emissions.From 1990 to 1999, emissions from thissource decreased by 30 percent due, inpart, to increased use of the CH4 col-lected by mine degasification systems.

AgricultureAgriculture accounted for 28 percent

of U.S. CH4 emissions in 1999, withenteric fermentation in domestic live-stock, manure management, and ricecultivation representing the majority.Agricultural waste burning also con-

tributed to CH4 emissions from agricul-tural activities.

Enteric Fermentation (127.2 Tg CO2 Eq.)

During animal digestion, CH4 is pro-duced through the process of enteric fer-mentation, in which microbes residing inanimal digestive systems break down thefeed consumed by the animal. Rumi-nants, which include cattle, buffalo,sheep, and goats, have the highest CH4emissions among all animal typesbecause they have a rumen, or large fore-stomach, in which CH4-producing fermentation occurs. Nonruminantdomestic animals, such as pigs andhorses, have much lower CH4 emissions.

In 1999, enteric fermentation was thesource of about 21 percent of U.S. CH4emissions, and more than half of theCH4 emissions from agriculture. From1990 to 1999, emissions from this sourcedecreased by 2 percent. Emissions fromenteric fermentation have been generallydecreasing since 1995, primarily due todeclining dairy cow and beef cattle pop-ulations.

Manure Management (34.4 Tg CO2 Eq.)

The decomposition of organic ani-mal waste in an anaerobic environmentproduces CH4. The most important fac-tor affecting the amount of CH4 pro-duced is how the manure is managed,because certain types of storage andtreatment systems promote an oxygen-free environment. In particular, liquidsystems tend to encourage anaerobicconditions and produce significantquantities of CH4, whereas solid wastemanagement approaches produce littleor no CH4. Higher temperatures andmoist climate conditions also promoteCH4 production.

Emissions from manure managementwere about 6 percent of U.S. CH4 emis-sions in 1999, and 20 percent of theCH4 emissions from agriculture. From1990 to 1999, emissions from thissource increased by 8.0 Tg CO2 Eq.—the largest absolute increase of all theCH4 source categories. The bulk of thisincrease was from swine and dairy cow

manure, and is attributed to the shift inthe composition of the swine and dairyindustries toward larger facilities.Larger swine and dairy farms tend to useliquid management systems.

Rice Cultivation (10.7 Tg CO2 Eq.)

Most of the world’s rice, and all ofthe rice in the United States, is grownon flooded fields. When fields areflooded, anaerobic conditions developand the organic matter in the soildecomposes, releasing CH4 to theatmosphere, primarily through the riceplants.

In 1999, rice cultivation was thesource of 2 percent of U.S. CH4 emis-sions, and about 6 percent of U.S. CH4emissions from agriculture. Emissionestimates from this source haveincreased by about 23 percent since1990, due to an increase in the area har-vested.

Agricultural Residue Burning (0.6 Tg CO2 Eq.)

Burning crop residue releases a num-ber of greenhouse gases, includingCH4. Because field burning is not com-mon in the United States, it was respon-sible for only 0.1 percent of U.S. CH4emissions in 1999.

Other SourcesMethane is also produced from sev-

eral other sources in the United States,including wastewater treatment, fuelcombustion, and some industrialprocesses. Methane emissions fromdomestic wastewater treatment totaled12.2 Tg CO2 Eq. in 1999. Stationaryand mobile combustion were responsi-ble for CH4 emissions of 8.1 and 4.5 TgCO2 Eq., respectively. The majority ofemissions from stationary combustionresulted from the burning of wood inthe residential end-use sector. The com-bustion of gasoline in highway vehicleswas responsible for the majority of theCH4 emitted from mobile combustion.Methane emissions from two industrialsources—petrochemical and silicon car-bide production—were also estimated,totaling 1.7 Tg CO2 Eq.


NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONSNitrous oxide (N2O) is a greenhouse

gas that is produced both naturally, froma wide variety of biological sources insoil and water, and anthropogenically bya variety of agricultural, energy-related,industrial, and waste management activi-ties. While total N2O emissions aremuch smaller than CO2 emissions, N2Ois approximately 310 times more power-ful than CO2 at trapping heat in theatmosphere (IPCC 1996b).

During the past two centuries,atmospheric concentrations of N2Ohave risen by approximately 13 percent.The main anthropogenic activities pro-ducing N2O in the United States areagricultural soil management, fuel com-bustion in motor vehicles, and adipicand nitric acid production processes(see Figure 3-17 and Table 3-10).

Agricultural Soil ManagementNitrous oxide is produced naturally

in soils through microbial processes ofnitrification and denitrification. A num-ber of anthropogenic activities add tothe amount of nitrogen available to beemitted as N2O by these microbialprocesses. These activities may addnitrogen to soils either directly or indi-rectly. Direct additions occur throughthe application of synthetic and organicfertilizers; production of nitrogen-fixing crops; the application of livestockmanure, crop residues, and sewagesludge; cultivation of high-organic-content soils; and direct excretion byanimals onto soil. Indirect additionsresult from volatilization and subse-quent atmospheric deposition, and fromleaching and surface runoff of some ofthe nitrogen applied to soils as fertilizer,livestock manure, and sewage sludge.

In 1999, agricultural soil manage-ment accounted for 298.3 Tg CO2 Eq.,or 69 percent, of U.S. N2O emissions.From 1990 to 1999, emissions from thissource grew by 11 percent as fertilizerconsumption, manure production, andcrop production increased.

Fuel CombustionNitrous oxide is a product of the

reaction that occurs between nitrogen

Nitrous oxide accounted for 6 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 1999, andagricultural soil management represented 69 percent of total N2O emissions.

Source 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Agricultural Soil Management 269.0 285.4 294.6 299.8 300.3 298.3Mobile Combustion 54.3 66.8 65.3 65.2 64.2 63.4Nitric Acid 17.8 19.9 20.7 21.2 20.9 20.2Manure Management 16.0 16.4 16.8 17.1 17.2 17.2Stationary Combustion 13.6 14.3 14.9 15.0 15.1 15.7Adipic Acid 18.3 20.3 20.8 17.1 7.3 9.0Human Sewage 7.1 8.2 7.8 7.9 8.1 8.2Agricultural Residue Burning 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4Waste Combustion 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2International Bunker Fuels* 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0

Total* 396.9 431.9 441.6 444.1 433.7 432.6

* Emissions from international bunker fuels are not included in totals.Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Tg CO2 Eq. in 1999

Agricultural Soil Management

Mobile Sources

Nitric Acid

Manure Management

Stationary Sources

Adipic Acid

Human Sewage

Agricultural Residue Burning

Waste Combustion

298.3

63.4

20.2

17.2

15.7

9.0

8.2

0.4

0.2

N2O as a portion of all GHG emissions

6.4%

and oxygen during fuel combustion.Both mobile and stationary combustionemit N2O. The quantity emitted variesaccording to the type of fuel, technol-ogy, and pollution control device used,as well as maintenance and operatingpractices. For example, catalytic con-verters installed to reduce motor vehiclepollution can result in the formation ofN2O.

In 1999, N2O emissions from mobilecombustion totaled 63.4 Tg CO2 Eq.,or 15 percent of U.S. N2O emissions.Emissions of N2O from stationary com-bustion were 15.7 Tg CO2 Eq., or 4percent of U.S. N2O emissions. From1990 to 1999, combined N2O emis-

sions from stationary and mobile com-bustion increased by 16 percent, prima-rily due to increased rates of N2Ogeneration in motor vehicles.

Nitric Acid ProductionNitric acid production is an indus-

trial source of N2O emissions. Used pri-marily to make synthetic commercialfertilizer, this raw material is also amajor component in the production ofadipic acid and explosives.

Virtually all of the nitric acid manu-factured in the United States is producedby the oxidation of ammonia, duringwhich N2O is formed and emitted to theatmosphere. In 1999, N2O emissions

F IGURE 3-17 AND TABLE 3-10 U.S. Sources o f N i t rous Ox ide Emiss ions (Tg CO2 Eq. )


from nitric acid production were 20.2 TgCO2 Eq., or 5 percent of U.S. N2O emis-sions. From 1990 to 1999, emissions fromthis source category increased by 13 per-cent as nitric acid production grew.

Manure Management Nitrous oxide is produced as part of

microbial nitrification and denitrifica-tion processes in managed and unman-aged manure, the latter of which isaddressed under agricultural soil man-agement. Total N2O emissions frommanaged manure systems in 1999 were17.2 Tg CO2 Eq., accounting for 4 per-cent of U.S. N2O emissions. From 1990to 1999, emissions from this source cat-egory increased by 7 percent, as poultryand swine populations have increased.

Adipic Acid ProductionMost adipic acid produced in the

United States is used to manufacturenylon 6,6. Adipic acid is also used to pro-duce some low-temperature lubricantsand to add a “tangy” flavor to foods.Nitrous oxide is emitted as a by-productof the chemical synthesis of adipic acid.

In 1999, U.S. adipic acid plants emit-ted 9.0 Tg CO2 Eq. of N2O, or 2 percentof U.S. N2O emissions. Even thoughadipic acid production has increased, by1998 all three major adipic acid plants inthe United States had voluntarily imple-mented N2O abatement technology. Asa result, emissions have decreased by 51percent since 1990.

Other SourcesOther sources of N2O included agri-

cultural residue burning, waste combus-tion, and human sewage in wastewatertreatment systems. In 1999, agriculturalresidue burning and municipal solidwaste combustion each emitted lessthan 1 Tg CO2 Eq. of N2O. The humansewage component of domestic waste-water resulted in emissions of 8.2 TgCO2 Eq. in 1999.

HFC, PFC, AND SF6EMISSIONS

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) andperfluorocarbons (PFCs) are categoriesof synthetic chemicals that are being

used as alternatives to the ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) beingphased out under the Montreal Protocoland Clean Air Act Amendments of1990. Because HFCs and PFCs do notdirectly deplete the stratospheric ozonelayer, they are not controlled by theMontreal Protocol.

These compounds, however, alongwith sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), are potentgreenhouse gases. In addition to havinghigh global warming potentials, SF6 andPFCs have extremely long atmosphericlifetimes, resulting in their essentiallyirreversible accumulation in the atmos-phere. Sulfur hexafluoride is the mostpotent greenhouse gas the IPCC hasevaluated.

Other emissive sources of these gasesinclude aluminum production, HCFC-22production, semiconductor manufactur-ing, electrical transmission and distribu-tion systems, and magnesium productionand processing. Figure 3-18 and Table 3-11 present emission estimates forHFCs, PFCs, and SF6, which totaled135.7 Tg CO2 Eq. in 1999.

Substitution of Ozone-Depleting Substances

The use and subsequent emissions ofHFCs and PFCs as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) increasedfrom small amounts in 1990 to 56.7 TgCO2 Eq. in 1999. This increase was theresult of efforts to phase out CFCs andother ODSs in the United States, espe-cially the introduction of HFC-134a as aCFC substitute in refrigeration applica-tions. In the short term, this trend isexpected to continue, and will mostlikely accelerate in the next decade asHCFCs, which are interim substitutes inmany applications, are themselvesphased out under the provisions of theCopenhagen Amendments to the Mon-treal Protocol. Improvements in the tech-nologies associated with the use of thesegases, however, may help to offset thisanticipated increase in emissions.

Other Industrial SourcesHFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are also emitted

from a number of other industrialprocesses. During the production of pri-

mary aluminum, two PFCs—CF4 andC2F6—are emitted as intermittent by-products of the smelting process. Emis-sions from aluminum production, whichtotaled 10.0 Tg CO2 Eq., were estimatedto have decreased by 48 percentbetween 1990 and 1999 due to voluntaryemission reduction efforts by the indus-try and falling domestic aluminum pro-duction.

HFC-23 is a by-product emitted dur-ing the production of HCFC-22. Emis-sions from this source were 30.4 Tg CO2Eq. in 1999, and have decreased by 13percent since 1990. The intensity ofHFC-23 emissions (i.e., the amount ofHFC-23 emitted per kilogram of HCFC-22 manufactured) has declined signifi-cantly since 1990, although productionhas been increasing.

The semiconductor industry usescombinations of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, andother gases for plasma etching and toclean chemical vapor deposition tools.For 1999, it was estimated that the U.S.semiconductor industry emitted a totalof 6.8 Tg CO2 Eq. Emissions from thissource category have increased with thegrowth in the semiconductor industryand the rising intricacy of chip designs.

The primary use of SF6 is as a dielec-tric in electrical transmission and distri-bution systems. Fugitive emissions of SF6occur from leaks in and servicing of sub-stations and circuit breakers, especiallyfrom older equipment. Estimated emis-sions from this source increased by 25 percent since 1990, to 25.7 Tg CO2Eq. in 1999.

Finally, SF6 is also used as a protec-tive cover gas for the casting of moltenmagnesium. Estimated emissions fromprimary magnesium production andmagnesium casting were 6.1 Tg CO2Eq. in 1999, an increase of 11 percentsince 1990.

Emissions of Ozone-Depleting Substances

Halogenated compounds were firstemitted into the atmosphere during the20th century. This family of manmadecompounds includes chlorofluorocar-bons (CFCs), halons, methyl chloro-form, carbon tetrachloride, methyl

HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 accounted for 2 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 1999, and substitutes for ozone-depleting substancescomprised 42 percent of all HFC, PFC, and SF6 emissions.

Source 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Substitution of Ozone-Depleting Substances 0.9 24.0 34.0 42.1 49.6 56.7

HCFC-22 Production 34.8 27.1 31.2 30.1 40.0 30.4

Electrical Transmission and Distribution 20.5 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7

Aluminum Production 19.3 11.2 11.6 10.8 10.1 10.0

Semiconductor Manufacture 2.9 5.5 7.0 7.0 6.8 6.8

Magnesium Production and Processing 5.5 5.5 5.6 7.5 6.3 6.1

Total 83.9 99.0 115.1 123.3 138.6 135.7

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.


bromide, and hydrochlorofluorocar-bons (HCFCs). These substances havebeen used in a variety of industrialapplications, including refrigeration, airconditioning, foam blowing, solventcleaning, sterilization, fire extinguish-ing, coatings, paints, and aerosols.

Because these compounds have beenshown to deplete stratospheric ozone,they are typically referred to as ozone-depleting substances (ODSs). How-ever, they are also potent greenhousegases.

Recognizing the harmful effects ofthese compounds on the ozone layer,181 countries have ratified the MontrealProtocol on Substances That Deplete the OzoneLayer to limit the production andimportation of a number of CFCs andother halogenated compounds. TheUnited States furthered its commitmentto phase out ODSs by signing and rati-fying the Copenhagen Amendments to

the Montreal Protocol in 1992. Underthese amendments, the United Statescommitted to ending the productionand importation of halons by 1994, andCFCs by 1996.

The IPCC Guidelines and theUnited Nations Framework Conven-tion on Climate Change do not includereporting instructions for estimatingemissions of ODSs because their use isbeing phased out under the MontrealProtocol. The United States believes,however, that a greenhouse gas emis-sions inventory is incomplete withoutthese emissions; therefore, estimates forseveral Class I and Class II ODSs areprovided in Table 3-12. Compounds aregrouped by class according to theirozone-depleting potential. Class I com-pounds are the primary ODSs; Class IIcompounds include partially halo-genated chlorine compounds (i.e.,HCFCs), some of which were devel-

oped as interim replacements for CFCs.Because these HCFC compounds areonly partially halogenated, their hydro-gen-carbon bonds are more vulnerableto oxidation in the troposphere and,therefore, pose only one-tenth to one-hundredth the threat to stratosphericozone compared to CFCs.

It should be noted that the effects ofthese compounds on radiative forcingare not provided. Although manyODSs have relatively high direct globalwarming potentials, their indirecteffects from ozone (also a greenhousegas) destruction are believed to havenegative radiative-forcing effects and,therefore, could significantly reduce theoverall magnitude of their radiative-forcing effects. Given the uncertaintiesabout the net effect of these gases,emissions are reported on anunweighted basis.

F IGURE 3-18 AND TABLE 3-11 U.S. Sources o f HFC, PFC, and SF6 Emiss ions (Tg CO2 Eq. )

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Tg CO2 Eq. in 1999

Substitution of Ozone-Depleting Substances 56.7

HCFC-22 Production 30.4

Electrical Transmission and Distribution 25.7

Aluminum Production 10.0

Semiconductor Manufacture 6.8

Magnesium Production and Processing 6.1

HFCs, PFCs, SF6 as a portion of all GHG emissions

2.0%


CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS

In the United States, carbon monox-ide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), non-methane volatile organic compounds(NMVOCs), and sulfur dioxide (SO2)are commonly referred to as “criteria pol-lutants,” as termed in the Clean Air Act.Criteria pollutants do not have a directglobal warming effect, but indirectlyaffect terrestrial radiation absorption byinfluencing the formation and destruc-tion of tropospheric and stratosphericozone, or, in the case of SO2, by affect-ing the absorptive characteristics of theatmosphere.

Carbon monoxide is produced whencarbon-containing fuels are combustedincompletely. Nitrogen oxides (i.e., NOand NOx) are created by lightning, fires,and fossil fuel combustion and are created in the stratosphere fromnitrous oxide (N2O). NMVOCs—which include such compounds aspropane, butane, and ethane—are emit-ted primarily from transportation, indus-trial processes, and nonindustrialconsumption of organic solvents. In theUnited States, SO2 is primarily emittedfrom the combustion of coal by the elec-tric power industry and by the metals industry.

In part because of their contributionto the formation of urban smog—andacid rain in the case of SO2 and NOx—criteria pollutants are regulated underthe Clean Air Act. These gases also indi-rectly affect the global climate by react-ing with other chemical compounds inthe atmosphere to form compounds thatare greenhouse gases. Unlike other crite-ria pollutants, SO2 emitted into theatmosphere is believed to affect theEarth’s radiative budget negatively;therefore, it is discussed separately.

One of the most important indirectclimate change effects of NOx andNMVOCs is their role as precursors fortropospheric ozone formation. They canalso alter the atmospheric lifetimes ofother greenhouse gases. For example,CO interacts with the hydroxyl radi-cal—the major atmospheric sink forCH4 emissions—to form CO2.

Many ozone-depleting substances have relatively high direct global warming potentials.However, their indirect effects from ozone (also a greenhouse gas) destruction are believedto have negative radiative-forcing effects and, therefore, could significantly reduce theoverall magnitude of their radiative-forcing effects. Given the uncertainties about the neteffect of these gases, emissions are reported on an unweighted basis.

Compound 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Class ICFC-11 52.4 19.1 11.7 10.7 9.8 9.2CFC-12 226.9 71.1 72.2 63.6 54.9 64.4CFC-113 39.0 7.6 + + + +CFC-114 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 +CFC-115 2.2 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.1Carbon Tetrachloride 25.1 5.5 + + + +Methyl Chloroform 27.9 8.7 1.6 + + +Halon-1211 + 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8Halon-1301 1.0 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

Class II HCFC-22 33.9 46.2 48.8 50.6 52.3 83.0HCFC-123 + 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0HCFC-124 + 5.6 5.9 6.2 6.4 6.5HCFC-141b + 20.6 25.4 25.1 26.7 28.7HCFC-142b + 7.3 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.5HCFC-225ca/cb + + + + + +

+ Does not exceed 0.05 gigagrams.Source: EPA estimates.

TABLE 3-12 Emiss ions o f Ozone-Deplet ing Substances (Gigagrams)

Sulfur dioxide emitted into the atmosphere through natural and anthropogenic processesaffects the Earth’s radiative budget through its photochemical transformation into sulfate

aerosols that can (1) scatter sunlight back to space, thereby reducing the radiation reach-ing the Earth’s surface; (2) affect cloud formation; and (3) affect atmospheric chemical com-position by providing surfaces for heterogeneous chemical reactions. The overall effect ofSO2-derived aerosols on radiative forcing is negative (IPCC 2001b). However, because SO2is short-lived and unevenly distributed in the atmosphere, its radiative-forcing impacts arehighly uncertain.

Sulfur dioxide is also a contributor to the formation of urban smog, which can cause signif-icant increases in acute and chronic respiratory diseases. Once SO2 is emitted, it is chem-ically transformed in the atmosphere and returns to the Earth as the primary source of acidrain. Because of these harmful effects, the United States has regulated SO2 emissions in theClean Air Act.

Electric utilities are the largest source of SO2 emissions in the United States, accounting for67 percent in 1999. Coal combustion contributes nearly all of those emissions (approxi-mately 93 percent). Emissions of SO2 have decreased in recent years, primarily as a resultof electric utilities switching from high-sulfur to low-sulfur coal and use of flue gas desul-furization.

Sources and E f fec ts o f Su l fu r D iox ide


Therefore, increased atmospheric con-centrations of CO limit the number ofhydroxyl molecules (OH) available todestroy CH4.

Since 1970, the United States has

published estimates of annual emissionsof criteria pollutants (U.S. EPA 2000).16

Table 3-13 shows that fuel combustionaccounts for the majority of emissions ofthese gases. Industrial processes, such as

the manufacture of chemical and alliedproducts, metals processing, and indus-trial uses of solvents, are also significantsources of CO, NOx, and NMVOCs.

Fuel combustion accounts for the majority of emissions of criteria pollutants. Industrial processes—such as the manufacture of chemical andallied products, metals processing, and industrial uses of solvents—are also significant sources of CO, NOX, and NMVOCs.

Gas/Activity 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

NOX 21,955 22,755 23,663 23,934 23,613 23,042Stationary Fossil Fuel Combustion 9,884 9,822 9,541 9,589 9,408 9,070Mobile Fossil Fuel Combustion 10,900 11,870 12,893 13,095 13,021 12,794Oil and Gas Activities 139 100 126 130 130 130Industrial Processes 921 842 977 992 924 930Solvent Use 1 3 3 3 3 3Agricultural Burning 28 28 32 33 34 33Waste 83 89 92 92 93 83

CO 85,846 80,678 87,196 87,012 82,496 82,982Stationary Fossil Fuel Combustion 4,999 5,383 5,620 4,968 4,575 4,798Mobile Fossil Fuel Combustion 69,523 68,072 72,390 71,225 70,288 68,179Oil and Gas Activities 302 316 321 333 332 332Industrial Processes 9,502 5,291 7,227 8,831 5,612 5,604Solvent Use 4 5 1 1 1 1Agricultural Burning 537 536 625 630 653 629Waste 979 1,075 1,012 1,024 1,035 3,439

NMVOCs 18,843 18,663 17,353 17,586 16,554 16,128Stationary Fossil Fuel Combustion 912 973 971 848 778 820Mobile Fossil Fuel Combustion 8,154 7,725 8,251 8,023 7,928 7,736Oil and Gas Activities 555 582 433 442 440 385Industrial Processes 3,110 2,805 2,354 2,793 2,352 2,281Solvent Use 5,217 5,609 4,963 5,098 4,668 4,376Agricultural Burning NA NA NA NA NA NAWaste 895 969 381 382 387 531

SO2 21,481 17,408 17,109 17,565 17,682 17,115Stationary Fossil Fuel Combustion 18,407 14,724 14,727 15,106 15,192 14,598Mobile Fossil Fuel Combustion 1,339 1,189 1,081 1,116 1,145 1,178Oil and Gas Activities 390 334 304 312 310 309Industrial Processes 1,306 1,117 958 993 996 996Solvent Use 0 1 1 1 1 1Agricultural Burning NA NA NA NA NA NAWaste 38 43 37 37 38 33

+ Does not exceed 0.5 gigagrams.NA = Not Available.Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.Source: EPA 2000, except for estimates from agricultural residue burning.

TABLE 3-13 Emiss ions o f NOx, CO, NMVOCs, and SO2 (Gg)

16 NOx and CO emission estimates from agricultural residue burning were estimated separately and, therefore, not taken from U.S. EPA 2000.

Chapter 4 Policiesand Measures

In the past decade, the United Stateshas made significant progress inreducing greenhouse gas emissions. In

2000 alone, U.S. climate change pro-grams reduced the growth in greenhousegas emissions by 242 teragrams of carbondioxide equivalent1 (Tg CO2 Eq.) (seeTable 4-1 at the end of this chapter).They have also significantly helped theUnited States reduce carbon intensity,which is the amount of CO2 emitted perunit of gross domestic product .

While many policies and measuresdeveloped in the 1990s continue toachieve their goals, recent changes in theeconomy and in energy markets, coupledwith the introduction of new science andtechnology, create a need to re-evaluateexisting climate change programs toensure they effectively meet future eco-nomic, climate, and other environmental

1 Emissions are expressed in units of CO2 equivalents forconsistency in international reporting under the UnitedNations Framework Convention on Climate Change.One teragram is equal to one million metric tons.

Policies and Measures ■ 51

The U.S. government is currently pursuing a broad range of strategies to reduce net emis-sions of greenhouse gases.

ElectricityFederal programs promote greenhouse gas reductions through the development ofcleaner, more efficient technologies for electricity generation and transmission. Thegovernment also supports the development of renewable resources, such as solar ener-gy, wind power, geothermal energy, hydropower, bioenergy, and hydrogen fuels.

TransportationFederal programs promote development of fuel-efficient motor vehicles and trucks,research and development options for producing cleaner fuels, and implementation ofprograms to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled.

IndustryFederal programs implement partnership programs with industry to reduce emissions ofcarbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases, promote source reduction and recy-cling, and increase the use of combined heat and power.

BuildingsFederal voluntary partnership programs promote energy efficiency in the nation’s com-mercial, residential, and government buildings (including schools) by offering technicalassistance as well as the labeling of efficient products, new homes, and office buildings.

Agriculture and ForestryThe U.S. government implements conservation programs that have the benefit of reducing agricultural emissions, sequestering carbon in soils, and offsetting overallgreenhouse gas emissions.

Federal GovernmentThe U.S. government has taken steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from energyuse in federal buildings and in the federal transportation fleet.

U.S. St ra teg ies in Key Sectors to Reduce Net Emiss ions o f Greenhouse Gases

goals. Our experience with greenhousegas emissions highlights the importanceof creating climate policy within the con-text of the overall economy, changingenergy markets, technology develop-ment and deployment, and R&D priori-ties. Because global warming is along-term problem, solutions need to belong lasting.

The U.S. government is currentlypursuing a broad range of strategies toreduce net emissions of greenhousegases. In addition, businesses, state andlocal governments, and nongovernmen-tal organizations (NGOs) are address-ing global climate change by improvingthe measurement and reporting ofgreenhouse gas emission reductions; byvoluntarily reducing emissions, includ-ing using emission trading systems; andby sequestering carbon through treeplanting and forest preservation,restoration, conversion of erodingcropland to permanent cover, and soilmanagement.

NATIONAL POLICYMAKINGPROCESS

Shortly after taking office in January2001, President Bush directed a Cabinet-level review of U.S. climate change policy and programs. The Presidentestablished working groups andrequested them to develop innovativeapproaches that would:• be consistent with the goal of stabi-

lizing greenhouse gas concentrationsin the atmosphere;

• be sufficiently flexible to allow fornew findings;

• support continued economic growthand prosperity;

• provide market-based incentives; • incorporate technological advances;

and• promote global participation.

Members of the Cabinet, the VicePresident, and senior White House staffextensively reviewed and discussed cli-mate science, existing technologies toreduce greenhouse gases and sequestercarbon, current U.S. programs and poli-cies, and innovative options for address-ing concentrations of greenhouse gasesin the atmosphere. They were assisted

by a number of scientific, technical, andpolicy experts from the federal govern-ment, national laboratories, universities,NGOs, and the private sector. To obtainthe most recent information and a bal-anced view of the current state of climatechange science, the Cabinet group askedthe National Academy of Sciences(NAS) to issue a report addressing areasof scientific consensus and significantgaps in our climate change knowledge(NRC 2001a). Appendix D of this reportpresents key questions posed by theCommittee on the Science of ClimateChange, along with the U.S. NationalResearch Council’s responses.

On June 11, 2001, the Presidentissued the interim report of the Cabi-net-level review (EOP 2001). Based onthe NAS report (NRC 2001a) and theCabinet’s findings, President Bushdirected the Department of Commerce,working with other federal agencies, toset priorities for additional investments

in climate change research, to reviewsuch investments, and to maximizecoordination among federal agencies toadvance the science of climate change.The President is committed to fullyfunding all priority research areas thatthe review finds are underfunded orneed to be accelerated relative to otherresearch. Such areas could include thecarbon and global water cycles and cli-mate modeling.

The President further directed theSecretaries of Commerce and Energy,working with other federal agencies, todevelop a National Climate ChangeTechnology Initiative with the follow-ing major objectives:• Evaluate the current state of U.S. cli-

mate change technology R&D andmake recommendations for improve-ments.

• Develop opportunities to enhanceprivate–public partnerships in ap-plied R&D to expedite innovative


and cost-effective approaches toreduce greenhouse gas emissionsand the buildup of greenhouse gasconcentrations in the atmosphere.

• Make recommendations for fundingdemonstration projects for cutting-edge technologies.

• Provide guidance on strengtheningbasic research at universities andnational laboratories, including thedevelopment of the advanced miti-gation technologies that offer thegreatest promise for low-cost reduc-tions of greenhouse gas emissionsand global warming potential.

• Make recommendations to enhancecoordination across federal agencies,and among the federal government,universities, and the private sector.

• Make recommendations for devel-oping improved technologies for

measuring and monitoring gross andnet greenhouse gas emissions.Simultaneous with the President’s

climate change policy development isthe implementation of the May 2001National Energy Policy (NEPD Group2001).2 Developed under the leader-ship of Vice President Cheney, theNational Energy Policy is a long-term,comprehensive strategy to advance thedevelopment of new, environmentallyfriendly technologies to increaseenergy supplies and encourage cleaner,more efficient energy use

The National Energy Policy identified anumber of major energy challenges andcontains 105 specific recommendationsfor dealing with them, many of whichaffect greenhouse gas emissions. Forexample, it promotes energy efficiencyby calling for the intelligent use of

new technologies and information dissemination; confronts our increasingdependency on foreign sources ofenergy by calling for increased domesticproduction with advanced technologies;and addresses our increasing reliance onnatural gas by paving the way for agreater balance among many energysources, including renewable energy butalso traditional sources, such ashydropower and nuclear energy. In addi-tion, the National Energy Policy initiated acomprehensive technology review to re-prioritize energy R&D. The review,which is currently underway, is criticallyevaluating the research, development,demonstration, and deployment portfo-lio for energy efficiency, renewableenergy, and alternative energy technolo-gies as they apply to the buildings, trans-portation, industry, power generation,and government sectors.

FEDERAL POLICIES AND MEASURES

The United States recognizes thatclimate change is a serious problem, andhas devoted significant resources to cli-mate change programs and activities(Table 4-2). This section summarizes theprogress of existing federal climatechange programs, including new policiesand measures not described in the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report (CAR), andactions described in the 1997 CAR thatare no longer ongoing (U.S. DOS1997). Many of these programs haveevolved substantially since the 1997CAR, which is reflected in individualprogram descriptions. Although origi-nally focused on important early reduc-tions by the year 2000, the programsare building emission reductions thatgrow over time and provide even largerbenefits in later years. In addition, theCabinet-level climate change workinggroup is continuing its review and isdeveloping other approaches to reducegreenhouse gas emissions, includingthose that tap the power of the markets,help realize the promise of technology,and ensure the broadest possible globalparticipation.

2 Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy

Many U.S. climate change programs have been highly successful at stimulating partici-pation and achieving measurable energy and cost savings, as well as reducing green-

house gas emissions.*

• Minimum efficiency standards on residential appliances have saved consumers near-ly $25 billion through 1999, avoiding cumulative emissions by an amount equal toalmost 180 Tg CO2 Eq. Four pending appliance standards (clothes washers, fluorescentlight ballasts, water heaters, and central air conditioners) are projected to save con-sumers up to $10 billion and reduce cumulative emissions by as much as 80 Tg CO2 Eq.through 2010.

• The ENERGY STAR® program promotes energy efficiency in U.S. homes and commercialbuildings. It has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 55 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000alone, and is projected to increase this amount to about 160 Tg CO2 Eq. a year by 2010.

• Public–private partnership programs have contributed to the decline in methane emis-sions since 1990, and are expected to hold emissions at or below 1990 levels through2010 and beyond. Partners in the methane programs have reduced methane emissionsby about 35 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000 and are projected to reduce emissions by 55 Tg CO2 Eq.annually by 2010.

• Programs designed to halt the growth in emissions of the most potent greenhousegases—the “high global warming potential (GWP) gases”––are achieving significantprogress. These programs reduced high-GWP emissions by more than 70 Tg CO2 Eq. in2000 and are projected to reduce emissions by more than 280 Tg CO2 Eq. annually by2010.

• Federal, state, and local outreach has allocated nearly $10 million in grants and otherawards since 1992 for 41 state greenhouse gas emission inventories, 27 state actionplans, 16 demonstration projects, and 32 educational and outreach programs. Acrossthe nation, 110 cities and counties, representing approximately 44 million people, aredeveloping inventories and implementing climate change action plans.

* There is uncertainty in any attempt to project future emission levels and program impacts from what would havehappened in the absence of these programs. These projections represent a best estimate. They are also based onthe assumption that programs will continue to be funded at current funding levels.

High l ights o f U.S. C l imate Change Programs


Since the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report, the United States has reassessed ongoing activ-ities for their direct and indirect impacts on greenhouse emissions. This table summarizesthe funding across a portion of these activities, which includes a range of research anddevelopment on energy efficiency and renewable energy, as well as setting efficiency stan-dards.

FY 2001Types of Programs FY 1999 FY 2000 Estimate

Directly Related Programs & Policies 1,009 1,095 1,239Other Climate-Related Programs 685 698 946

Total 1,694 1,793 2,185

Note: Funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, International Assistance, and the Global Environment Facility is described in later chapters and is not included in this total.

Source: OMB 2001.

TABLE 4-2 Summary of Federa l C l imate Change Expendi tu res : 1999–2001 (Mi l l ions o f Do l la rs )

Federal partnership programs pro-mote improved energy efficiency andincreased use of renewable energy tech-nologies in the nation’s commercial, res-idential, and government buildings(including schools) by offering technicalassistance as well as the labeling of effi-cient products, efficient new homes, andefficient buildings. The U.S. govern-ment is implementing a number of part-nership programs with industry toreduce CO2 emissions, increase the useof combined heat and power, and pro-mote the development of cleaner, moreefficient technologies for electricity gen-eration and transmission. The federalgovernment is also supporting renew-able resources, such as solar energy,wind power, geothermal energy,hydropower, bioenergy, and hydrogenfuels. In addition, the U.S. government’scommitment to advanced research anddevelopment in the areas of energy effi-ciency, renewable energy, alternativeenergy technologies, and nuclear energywill play a central role in an effectivelong-term response to climate change.

Energy: Residential and Commercial

Residential and commercial buildingsaccount for approximately 35 percent ofU.S. CO2 emissions from energy use.Electricity consumption for lighting,heating, cooling, and operating appli-ances accounts for the majority of theseemissions. Many commercial buildings

and new homes could effectively oper-ate with 30 percent less energy if ownersmade investments in energy-efficientproducts, technologies, and best man-agement practices. Federal partnershipprograms promote these investmentsthrough a market-based approach, usinglabeling to clearly identify which prod-ucts, practices, new homes, and build-ings are energy efficient. The UnitedStates also funds significant research ondeveloping highly efficient buildingequipment and appliances. Followingare descriptions of some of the key poli-cies and measures in this area.

ENERGY STAR® for the Commercial Market

This program has evolved substan-tially since the last CAR. Its major focusnow is on promoting high-performing(high-efficiency) buildings and provid-ing decision makers throughout anorganization with the information theyneed to undertake effective buildingimprovement projects. While the part-nership continues to work with morethan 5,500 organizations across thecountry, this program also introduced asystem in 1999 that allows the bench-marking of building energy perform-ance against the national stock ofbuildings. As recommended in theNational Energy Policy, this system isbeing expanded to represent additionalmajor U.S. building types, such asschools (K–12), grocery stores, hotels,

hospitals, and warehouses. By the end of2001, more than 75 percent of U.S.building stock could use this system.The national building energy perform-ance rating system also allows for recog-nizing the highest-performing buildings,which can earn the ENERGY STAR® label.EPA estimates that ENERGY STAR® in thecommercial building sector provided 23Tg CO2 Eq. reductions in 2000, andprojects it will provide 62 Tg CO2 Eq.reductions by 2010.

Commercial Buildings IntegrationThis program continues to work to

realize energy-saving opportunities pro-vided by the whole-building approachduring the construction and major reno-vation of existing commercial buildings.The program is increasing its industrypartnerships in design, construction,operation and maintenance, indoor envi-ronment, and control and diagnostics ofheating, ventilation, air conditioning,lighting, and other building systems.Through these efforts, the Departmentof Energy (DOE) helps transfer the mostenergy-efficient building techniques andpractices into commercial buildingsthrough regulatory activities, such assupporting the upgrade of voluntary(model) building energy codes andpromulgating upgraded federal commer-cial building energy codes. The programconsists of Updating State Building Codesand Partnerships for Commercial Buildings andFacilities, and is supported by a number ofDOE programs, such as Commercial Build-ing R&D.

ENERGY STAR® for the Residential Market

This program has expanded signifi-cantly since the last CAR when it wasfocused on new home construction. Itnow also provides guidance for home-owners on designing efficiency intokitchen, additions, and whole-homeimprovement projects and works withmajor retailers and other organizationsto help educate the public. In addition,it offers a Web-based audit tool and ahome energy benchmark tool to helpthe homeowner implement a projectand monitor progress. Builders have


constructed more than 55,000 ENERGY

STAR®-labeled new homes in theUnited States, at a pace that has dou-bled each year. These homes are aver-aging energy savings of about 35percent better than the model energycode. The Environmental ProtectionAgency’s (EPA’s) ENERGY STAR®-labeledhomes and home improvement effortare expected to provide about 20 TgCO2 Eq. in emission reductions in2010.

Community Energy Program:Rebuild America

This program continues to helpcommunities, towns, and cities saveenergy, create jobs, promote growth,and protect the environment throughimproved energy efficiency and sustain-able building design and operation. Thecenterpiece of this newly consolidatedprogram is Rebuild America—a programthat assists states and communities indeveloping and implementing environ-mentally and economically sound activ-ities through smarter energy use. Theprogram provides one-stop shoppingfor information and assistance on howto plan, finance, implement, and man-age retrofit projects to improve energyefficiency. As of May 2001, RebuildAmerica formed 340 partnerships com-mitted to performing energy retrofits,which are complete or underway onapproximately 550 million square feetof building space in the 50 states andtwo U.S. territories.

Residential Building Integration:Building America

This program represents the consoli-dation of a number of initiatives. Itworks with industry to jointly fund,develop, demonstrate, and deploy hous-ing that integrates energy-efficiencytechnologies and practices. The EnergyPartnerships for Affordable Housing consoli-dates the formerly separate systemsengineering programs of Building America,Industrialized Housing, Passive Solar Buildings,Indoor Air Quality, and existing buildingresearch into a comprehensive program.Systems integration research and devel-opment activities analyze building com-

ponents and systems and integrate themso that the overall building performanceis greater than the sum of its parts. Build-ing America is a private–public partner-ship that provides energy solutions forproduction housing and combines theknowledge and resources of industryleaders with DOE’s technical capabili-ties to act as a catalyst for change in thehome building industry.

ENERGY STAR®-Labeled ProductsThe strategy of this program has

evolved substantially since the last CAR,not only with the addition of new prod-ucts to the ENERGY STAR® family, but alsowith expanded outreach to consumers inpartnership with their local utility orsimilar organization. The ENERGY STAR®

label has been expanded to more than 30 product categories and, as recom-mended in the President’s National EnergyPolicy, EPA and DOE are currently work-ing to expand the program to additionalproducts and appliances. ENERGY STAR®

works in partnership with utilities repre-senting about 50 percent of U.S. energycustomers. The ENERGY STAR® label isnow recognized by more than 40 per-cent of U.S. consumers, who have pur-chased over 600 million ENERGY STAR®

products. Due to the increased penetra-tion of these energy-efficient products,EPA estimates that 33 Tg CO2 Eq. ofemissions were avoided in 2000 andprojects that 75 Tg CO2 Eq. will bereduced in 2010.

Building Equipment, Materials, and Tools

This program conducts R&D onbuilding components and design toolsand issues standards and test proce-dures for a variety of appliances andequipment. Sample building compo-nents that increase the energy effi-ciency of buildings and improvebuilding performance include innova-tive lighting, advanced space condi-tioning and refrigeration, and fuel cells.The program also conducts R&D onbuilding envelope technologies, such asadvanced windows, coatings, and insu-lation. It is improving analytical toolsthat effectively integrate all elements

affecting building energy use and helpbuilding designers, owners, and opera-tors develop the best design strategiesfor new and existing buildings.

Additional Policies and MeasuresAdditional ongoing policies and

measures in the residential and com-mercial sector include Residential Appli-ance Standards; State and CommunityAssistance (State Energy Program, Weather-ization Assistance Program, CommunityEnergy Grants, Information Outreach); HeatIsland Reduction Initiative; and EconomicIncentives/Tax Credits. Appendix B pro-vides detailed descriptions of policiesand measures.

Two policies and measures listed asnew initiatives in the 1997 CAR nolonger appear as separate programs.Expand Markets for Next-Generation LightingProducts and Construction of Energy-EfficientBuildings have been incorporated intoother existing climate programs atDOE and EPA.

Energy: IndustrialAbout 27 percent of U.S. CO2 emis-

sions result from industrial activities.The primary source of these emissionsis the burning of carbon-based fuels,either on site in manufacturing plants orthrough the purchase of generated elec-tricity. Many manufacturing processesuse more energy than is necessary. Thefollowing programs help to improveindustrial productivity by loweringenergy costs, providing innovativemanufacturing methods, and reducingwaste and emissions.

Industries of the FutureThis program continues to work in

partnership with the nation’s mostenergy-intensive industries, enhancingtheir long-term competitiveness andaccelerating research, development,and deployment of technologies thatincrease energy and resource efficiency.Led by DOE, the program’s strategy isbeing implemented in nine energy- andwaste-intensive industries. Two key ele-ments of the strategy include: (1) anindustry-driven report outlining eachindustry’s vision for the future, and (2) a


energy, wind power, geothermal energy,hydropower, bioenergy, and hydrogenfuels, as well as traditional nonemittingsources, such as nuclear energy. DOE’sdevelopment programs have been verysuccessful in reducing technology imple-mentation costs. The cost of producingphotovoltaic modules has decreased by50 percent since 1991, and the cost ofwind power has decreased by 85 percentsince 1980. Commercial success hasbeen achieved for both of these areas incertain applications.

Renewable EnergyCommercialization

This program consists of several pro-grams to develop clean, competitiverenewable energy technologies, includ-ing wind, solar, geothermal, and bio-mass. Renewable technologies usenaturally occurring energy sources toproduce electricity, heat, fuel, or a com-bination of these energy types. Theprogram also works to achieve taxincentives for renewable energy pro-duction and use. Some individual high-lights follow.

Wind Energy. Use of wind energy isgrowing rapidly. Technologies underdevelopment by DOE and its partnerscan enable a twenty-fold or moreexpansion of usable wind resources andmake wind energy viable without feder-al incentives. DOE will continue devel-oping next-generation wind turbinesable to produce power at 3.0 cents perkilowatt-hour in good wind regions,with the goal of having such turbinescommercially available from U.S. man-ufacturers in 2004.

Solar Energy. Over the past 20 years,federal R&D has resulted in an 80 per-cent cost reduction in solar photo-voltaics.

Geothermal Energy. The Annual EnergyOutlook 2002 estimates geothermal ener-gy will provide 5,300 megawatts ofgenerating capacity by 2020 (U.S.DOE 2001a). However, geothermalcould provide 25,000–50,000 mega-watts from currently identified

technology roadmap to identify thetechnologies that will be needed toreach that industry’s goals.

Best Practices ProgramThis program offers industry the

tools to improve plant energy effi-ciency, enhance environmental per-formance, and increase productivity.Selected best-of-class large demonstra-tion plants are showcased across thecountry, while other program activitiesencourage the replication of those bestpractices in still greater numbers oflarge plants.

ENERGY STAR® for IndustryThis new initiative integrates and

builds upon the Climate Wise program andoffers a more comprehensive partnershipfor industrial companies. ENERGY STAR®

will enable industrial companies to eval-uate and cost-effectively reduce theirenergy use. Through established energyperformance benchmarks, strategies forimproving energy performance, techni-cal assistance, and recognition foraccomplishing reductions in energy, thepartnership will contribute to a reduc-tion in energy use for the U.S. industrialsector. EPA estimates that awarenessfocused by Climate Wise reduced emis-sions by 11 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000, andprojects that ENERGY STAR®’s industrialpartnerships will provide 16 Tg CO2 Eq.reductions in 2010.


measures in the industrial sector includeIndustrial Assessment Centers, Enabling Tech-nologies, and Financial Assistance: NICE3.Appendix B provides detailed descrip-tions of policies and measures.

Energy: SupplyElectricity generation is responsible

for about 41 percent of CO2 emissionsin the United States. Federal programspromote greenhouse gas reductionsthrough the development of cleaner,more efficient technologies for electric-ity generation and transmission. TheU.S. government is also supportingrenewable resources, such as solar

hydrothermal resources if the technolo-gy existed to develop those resources ata reasonable cost. DOE’s R&D programis working in partnership with U.S.industry to establish geothermal energyas an economically competitive con-tributor to the U.S. energy supply.

Biopower. DOE is testing and demon-strating biomass co-firing with coal,developing advanced technologies forbiomass gasification, developing anddemonstrating small modular systems,and developing and testing high-yield,low-cost biomass feedstocks.

Climate ChallengeThis program is a joint, voluntary

effort of the electric utility industry andDOE to reduce, avoid, or sequestergreenhouse gases. Established as aFoundation Action under the 1993 Cli-mate Change Action Plan, electric utilitiesdeveloped Participation Accords withDOE to identify and implement cost-effective activities (EOP 1993). Theprogram has now grown to include par-ticipation by over 650 utilities account-ing for more than 70 percent of thesector’s MWh production and CO2emissions. The Bush Administrationand its industry partners are now con-sidering successor efforts, buildingupon the experience and learninggained in the this program and inrelated industry-wide efforts.

Distributed Energy ResourcesDistributed energy resources (DER)

describe a variety of smaller electricity-generating options well suited for place-ment in homes, offices, and factories ornear these facilities. The programfocuses on technology development andthe elimination of regulatory and institu-tional barriers to the use of DER, includ-ing interconnection to the utility gridand environmental siting and permit-ting. Distributed systems include com-bined cooling, heating, and powersystems; biomass-based generators;combustion turbines; concentratingsolar power and photovoltaic systems;fuel cells; microturbines; engines/genera-tor sets; and wind turbine storage and


control technologies. The program part-ners with industry to apply a wide arrayof technologies and integration strate-gies for on-site use, as well as for grid-enhancing systems. Successfuldeployment of DER technologies affectsthe industrial, commercial, institutional,and residential sectors of the U.S. econ-omy—in effect, all aspects of the energyvalue chain.

High-TemperatureSuperconductivity

High-temperature superconductorsconduct electricity with high efficiencywhen cooled to liquid nitrogen temper-atures. This program supports industry-led projects to capitalize on recentbreakthroughs in superconducting wiretechnology, aimed at developing suchdevices as advanced motors, powercables, and transformers. These tech-nologies would allow more electricityto reach consumers and perform usefulwork with no increase in fossil CO2emissions.

Hydrogen ProgramThis program’s mission is to advance

and support the development of cost-competitive hydrogen technologies andsystems that will reduce the environ-mental impacts of energy use andenable the penetration of renewableenergy into the U.S. energy mix. Theprogram has four strategies to carry outits objective: (1) expand the use ofhydrogen fuels in the near term byworking with industry, includinghydrogen producers, to improve effi-ciency, lower emissions, and lower thecost of technologies that producehydrogen from natural gas for distrib-uted filling stations; (2) work with fuelcell manufacturers to develop hydro-gen-based electricity storage and gen-eration systems that will enhance theintroduction and penetration of distrib-uted, renewables-based utility systems;(3) coordinate with the Department ofDefense and DOE’s Office of Trans-portation Technologies to demonstratesafe and cost-effective fueling systemsfor hydrogen vehicles in urban non-attainment areas and to provide

onboard hydrogen storage systems; and(4) work with the national laboratoriesto lower the cost of technologies thatproduce hydrogen directly from sun-light and water.

Clean Energy InitiativeThrough its new Clean Energy Initia-

tive that has resulted from the President’sNational Energy Policy, EPA is promoting avariety of technologies, practices, andpolicies with the goal of reducing green-house gas emissions associated with theenergy supply sector. The initiative has athree-pronged strategy: (1) expand mar-kets for renewable energy; (2) work withstate and local governments to developpolicies that favor clean energy; and (3)facilitate combined heat and power andother clean “distributed generation”technologies in targeted sectors. Withinthis initiative, the United States haslaunched two new partnership pro-grams––the Green Power Partnership andthe Combined Heat and Power Partnership.EPA projects these efforts will spur newinvestments that will avoid about 30 TgCO2 Eq. emissions in 2010.

Nuclear EnergyThe Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization

program is working to further improvethe efficiency and reliability of existingnuclear power plants, up to and beyondthe end of their original operatinglicenses. It works to resolve open issuesrelated to plant aging and applies newtechnologies to improve plant reliability,availability, and productivity, while main-taining high levels of safety. DOE alsosupports Next-Generation Nuclear EnergySystems through two programs: theNuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) andthe Generation IV Initiative. NERI fundssmall-scale research efforts on promisingadvanced nuclear energy system con-cepts, in areas that will promote novelnext-generation, proliferation-resistantreactor designs, advanced nuclear fueldevelopment, and fundamental nuclearscience. The Generation IV Initiative is cur-rently preparing a technology roadmapthat will set forth a plan for large-scaleresearch, development, and demonstra-tion of promising advanced reactor con-

cepts. Research and development will beconducted to increase fuel lifetime, estab-lish or improve material compatibility,improve safety performance, reduce sys-tem cost, effectively incorporate passivesafety features, enhance system reliabil-ity, and achieve a high degree of prolifer-ation resistance.

Carbon SequestrationCarbon sequestration is one of the

potentially lowest-cost approaches forreducing CO2 emissions. This DOE pro-gram develops the applied science anddemonstrates new technologies foraddressing cost-effective, ecologicallysound management of CO2 emissionsfrom the production and use of fossilfuels through capture, reuse, and seques-tration. Its goal is to make sequestrationoptions available by 2015. The pro-gram’s technical objectives includereducing the cost of carbon sequestra-tion and capture from energy productionactivities; establishing the technical,environmental, and economic feasibilityof carbon sequestration using a variety ofstorage sites and fossil energy systems;determining the environmental accept-ability of large-scale CO2 storage; anddeveloping technologies that producevaluable commodities from CO2 reuse.


measures in the energy supply sectorinclude the Hydropower Program, Interna-tional Programs, and Economic Incentives/TaxCredits. Appendix B provides detaileddescriptions of policies and measures.

The program to Promote Seasonal GasUse for the Control of Nitrogen Oxides, whichwas projected in the 1997 CAR to haveno reductions in 2010 below baselineforecasts, is no longer included. ENERGY

STAR® Transformers has been incorporatedinto ENERGY STAR®-labeled products.

TransportationCars, trucks, buses, aircraft, and

other parts of the nation’s transporta-tion system are responsible for aboutone-third of U.S. CO2 emissions. Emis-sions from transportation are growingrapidly as Americans drive more and


Smart Growth and Brownfields Policies.These programs, such as the Air-Brownfields Pilot Program, demonstrate theextent to which brownfields redevelop-ment and local land use policies canreduce the growth rate of vehicle milestraveled. EPA estimates reductions of2.7 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000 and projectsalmost 11 Tg CO2 Eq. will be avoidedin 2010 from these policies.

Ground Freight Transportation Initiative.This voluntary program is aimed atreducing emissions from the freight sec-tor through the implementation ofadvanced management practices andefficient technologies. EPA projects thisprogram will reduce emissions by 18 TgCO2 Eq. in 2010.

Clean Automotive Technology. Thisprogram includes research activities andpartnerships with the automotive indus-try to develop advanced clean, fuel-efficient automotive technology. EPA iscollaborating with its industry partnersto transfer the unique efficient hybridengine and power-train components,originally developed for passenger carapplications, to meet the more demand-ing size, performance, durability andtowing requirements of sport-utility andurban-delivery vehicle applications,while being practical and affordable withultra-low emissions and ultra-high fuelefficiency. The successful technologydevelopment under this program has laidthe foundation for cost-effective com-mercialization of high-fuel-economy/low-emission vehicles for delivery tomarket, with an aim toward putting apilot fleet of vehicles on the road by theend of the decade.

DOT Emission-Reducing InitiativesThe U.S. Department of Transporta-

tion (DOT) provides funding for andoversees transportation projects andprograms that are implemented by thestates and metropolitan areas across thecountry. Although these activities arenot designed specifically as climate

use less fuel-efficient sport-utility andother large vehicles. The United Statesis currently promoting the developmentof fuel-efficient motor vehicles andtrucks, researching options for produc-ing cleaner fuels, and implementingprograms to reduce the number of vehi-cle miles traveled. Furthermore, manycommunities are developing innovativeways to reduce congestion and trans-portation energy needs by improvinghighway designs and urban planning,and by encouraging mass transit.

FreedomCAR Research PartnershipThis new public–private partnership

with the nation’s automobile manufactur-ers promotes the development of hydro-gen as a primary fuel for cars and trucks.It will focus on the long-term researchneeded to develop hydrogen fromdomestic renewable sources and tech-nologies that utilize hydrogen, such asfuel cells. FreedomCAR replaces and buildson the Partnership for a New Generation ofVehicles (PNGV) program. The transitionof vehicles from gasoline to hydrogen isviewed as critical to reducing both CO2emissions and U.S. reliance on foreignoil. FreedomCAR will focus on technolo-gies to enable mass production of afford-able hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehiclesand the hydrogen-supply infrastructureto support them. It also will supportselected interim technologies that havethe potential to dramatically reduce oilconsumption and environmental impactsin the nearer term, and/or are applicableto fuel cell and hybrid approaches—e.g.,batteries, electronics, and motors.

Innovative Vehicle Technologiesand Alternative Fuels

DOE funds research, development,and deployment of technologies thatcan significantly alter current trends inoil consumption. Commercialization ofinnovative vehicle technologies andalternative fuels is the nation’s beststrategy for reducing its reliance on oil.These advanced technologies couldalso result in dramatic reductions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportationsector. DOE’s Vehicle Systems R&D

funds research and development for advanced power-train-technology(direct-injection) engines, hybrid-electric drive systems, advanced batter-ies, fuel cells, and lightweight materialsfor alternative fuels (including ethanolfrom biomass, natural gas, methanol,electricity, and biodiesel). The CleanCities program works to deploy alterna-tive-fuel vehicles and build supportinginfrastructure, including communitynetworks. And the Biofuels Programresearches, develops, demonstrates, andfacilitates the commercialization of biomass-based, environmentally sound,cost-competitive U.S. technologies todevelop clean fuels for transportation.

EPA Voluntary InitiativesEPA supports a number of voluntary

initiatives designed to reduce emissionsof greenhouse gases and criteria pollu-tants from the transportation sector.3

Although many of these EPA initiativesgenerally fall under broader existinginteragency transportation programs,EPA’s efforts greatly increase the adop-tion in the market of the transportationstrategies that have the potential to significantly reduce emissions of green-house gases. In addition to the initia-tives and brief descriptions that follow,EPA is working with existing programsto further reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions and criteria pollutants in areasincluding congestion mitigation, transitdemand-management strategies, andalternative transportation.

Commuter Options Programs.Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative is a

voluntary employer-adopted programthat increases commuter flexibility byexpanding mode options, using flexiblescheduling, and increasing work loca-tion choices. Parking Cash-Out offersemployees the option to receive taxableincome in lieu of free or subsidized park-ing, and Transit Check offers nontaxabletransit benefits, currently up to $100monthly. EPA estimates emission reduc-tions of 3.5 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000 andprojects reductions of 14 Tg CO2 Eq. in2010 from these and other CommuterOptions programs.

3 These initiatives replace the Transportation Partners Programs.


methane over the next few years maylead to an upward revision in the pro-jected reductions for 2010 and beyond.

HFC, PFC, SF6 EnvironmentalStewardship

The United States is one of the firstnations to develop and implement anational strategy to control emissions ofhigh-GWP gases. The strategy is a com-bination of industry partnerships andregulatory mechanisms to minimizeatmospheric releases of HFCs, PFCs andSF6, which contribute to global warm-ing, while ensuring a safe, rapid, and cost-effective transition away from chlo-rofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochloro-fluorocarbons (HCFCs), halons, andother ozone-depleting substances acrossmultiple industry sectors.

Significant New Alternatives Program.This program continued to facilitate thesmooth transition away from ozone-depleting chemicals in major industrialand consumer sectors, while minimizingrisks to human health and the environ-ment. Hundreds of alternatives deter-mined to reduce overall risks have beenlisted as substitutes for ozone-depletingchemicals. By limiting use of globalwarming gases in specific applicationswhere safe alternatives are available, theprogram reduced emissions by an esti-mated 50 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000 and isprojected to reduce emissions by 162Tg CO2 Eq. in 2010.

HFC-23 Partnership. This partnershipcontinued to encourage companies todevelop and implement technically fea-sible, cost-effective processing practicesor technologies to reduce HFC-23emissions from the manufacture ofHCFC-22. Despite a 35 percentincrease in production since 1990, EPAestimates that total emissions are below1990 levels––a reduction of 17 Tg CO2Eq., compared to business as usual. EPAprojects reductions of 27 Tg CO2 Eq.for 2010.

Partnership with Aluminum Producers.This partnership continued to reduceCF4 and C2F6 where cost-effective

and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are 100to 12,000 times more effective. In addi-tion, perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfurhexafluoride (SF6) also have extremelylong atmospheric lifetimes.

Methane and IndustryU.S. industry works in concert with

the federal government through a vari-ety of voluntary partnerships that aredirected toward eliminating market bar-riers to the profitable collection and useof methane that otherwise would bereleased to the atmosphere. Collec-tively, EPA projects these programs willhold methane emissions below 1990levels through and beyond 2010.

Natural Gas STAR. Since its launch in1993, Natural Gas STAR has been a suc-cessful means of limiting methane emis-sions. In 2000, it was expanded to theprocessing sector and included compa-nies representing 40 percent of U.S. nat-ural gas production, 72 percent oftransmission company pipeline miles, 49percent of distribution company serviceconnections, and 23 percent of process-ing throughput. EPA estimates the pro-gram reduced methane emissions by 15Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000. Because of the pro-gram’s expanded reach, EPA projects theestimated reduction for 2010 reported inthe 1997 CAR will increase from 15 to22 Tg CO2 Eq.

Coalbed Methane Outreach Program.The fraction of coal mine methane fromdegasification systems that is capturedand used grew from 25 percent in 1990to more than 85 percent in 1999. Begunin 1994, the Coalbed Methane OutreachProgram (CMOP) is working to demon-strate technologies that can eliminatethe remaining emissions from degasifi-cation systems, and is addressingmethane emissions in ventilation air.EPA estimates that CMOP reduced 7Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000. Due to unantici-pated mine closures, EPA projects thatthe program’s reduction in 2010 will bereduced slightly from that reported inthe 1997 submission, from 11 to 10 TgCO2 Eq. However, CMOP’s anticipatedsuccess in reducing ventilation air

programs, highway funds are used forprojects that may have significant ancil-lary benefits for reducing greenhouse gasemissions, such as transit and pedestrianimprovements, bikeways, ride-sharingprograms, and other transportationdemand-management projects, as well assystem improvements on the road net-work. It is very difficult to estimate theamount of greenhouse gas emissionreductions from these programs, sinceproject selection is left to the individualstates and metropolitan areas, and reduc-tions will vary among projects. Some sig-nificant DOT programs that are likely tohave ancillary greenhouse gas benefitsfollow.

Transit Programs. Funded at about $6.8billion per year, these programs willlikely reduce greenhouse gas emissionsby carrying more people per gallon offuel consumed than those driving alonein their automobiles.

Congestion Mitigation and Air QualityImprovement. This program is targetedat reducing criteria pollutants and pro-vides about $1.35 billion per year to thestates to fund new transit services, bicy-cle and pedestrian improvements, alter-native fuel projects, and traffic flowimprovements that will likely reducegreenhouse gases as well.

Additional Policies and MeasuresAppendix B describes Transportation

Enhancements, the Transportation and Com-munity System Preservation Pilot Program,and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Stan-dards. The Fuel Economy Labels for Tiresprogram, which was listed in the 1997CAR, was never implemented and is nolonger included.

Industry (Non-CO2)Although CO2 accounts for the

largest share of U.S. greenhouse gasemissions, non-CO2 greenhouse gaseshave significantly higher global warmingpotentials. For example, over a 100-yeartime horizon, methane is more than 20times more effective than CO2 at trap-ping heat in the atmosphere, nitrousoxide is about 300 times more effective,


technologies and practices are techni-cally feasible. It met its overall goal for2000, with emissions reduced by about50 percent relative to 1990 levels on anemissions per unit of product basis.EPA estimates that the partnershipreduced emissions by 8 Tg CO2 Eq. in2000 and projects reductions of 10 TgCO2 Eq. in 2010.

Environmental Stewardship Initiative.This initiative was a new action pro-posed as part of the 1997 CAR, based onnew opportunities to reduce emissions ofhigh-GWP gases. Its initial objective wasto limit emissions of HFCs, PFCs, andSF6 in three industrial applications: semi-conductor production, electric powerdistribution, and magnesium production.Additional sectors are being assessed forthe availability of cost-effective emissionreduction opportunities and are beingadded to this initiative. EPA’s currentprojections are that the programs willreduce emissions by 94 Tg CO2 Eq. in2010. Because resource constraintsdelayed implementation of the electricpower system and magnesium partner-ships, EPA’s estimate of the total 2000reduction is 3 Tg CO2 Eq. less than wasexpected in 1997.

AgricultureThe U.S. government maintains a

broad portfolio of research and out-reach programs aimed at enhancing theoverall environmental performance ofU.S. agriculture, including reducinggreenhouse gas emissions and increas-ing carbon sinks.

AgSTAR and RLEPThe U.S. government also imple-

ments programs targeting greenhousegas emissions from agriculture. Specificpractices aimed at directly reducinggreenhouse gas emissions are devel-oped, tested, and promoted throughoutreach programs. These programs,including AgSTAR and the Ruminant Live-stock Efficiency Program (RLEP), havefocused on reducing methane emis-sions. Although the overall impact ofAgSTAR and RLEP on greenhouse gas

emissions has been small on a nationalscale, program stakeholders in the agri-cultural community have demonstratedthat the practices can reduce green-house gas emissions and increase productivity. The practices being testedunder AgSTAR and RLEP can be incorporated into U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) broad conserva-tion programs.

Nutrient Management ToolsEfforts to reduce nitrous oxide emis-

sions focus on improving the efficiencyof fertilizer use. For example, in 1996USDA’s Natural Resources Conserva-tion Service began collaborating withpartners on two nutrient managementtools that can improve the efficiency offarm-level fertilizer use. The project’sgoal is to construct a database of suchinformation and make it available toproducers. These tools will enablefarmers to develop nutrient manage-ment plans and detailed crop nutrientbudgets, and to assess the impact ofmanagement practices on nitrous oxideemissions.

Conservation ProgramsSeveral conservation programs are

providing significant benefits in reduc-ing greenhouse gas emissions andincreasing carbon sequestration in agri-cultural soils.

Conservation Reserve Program. ThisUSDA program cost-effectively assistsfarm owners and operators in conservingand improving soil, water, air, andwildlife resources by removing environ-mentally sensitive land from agriculturalproduction and keeping it under long-term, resource-conserving cover.Currently, USDA estimates that the pro-gram removes 34 million acres of envi-ronmentally sensitive cropland fromproduction and generates long-termenvironmental benefits, including theoffset of about 56 Tg CO2 Eq. each year.Projections indicate that total enroll-ment in the program will reach the max-imum authorized level of slightly over36 million acres by the end of 2002.

Changing Management Practices.USDA also offers conservation pro-grams that are aimed at changing man-agement practices rather than removingland from production. For example, theEnvironmental Quality Incentive Programprovides technical, educational, andfinancial assistance to landowners whoface serious natural resource challenges.It helps producers make beneficial andcost-effective changes to cropping andgrazing systems; improve manure,nutrient, and pest management; andimplement conservation measures toimprove soil, water, and related naturalresources. Similarly, Conservation andTechnical Assistance supports locally led,voluntary conservation through uniquepartnerships. The program providestechnical assistance to farmers for plan-ning and implementing soil- and water-conservation practices.

Conservation Compliance Plans. Inaddition to direct assistance programs,USDA farm program “conservationcompliance” eligibility policy protectsexisting wetlands on agricultural landand requires that excess erosion onhighly erodible agricultural land becontrolled through implementation of aconservation plan. The ancillary bene-fits of this policy to greenhouse gasmitigation include increased soil carbonsequestration on working agriculturalland and preservation of soil carbonassociated with wetlands.

Bio-based Products and BioenergyThe goal of this USDA–DOE col-

laborative research program is to triplethe nation’s use of bio-based productsand bioenergy. One of the objectives isto use renewable agricultural andforestry biomass for a range of prod-ucts, including biofuels, as an offset toCO2 emissions.

Additional Policies and MeasuresAppendix B describes two additional

programs: the USDA Commodity CreditCorporation’s Bioenergy Program and theConservation Reserve Program Biomass Project.


The array of conservation issues has grown with changes in the structure of agricultureand in farm and forest management practices, and with greater public concern about a

wider range of issues, including greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration, andenergy production and conservation. The agriculture and forestry sectors have beenresponsive to this concern, and progress has been made in each of these areas.

Today, U.S. forests and forest products are sequestering a significant quantity of carbonevery year, equivalent to roughly 15 percent of overall U.S. emissions. Carbon sequestra-tion in agricultural soils is offsetting an additional 2 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emis-sions. Given appropriate economic incentives, much of the vast landscape managed byfarmers and forest landowners could be managed to store additional carbon, produce bio-mass and biofuels to replace fossil fuels, and reduce energy use. The challenge is to iden-tify and implement low-cost opportunities to increase carbon storage in soils, providelow-cost tools for enhanced farm and forest management, and ensure that the productionof energy raw materials is environmentally beneficial. Realizing these opportunities willtake a number of efforts, including an adequate system for measuring the carbon storageand greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and forests.

For more information about the Administration’s effort to formulate a longer-term view ofthe nation’s agriculture and food system, see Food and Agricultural Policy: Taking Stock forthe New Century, which is available at www.usda.gov (USDA/NRCS 2001).

Agr icu l tu re and Forest ry : Oppor tun i t ies and Cha l lenges

ForestryThe U.S. government supports

efforts to sequester carbon in bothforests and harvested wood products tominimize unintended carbon emissionsfrom forests by reducing the cata-strophic risk of wildfires.

Forest StewardshipUSDA’s Forest Stewardship Program and

Stewardship Incentive Program provide tech-nical and financial assistance to non-industrial, private forest owners. About147 million hectares (363 million acres)of U.S. forests are nonindustrial, privateforestlands and provide many ecologi-cal and economic benefits and values.These forests provide about 60 percentof our nation’s timber supply, withincreases expected in the future. Theacceleration of tree planting on nonin-dustrial, private forestlands and mar-ginal agricultural lands can help meetresource needs and provide importantancillary benefits that improve environ-mental quality—e.g., wildlife habitat,soil conservation, water quality protec-tion and improvement, and recreation.Additionally, tree planting and forestmanagement increase the uptake ofCO2 and the storage of carbon in livingbiomass, soils, litter, and long-life woodproducts. Both programs are managed

by USDA’s Forest Service in coopera-tion with state forestry agencies.

National Fire PlanThe recently completed National

Fire Plan will improve fire managementon forested lands, especially in thewestern parts of the United States. Theeffort is designed to foster a proactive,collaborative, and community-basedapproach to reducing risks from wildland fires, using hazardous fuelsreduction, integrated vegetation man-agement, and traditional firefightingstrategies. While the initiative recog-nizes that fire is part of natural ecosys-tems, it will have long-term benefits inreducing greenhouse gas emissionsbecause the risks of catastrophic forestfires will be lower. In addition, the ini-tiative will generate a great volume ofsmall-diameter, woody materials as partof hazardous fuel-reduction activities.Some of these materials have the poten-tial to be used for biomass electricpower and composite structural build-ing products.

Waste ManagementThe U.S. government’s waste man-

agement programs work to reducemunicipal solid waste and greenhousegas emissions through energy savings,

increased carbon sequestration, andavoided methane emissions from land-fill gas––the largest contributor to U.S.anthropogenic methane emissions.

Climate and Waste ProgramThis program was introduced to

encourage recycling and source reduc-tion for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. EPA is imple-menting a number of targeted effortswithin this program to achieve its goals.WasteWise continues to work with organ-izations to reduce solid waste. New ini-tiatives, including extended productresponsibility and biomass waste, furtherwaste reduction efforts through volun-tary or negotiated agreements withproduct manufacturers, and marketdevelopment activities for recycled-con-tent and bio-based products. Since thelast CAR, the Pay-As-You-Throw Initiativewas launched to provide information andeducation on community-based pro-grams that provide cost incentives forresidential waste reduction. EPA is alsocontinuing to conduct supporting out-reach, technical assistance, and researchefforts on the linkages between climatechange and waste management to com-plement these activities. Reductions in2000 are estimated by EPA at 8 Tg CO2Eq. and are projected to increase to 20Tg CO2 Eq. in 2010.

Stringent Landfill RulePromulgated under the Clean Air

Act in March 1996, the New SourcePerformance Standards and EmissionsGuidelines (Landfill Rule) require largelandfills to capture and combust theirlandfill gas emissions. Since the lastCAR, implementation of the rule beganat the state level in 1998. Preliminarydata on the rule’s impact indicate thatincreasing its stringency has signifi-cantly increased the number of landfillsthat must collect and combust theirlandfill gas. Methane reductions in2000 are estimated by EPA at 15 TgCO2 Eq. The current EPA projectionfor 2010 is 33 Tg CO2 Eq., althoughthe preliminary data suggest that reduc-tions from the more stringent rule maybe even greater over the next decade.


More comprehensive data will be avail-able by the next CAR submission.

Landfill Methane Outreach Program

This program continues to encouragelandfills not regulated by the Landfill Ruleto capture and use their landfill gas emis-sions. Capturing and using landfill gasreduces methane emissions directly andreduces CO2 emissions indirectlythrough the utilization of landfill gas asa source of energy, thereby displacingthe use of fossil fuels. Since the lastCAR, the Landfill Methane Outreach Program(LMOP) continues to work with landfillowners, state energy and environmentalagencies, utilities and other energy sup-pliers, industry, and other stakeholdersto lower the barriers to landfill gas-to-energy projects. LMOP has developed arange of tools to help landfill operatorsovercome barriers to project develop-ment, including feasibility analyses, soft-ware for evaluation project economics,profiles of hundreds of candidate land-fills across the country, a project devel-opment handbook, and energy end useranalyses. Due to these efforts, the num-ber of landfill gas-to-energy projects hasgrown from less than 100 in the early1990s to almost 320 projects by the endof 2000. EPA estimates that LMOPreduced greenhouse gas emissions fromlandfills by about 11 Tg CO2 Eq. in2000 and projects reductions of 22 TgCO2 Eq. in 2010.

Cross-sectoralThe federal government has taken

the lead to reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions from energy use in federal build-ings and transportation fleets by:• requiring federal agencies, through

Executive Order 13221, to purchaseproducts that use no more than onewatt in standby mode;

• directing the heads of executivedepartments and agencies to takeappropriate actions to conserveenergy use at their facilities, reviewexisting operating and administrativeprocesses and conservation pro-grams, and identify and implementways to reduce energy use;

• requiring all federal agencies to takesteps to cut greenhouse gas emis-sions from energy use in buildingsby 30 percent below 1990 levels by2010;

• directing federal agencies in Wash-ington, D.C., to offer their employ-ees up to $100 a month in transitand van pool benefits; and

• requiring federal agencies to imple-ment strategies to reduce their fleets’annual petroleum consumption by20 percent relative to 1990 con-sumption levels and to use alterna-tive fuels a majority of the time.

Federal Energy Management Program

This program reduces energy use infederal buildings, facilities, and opera-tions by advancing energy efficiencyand water conservation, promoting theuse of renewable energy, and managingutility choices of federal agencies. Theprogram accomplishes its mission byleveraging both federal and privateresources to provide federal agenciesthe technical and financial assistancethey need to achieve their goals.

State and Local Climate Change Outreach Program

This EPA program continues to pro-vide technical and financial assistance tostates and localities to conduct green-house gas inventories, to develop stateand city action plans to reduce green-house gas emissions, to study the impactsof climate change, and to demonstrateinnovative mitigation policies or out-reach programs. New or developingprojects include estimates of forest car-bon storage for each state, a spreadsheettool to facilitate state inventory updates,a software tool to examine the air qualitybenefits of greenhouse gas mitigation, astudy of the health benefits of green-house gas mitigation, and a workinggroup on voluntary state greenhouse gasregistries. To date, 41 states and PuertoRico have initiated or completed inven-tories, and 27 states and Puerto Rico havecompleted or are developing actionplans. While the program’s primary pur-pose is to build climate change capacity

and expertise at the state and local levels,EPA estimates that the program reducedgreenhouse gas emissions by about 6 TgCO2 Eq. in 2000.

NONFEDERAL POLICIES AND MEASURES

All federal climate initiatives are con-ducted in cooperation with private-sec-tor parties. The private sector’s support isessential for the success of emissionreduction policies. Businesses, state andlocal governments, and NGOs are alsomoving forward to address global cli-mate change––through programs toimprove the measurement and reportingof emission reductions; through volun-tary programs, including emissions trad-ing programs; and through sequestrationprograms.

State InitiativesIn 2000, the National Governors

Association reaffirmed its position onglobal climate change policy. At thedomestic level, the governors recom-mended that the federal governmentcontinue its climate research, includingregional climate research, to improvescientific understanding of global cli-mate change. The governors also rec-ommended taking steps that arecost-effective and offer other social andeconomic benefits beyond reducinggreenhouse gas emissions. In particular,the governors supported voluntary part-nerships to reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions while achieving other economicand environmental goals.

NEG-ECP 2001 Climate Change Action Plan

The New England Governors andEastern Canadian Premiers (NEG–ECP)adopted a Resolution accepting thegoals of the NEG–ECP 2001 ClimateChange Action Plan. The plan sets anoverall goal for reducing greenhousegases in New England States and East-ern Canadian Provinces to 1990 emis-sion levels by 2010, and to 10 percentbelow 1990 emissions by 2020. Theplan’s long-term goal is to reduceregional greenhouse gas emissions suffi-ciently to eliminate any dangerous


threat to the climate (75–85 percentbelow current levels).

Massachusetts Regulation ofElectric Utility Emissions

In April 2001, the governor of Massa-chusetts released a regulation requiringadditional controls on Massachusettselectric utility sources, making the statethe first in the nation to adopt bindingreduction requirements for CO2. Thenew regulation sets a cap on total emis-sions and creates an emission standardthat will require CO2 reductions ofabout 10 percent below the current aver-age emission rate. The regulation allowscompanies to buy carbon credits to meettheir reduction requirements.

New York and Maryland Executive Orders

The governors of New York andMaryland issued Executive Ordersrequiring state facilities to: (1) purchase apercentage of energy from greensources; (2) evaluate energy efficiency instate building design and maintenance;and (3) purchase ENERGY STAR®-labeledproducts when available. Both states aredeveloping comprehensive action plansto reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

New Jersey Executive OrderThe State of New Jersey issued an

Executive Order to reduce the state’sannual greenhouse gas emissions to 3.5percent below 1990 levels by 2005,using “no regrets” measures that are read-ily available and that pay for themselveswithin the short term. The potentialemission reductions are based on policiesand technologies identified in the NewJersey Sustainability Greenhouse Gas ActionPlan (NJ 2000). Approximately two-thirds of the reductions will be achievedthrough energy efficiency and innova-tive energy technologies in residential,commercial, and industrial buildings.The remainder will come from energyconservation and innovative technolo-gies in the transportation sector, wastemanagement improvements, and naturalresource conservation.

Other State InitiativesCalifornia, Maine, New Hampshire,

New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Texas aredeveloping voluntary registries for greenhousegas emissions. In addition, 12 states haveestablished renewable portfolio standards,and 19 out of 24 states have includedpublic benefit charges (also called system benefit charges) as a component of theirelectricity restructuring policy to sup-port continued investment in energyefficiency and renewable energy.Approximately $11 billion, for theperiod 1998–2012, is expected to beavailable nationwide through publicbenefit fund programs. Greenhouse gasemission inventories have been completedin 37 states, with four more in progress;and 19 states completed action plans toreduce greenhouse gas emissions, with8 more in progress.

Local InitiativesA total of 110 U.S. cities and coun-

ties, representing nearly 44 million people, are participating in the Interna-tional Council for Local EnvironmentalInitiatives’ Cities for Climate Protection Cam-paign. This program offers training andtechnical assistance to cities, towns, andcounties for projects focusing on reduc-ing emissions. Actions implementedthrough the campaign are reducingemissions by over 7 Tg CO2 Eq. eachyear. Also, in June 2000, the U.S. Con-ference of Mayors passed a resolutionrecognizing the seriousness of globalwarming and calling for increased coop-eration between cities and the federalgovernment in taking action to addressthe challenge.

Private-Sector and NGO Initiatives

Following are some highlights of private-sector and NGO efforts that aredemonstrative of leadership by example.

Green Power Market Development Group

In May 2000 a number of privatecorporations not directly involvedwith the electric utility industry organ-ized the Green Power Market Development

Group to support the development ofgreen U.S. energy markets. Together,the Group’s 11 members—Alcoa,Cargill-Dow, Delphi, DuPont, GeneralMotors, IBM, Interface, Johnson &Johnson, Kinko’s, Oracle, and PitneyBowes—account for about 7 percent ofU.S. industrial energy use. They areworking with the World ResourcesInstitute and Business for SocialResponsibility to purchase 1,000megawatts of new green energy capac-ity and otherwise provide support tothe development of green energy mar-kets. The Group believes that suchmarkets are essential to provide com-petitively priced energy that also pro-tects the Earth’s climate and reducesconventional air pollutants. The mem-bers are exploring a variety of greenenergy purchase opportunities to iden-tify those that are cost-competitive.This is a long-term process, with com-panies hoping to support market devel-opment over a 10-year period.

Business Environmental Leadership Council

The U.S. business community, manytimes in partnership with environmentalNGOs, is moving forward on climatechange in many other ways. For exam-ple, the Pew Center on Climate Changelaunched a $5 million campaign in 1998to build support for taking action onclimate change. Boeing, DuPont, Shell,Weyerhaeuser, and 32 other major cor-porations joined the Center’s BusinessEnvironmental Leadership Council, agreeingthat “enough is known about the sci-ence and environmental impacts of cli-mate change for us to take actions toaddress its consequences.”

Climate SaversJohnson & Johnson, IBM, Polaroid,

and Nike have joined this new partner-ship to help business voluntarily lowerenergy consumption and reduce green-house gas emissions. In joining ClimateSavers, partners make specific commit-ments to reduce their emissions andparticipate in an independent verifica-tion process.


Partnership for Climate ActionSeven companies, including BP,

DuPont, and Shell International joinedEnvironmental Defense in the creationof the Partnership for Climate Action. Eachcompany has set a firm target for green-house gas reductions and has agreed tomeasure and publicly report its emis-sions.

Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases

Under this program, provided bysection 1605(b) of the Energy PolicyAct of 1992, more than 200 companieshave voluntarily reported to DOE morethan 1,715 voluntary projects toreduce, avoid, or sequester greenhousegas emissions.

Auto Manufacturers’ InitiativesU.S. auto manufacturers have an-

nounced production plans for hybridgas and electric vehicles in 2003 or2004 and have pledged to increase theirsport-utility vehicles’ fuel economy by25 percent by 2005.


TABLE 4-1 Summary of Act ions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions

EstimatedMitigation

Name of Policy Objective and/or Activity Affected GHG Type of Status Implementing Impact for 2000or Measure Affected Instrument Entity/Entities (Tg CO2 Eq.)

ENERGY STAR® for theCommercial Market

Commercial BuildingsIntegration: UpdatingState Buildings Codes;Partnerships forCommercial Buildingsand Facilities

ENERGY STAR® for theResidential Market

Community EnergyProgram: RebuildAmerica

Residential BuildingIntegration: BuildingAmerica

ENERGY STAR®-LabeledProducts

Building Equipment,Materials, and Tools:Superwindow Collaborative; LightingPartnerships; Partner-ships for CommercialBuildings and Facilities; Collaborative Researchand Development

Residential ApplianceStandards

State and CommunityAssistance: State EnergyProgram; WeatherizationAssistance Program;Community EnergyGrants; InformationOutreach

Heat Island ReductionInitiative

Economic Incentives/Tax Credits

Promotes the improvement of energyperformance in commercial buildings.

Realizes energy-saving opportunitiesprovided by whole-building approachduring construction and majorrenovation of existing commercialbuildings.

Promotes the improvement of energyperformance in residential buildingsbeyond the labeling of products.

Helps communities, towns and citiessave energy, create jobs, promotegrowth, and protect the environmentthrough improved energy efficiency andsustainable building design andoperation.

Funds, develops, demonstrates, anddeploys housing that integrates energy-efficiency technologies and practices.

Label distinguishes energy-efficientproducts in the marketplace.

Conducts R&D on building componentsand design tools and issues standardsand test procedures for a variety ofappliances and equipment.

Reviews and updates efficiencystandards for most major householdappliances.

Provides funding for state andcommunities to provide local energy-efficiency programs, including servicesto low-income families; to implementsustainable building design andoperation; and to adopt a systematicapproach to marketing andcommunication objectives.

Reverses the effects of urban heatislands by encouraging the use ofmitigation strategies.

Provides tax credits to residential solarenergy systems.

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

Voluntary

Research,regulatory

Voluntary,outreach

Voluntary,information,education

Voluntary,research,education

Voluntary,outreach

Information,research

Regulatory

Economic,information

Voluntary,information,

research

Economic

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Proposed

EPA

DOE

EPA

DOE

DOE

EPA/DOE

DOE

DOE

DOE

EPA

56.8ENERGY: COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL


TABLE 4-1 (cont inued) Summary of Act ions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions

EstimatedMitigation


ENERGY: INDUSTRIAL

Industries of the Future

Best Practices Program

ENERGY STAR® for Industry(Climate Wise)

Industrial AssessmentCenters

Enabling Technologies

Financial Assistance:NICE3

Helps nine key energy-intensiveindustries reduce their energy con-sumption while remaining competitiveand economically strong.

Offers industry tools to improve plantenergy efficiency, enhance environ-mental performance, and increaseproductivity.

Enables industrial companies toevaluate and cost-effectively reducetheir energy use.

Assesses and provides recommen-dations to manufacturers in identifyingopportunities to improve productivity,reduce waste, and save energy.

Addresses the critical technologychallenges partners face for developingmaterials and production processes.

Provides funding to state and industrypartnerships for projects that developand demonstrate advances in energyefficiency and clean productiontechnologies.

All

All

CO2

All

All

All

Voluntary,information


Voluntary



Research

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

DOE

DOE

EPA

DOE

DOE

DOE

27.9

ENERGY: SUPPLY

Renewable EnergyCommercialization: Wind;Solar; Geothermal;Biopower

Climate Challenge

Distributed EnergyResources (DER)

High-TemperatureSuperconductivity

Hydrogen Program

Develops clean, competitive powertechnologies using renewableresources.

Promotes efforts to reduce, avoid, orsequester greenhouse gases from elec-tric utilities.

Focuses on technology developmentand the elimination of regulatory andinstitutional barriers to the use of DER.

Advances R&D of high-temperaturesuperconducting power equipment forenergy transmission, distribution, andindustrial use.

Enhances and supports the develop-ment of cost-competitive hydrogentechnologies and systems to reduce theenvironmental impacts of their use.

All

All

All

All

All

Research,regulatory

Voluntary

Information,research,education,regulatory

Research

Research,education

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

DOE

DOE

DOE

DOE

DOE

14.7



EstimatedMitigation


Removes market barriers to increasedpenetration of cleaner, more efficientenergy supply.

Recognizes the importance of existingnuclear plants in reducing greenhousegas emissions.

Supports research, development, anddemonstration of an advanced nuclearenergy system concept.

Ensures the availability of near-termnuclear energy options that can be inoperation in the U.S. by 2010.

Develops new technologies foraddressing cost-effective managementof CO2 emissions from the productionand use of fossil fuels.

Improves the technical, societal, andenvironmental benefits of hydropower.

Accelerates the international develop-ment and deployment of clean energytechnologies.

Provides tax credits to electricity gen-erated from wind- and biomass-basedgenerators.

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

All

All

CO2

Voluntary,education,technical

assistance

Information,technical

assistance

Research,technical

assistance

Information

Research


Information,technical

assistance

Economic

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Proposed

EPA

DOE

DOE

DOE

DOE

DOE

DOE

Clean Energy Initiative:Green Power Partner-ship; Combined Heat andPower Partnership

Nuclear Energy PlantOptimization

Development of Next-Generation NuclearEnergy Systems: NuclearEnergy ResearchInitiative; Generation IVInitiative

Support Deployment ofNew Nuclear PowerPlants in the United States

Carbon Sequestration

Hydropower Program

International Programs




EstimatedMitigation


TRANSPORTATION

FreedomCAR ResearchPartnership

Vehicle Systems R&D

Clean Cities

Biofuels Program

Commuter OptionsPrograms

Smart Growth andBrownfields Policies

Ground FreightTransportation Initiative

Clean AutomotiveTechnology

DOT Emission-ReducingInitiatives

Promotes the development of hydrogenas a primary fuel for cars and trucks.

Promotes the development of cleaner,more efficient passenger vehicles.

Supports public–private partnerships todeploy alternative-fuel vehicles andbuilds supporting infrastructure, includ-ing community networks.

Researches, develops, demonstrates,and facilitates the commercialization ofbiomass-based, environmentally soundfuels for transportation.

Reduces single-occupant-vehicle com-muting by providing incentives andalternative modes, timing, and locationsfor work.

Reduces motorized trips and tripdistance by promoting more efficientlocation choice.

Increases efficient management prac-tices for ground freight.

Develops advanced clean and fuel-efficient automotive technology.

Provides funding mechanisms foralternative modes to personalmotorized vehicles.

CO2

CO2

All

All

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

Research,information

Research,information



Voluntaryagreements,

tax incen-tives, infor-

mation,education,outreach

Technicalassistance,

outreach

Voluntary/negotiated

agreements

Voluntary,research

Fundingmechanisms

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Adopted

Implemented

Implemented

DOE

DOE

DOE

DOE

EPA/DOT

EPA

EPA

EPA

DOT

8.4

Name of Policy Objective and/or Activity Affected GHG Type of Status Implementing` Estimatedor Measure Affected Instrument Entity/Entities Mitigation

Impact for 2000(Tg CO2 Eq.)



INDUSTRY (NON-CO2)

Natural Gas STAR

Program

Coalbed MethaneOutreach Program

Significant NewAlternatives Program

HFC-23 Partnership

Partnership withAluminum Producers

EnvironmentalStewardship Initiative

AGRICULTURE

Agricultural OutreachPrograms: AgSTAR; RLEP

Nutrient ManagementTools

USDA CCC BioenergyProgram

Conservation ReserveProgram: BiomassProject

FORESTRY

Forest Stewardship

Reduces methane emissions from U.S.natural gas systems through the wide-spread adoption of industry best man-agement practices.

Reduces methane emissions from U.S.coal mining operations through cost-effective means.

Facilitates smooth transition away fromozone-depleting chemicals in industrialand consumer sectors.

Encourages reduction of HFC-23 emis-sions through cost-effective practicesor technologies.

Encourages reduction of CF4 and C2F6where technically feasible and cost-effective.

Limits emissions of HFCs, PFCs, and SF6in industrial applications.

Promotes practices to reduce GHGemissions at U.S. farms.

Aims to reduce nitrous oxide emissionsthrough improving by efficiency of fertil-izer nitrogen.

Encourages bioenergy productionthrough economic incentives to com-modity producers.

Encourages land-use changes toincrease the amount of feedstock avail-able for biomass projects.

Sequesters carbon in trees, forest soils,forest litter, and understudy plants.

CH4

CH4

HighGWP

HighGWP

PFCs

HighGWP

CH4

N2O

CO2

CO2N20

CO2

Voluntaryagreement

Information,education,outreach

Regulatory,information

Voluntaryagreement

Voluntaryagreement

Voluntaryagreement

Information,education,outreach

Technicalassistance,information

Economic

Economic

Technical/financial

assistance

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented(pilot phase)

Implemented

EPA

EPA

EPA

EPA

EPA

EPA

EPA/USDA

EPA/USDA

USDA

USDA

USDA

88.7



Name of Policy Objective and/or Activity Affected GHG Type of Status Implementing` Estimatedor Measure Affected Instrument Entity/Entities Mitigation

Impact for 2000(Tg CO2 Eq.)

Encourages recycling, source reduc-tion, and other progressive integratedwaste management activities to reduceGHG emissions.

Reduces methane/landfill gas emissionsfrom U.S. landfills.

Reduces methane emissions from U.S.landfills through cost-effective means.

Promotes energy efficiency and renew-able energy use in federal buildings,facilities, and operations.

Assists key state and local decisionmakers in maintaining and improvingeconomic and environmental assetsgiven climate change.

All

CH4

CH4

All

All

Voluntaryagreements,

technicalassistance,information,

research

Regulatory

Voluntaryagreements,information,education,outreach

Economic,information,education

Information,education,research

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

EPA

EPA

EPA

DOE

EPA

39.2

6.2

241.9

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Climate and WasteProgram

Stringent Landfill Rule

Landfill MethaneOutreach Program

CROSS-SECTORAL

Federal EnergyManagement Program

State and Local ClimateChange OutreachProgram

TOTAL

Chapter 5 ProjectedGreenhouseGas Emissions

This chapter provides estimates fornational emissions under many ofthe implemented policies and

measures for reducing emissionsthrough technology improvements anddissemination, demand-side efficiencygains of many specific types, more effi-cient regulatory procedures, and shiftsto cleaner fuels. The anticipated expan-sion of the U.S. economy under theimpetus of population and outputgrowth at projected rates contributes torising greenhouse gas emissions. Theseemissions are partly offset by reduc-tions from ongoing efforts to decreaseenergy use and from implemented poli-cies and measures. Even with projectedgrowth in absolute emissions, there arenear-term and continuing reductions inemissions per unit of gross domesticproduct (GDP). These projections donot include the impact of the President’sclimate change initiative announced inFebruary 2002, nor do they include theeffects of policies in the National Energy

Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions ■ 71

Policy that have not yet been imple-mented (NEPD Group 2001).

THE NEMS MODEL AND POLICIES COVERAGE

The U.S. Department of Energy’s(DOE’s) Annual Energy Outlook 2002(AEO 2002) presents mid-term fore-casts of energy supply, demand, andprices through 2020 based on resultsfrom the Energy Information Adminis-tration’s National Energy ModelingSystem (NEMS) (U.S. DOE/EIA2001a). This integrated model looks atall determinants of carbon emissionssimultaneously, accounting for interac-tion and feedback effects. But in somecases, it uses assumptions about diffu-sion and adoption rates that are differ-ent from the assumptions used for theindependent policies and measures esti-mates in Chapter 4 of this report.

The NEMS uses a market-basedapproach that balances supply anddemand with price competition betweenfuels and sectors. It is a comprehensive,but simplified, representation of theenergy economy. Rather than explicitlyincluding and replicating every transac-tion, the NEMS measures aggregateimpacts using empirically developed sta-tistical proxies. Its strength lies in theconsistency it brings in representing andaccounting for the large number of con-current, interrelated, and competingenergy transactions, investment transac-tions, and production and consumptiondecisions that occur in the nationalenergy sector.

The AEO 2002 projections arebased on the assumption that the trendin funding levels for policies continuesto follow historical patterns. Policies orprograms adopted since July 2001—such as the Green Power Partnership,the Combined Heat and Power Part-nership, and the Ground Freight Trans-portation Initiative—are not includedin these emission estimates. The meth-ods used to create the projections areregularly updated as new informationand methods emerge. However, there isa time lag in the representation of thefuture effects of some of the adoptedmeasures when using an economic

model based on history, such as theNEMS. Consequently, actual growth inenergy use and emissions may be differ-ent from the projected levels, and theAEO 2002 projections should not beinterpreted as reflecting the ultimateimpact of policies and measures overthe 20-year horizon.

The reported impacts of the individ-ual policies and measures in Chapter 4 ofthis report are based on specific assump-tions for the impacts and adoption ofeach measure. However, those impactsrecognize fewer interaction and compet-itive effects within and among the eco-nomic sectors in which the individualmeasures are applied. A precise mappingof the emission reductions from individ-ual policies and measures against theaggregate estimates of the NEMS used inthe AEO modeling exercise is not possi-ble. Readers are cautioned not to inter-pret the difference between theestimates in Chapter 4 and this chapteras the numeric difference between the“with measures” and “without measures”cases. The direct impact measures ofChapter 4 compare the effects of provi-sions that avoid large interaction effectsbetween each other or broadly competi-tive alternatives. The NEMS results,which address interaction effects andpotentially nonmarginal changes, reflectintegrated responses to a comprehensiveset of economic variables.

Assumptions Used to EstimateFuture CO2 Emissions

This projection of emissions for dis-tant future years is always subject to cer-tain assumptions and uncertainties.These assumptions relate to the prospec-tive implementation and funding of poli-cies and measures adopted but not yetfunded; to the actual discovery, adop-tion, and efficacy of technologies not yettested in the marketplace; and to thepace of future economic growth.

The AEO 2002 projects a decliningratio of emissions to GDP by incorporat-ing the impacts—including costs—oflegislation and regulations adopted as ofJuly 1, 2001. These provisions include,for example, rising appliance efficienciesdriven by upgraded ENERGY STAR® spec-

ifications for products and homes, pro-gressive upgrades to commercial light-ing, and adoption of electric andalternative-fuel vehicles in accord withfederal and state requirements. UtilityClimate Challenge plans are representedin large measure, with the exception oftree-planting programs and purchases ofemission offsets. Renewable-fuels powergeneration is included, consistent withannounced utility building plans through2020. A description of the policies andmeasures and technology assumptionsembodied in the AEO projections is pro-vided in Appendix G of the AEO 2002.

The assumptions under which theAEO 2002 estimates were preparedinclude real GDP growth of 3 percentannually over the 20-year period, with-out specific regard to interim businesscycles. The degree of technologyimprovement reflected in the projectionsis internally generated in the modelingprocess based on the Energy InformationAdministration’s judgment about themarket readiness, cost, and performanceof available technologies, their rates ofadoption, and their potential for effi-ciency improvement. Based on the AEO2002 estimates, real oil prices areexpected to average just over $21 a bar-rel in 2002, and then rise gradually to$24–$25 a barrel by 2020. Natural gassupplies are assumed to be adequate tosupport the projected growth indemand. Natural gas prices are projectedto rise from just over $2 per thousandcubic feet in 2002, to $3.26 in real termsper thousand cubic feet in 2020. Theprojection exercise assumes that currentlaws and regulations will continue inforce, but does not anticipate measuresnot yet enacted or implemented.

Table 5-1 presents several measures ofthe U.S. economy that generate energyconsumption and related carbon emis-sions, and compares the values used inthe 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report (CAR)to those relied upon for this report. Inthis 2001 CAR, 2020 real GDP isnotably higher, energy intensity per dol-lar of GDP is notably lower, natural gasprices are higher, and gasoline prices arelower compared to the levels assumed inthe 1997 CAR.


U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: 2000–2020

This report contains reported levelsof greenhouse gas emissions for the year2000 and estimates to 2020. The projec-tions of U.S. greenhouse gas emissionsdescribed here reflect national estimatesof net greenhouse gas emissions consid-ering population growth, long-term eco-nomic growth potential, historical ratesof technology improvement, normalweather patterns, and many of theimplemented policies and measures. Thecovered gases include carbon dioxide(CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydro-fluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, andsulfur hexafluoride.

DOE’s Energy Information Adminis-tration computed the energy-relatedCO2 projections and the estimatedadjustments for bunker fuel use (U.S.DOE/EIA 2001a). The U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) pre-pared the emission projections forsource categories other than CO2 emis-sions resulting from fossil fuel con-sumption (U.S. EPA 1999; 2001a, b, d).And the U.S. Department of Agricul-

ture (USDA) prepared the estimates ofcarbon sequestration rates (USDA 2000).The projections reflect long-run trendsand do not attempt to mirror short-rundepartures from those trends.

Rather than the carbon tonnagesoften used in the United States, emissionprojections in this report are convertedto metric tons of carbon dioxide equiva-lents, in keeping with the reportingguidelines of the United Nations Frame-work Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC). The conversions of non-CO2 gases to CO2 equivalents are basedon the 100-year global warming poten-tials (GWPs) listed in the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change’s(IPCC’s) second assessment report(IPCC 1996b).

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fromenergy consumption, industrial and agri-cultural activities, and other anthro-pogenic sources continued to grow fromlevels reported in the 1997 U.S. ClimateAction Report (Figure 5-1). However, emis-sions of a few of the non-CO2 gases—e.g., methane and industrial gasesassociated with the production of alu-

minum and HCFC-22—have declinedfrom 1990 levels and are projected toremain below 1990 levels out to 2020(Figure 5-2).

As shown in Figure 5-1, while car-bon sequestration partly offsets grossemissions of greenhouse gases, netemissions are projected to rise nonethe-less under the impetus of populationand economic growth. Increased effortsto use cleaner fuels, improved tech-nologies, and better management meth-ods for agriculture, forestry, mines, andlandfills have kept the growth of green-house gas emissions below the concur-rent growth of the U.S. economy. Thepolicies and measures described inChapter 4 of this report are expected tofurther decouple economic growth andgreenhouse gas emissions.

The most recent historical measuresof greenhouse gas emissions are for2000, but these measures are still pre-liminary and are thus subject to possiblerevision after this report’s publication.Nevertheless, the projections use thereport’s preliminary 2000 data as a pointof departure for estimating greenhouse

Several sectors of the U.S. economy involve energy consumption and related carbon emissions. This table compares the values used in the1997 U.S. Climate Action Report (CAR) to those relied upon for this report. In this 2001 CAR, 2020 real GDP is notably higher, energy intensity perdollar of GDP is notably lower, natural gas prices are higher, and gasoline prices are lower compared to the levels assumed in the 1997 CAR.

Factors 2000 2010 2020

1997 CAR 2001 CAR 1997 CAR 2001 CAR 1997 CAR 2001 CAR

Real GDP (billions of 1996 dollars) 8,152 9,224 9,925 12,312 11,467 16,525

Population (millions) 276 276 299 300 324 325

Residential Housing Stock (millions) 103.0 105.2 114.7 116.0 125.4 127.1

Commercial Floor Space (billion sq. ft.) 72.3 64.5 78.5 77.5 85.3 89.6

Energy Intensity (Btus per 1996 dollar GDP) 11,903 10,770 10,572 9,400 9,631 7,920

Light-Duty Vehicle Miles Traveled (billions) 2,373 2,340 2,885 2,981 3,368 3,631

Energy Commodity Prices World Oil Price (2000 dollars/barrel) 19.86 27.72 22.16 23.36 24.18 24.68Wellhead Natural Gas (2000 dollars/1,000 cu. ft.) 2.02 3.60 2.16 2.85 2.61 3.26Minemouth Coal (2000 dollars/ton) 19.60 16.45 18.00 14.11 16.70 12.79Average Price Electricity (2000 cents/kWh) 7.31 6.90 6.98 6.30 6.66 6.50Average Price Gasoline (2000 dollars/gallon) 1.49 1.53 1.52 1.40 1.56 1.40

TABLE 5-1 Compar ison of 1997 and 2001 CAR Assumpt ions and Model Resu l ts


F IGURE 5-1 Gross and Net U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions : 2000–2020 gas emissions at the 5-year intervalbenchmarks of 2005, 2010, 2015, and2020. The text that follows describeschanges in emission levels and intensi-ties to the end-point year 2020.

Net U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2000–2020

The total projected levels of U.S.greenhouse gas emissions are tallied by(1) combining the CO2 contributionsof energy and nonenergy activities andthe non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissionsof methane, nitrous oxide (includingforestry and agriculture), and the highGWP gases; (2) subtracting for pro-jected levels of carbon sequestration;and (3) making noted adjustments.Because some of the individual green-house gas emissions apart from energy-related portions are not attributed toparticular economic sectors, the totalsare reported in aggregate.

Total net U.S. greenhouse gas emis-sions are projected to rise by 42.7 per-cent, from 5,773 teragrams of CO2equivalent (Tg CO2 Eq.)1 as the (pre-liminary) actual level for 2000, to 8,237Tg CO2 Eq. projected for 2020 (Table5-2). However, when examined by 5-year intervals, the rate of increase inU.S. greenhouse gas emissions isexpected to diminish over the 20-yearprojection period. The declining 5-yeargrowth rates reflect the influence ofdevelopment and implementation ofcleaner, more efficient technologiesthat reduce the ratio of greenhouse gasemissions to GDP over the period; thesubstitution of fuels that emit lower vol-umes of greenhouse gases; and changesin the composition of GDP to goodsand services with fewer fuel inputs.Some of the mitigating factors are alsothe subject of implemented policies andmeasures that reduce emissions relativeto a hypothetical “business as usual”path. In addition, there are adoptedpolicies and measures, not yet fullyimplemented, and the possibility ofadditional policies and measures priorto 2020 that are not yet defined, whichtogether may further reduce the

Although carbon sequestration partly offsets gross greenhouse gas emissions, net emis-sions are projected to increase nonetheless under the impetus of population and economic growth.

Tg C

O2 E

q.

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

6,979

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

5,773

7,540

6,365

8,115

6,971

8,700

7,604

9,180

8,237

12,000

Net Greenhouse Gases

Gross Greenhouse Gases

A few of the non-CO2 gases—e.g., methane and industrial gases associated with the pro-duction of aluminum and HFC-22—have declined from 1990 levels and are projected toremain below 1990 levels out to 2020.

F IGURE 5-2 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions by Gas: 2000–2020

Tg C

O2 E

q.

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

623

6,290

6,813

7,6557,302

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

5,799

433124

633447

170630 464

208625 483 290

611 504410

Methane

CO2 Emissions

High GWP Gases

Nitrous Oxide

1 One teragram equals one million metric tons.Note: CO2 emissions reported are net of adjustments.


20-year greenhouse gas path below theaggregate and sectoral levels projectedin this report.

The projected emission levels of thisreport for the years 2010 and 2020 arehigher than the levels projected forthose same years in the 1997 U.S. Cli-mate Action Report, and the preliminaryactual level of emissions reported for2000 is lower than the 1997 projectedvalue. The sections that follow presentmore detailed projections of specificcategories of total U.S. greenhouse gasemissions.

CO2 Emissions From 2000 to 2020, energy-related

CO2 emissions are projected toincrease by 33.6 percent, compared tocumulative projected economic growthof 80 percent (Table 5-3). The nation’scarbon intensity has declined from 721grams of CO2 per dollar of GDP in1990 to 621 grams per dollar in 2000,and is projected to decline further to463 grams per dollar of GDP by 2020.

In the first 5-year interval, CO2emissions are projected to grow by 1.6percent annually, but by the final 5-yearperiod growth in emissions will havediminished to 1.2 percent annually. The

estimated level of U.S. CO2 emissionsfrom energy-related activities for theyear 2020 is 7,655 Tg CO2. This level ofemissions results from the projectedlong-term economic, technological, anddemographic path, and from the impactsof implemented policies and measures.Additional policies and measures,adopted but not yet implemented—including both new recommendations ofthe National Energy Policy and expandedemphasis on some measures alreadyimplemented—could further reduceU.S. CO2 emissions for 2020 andinterim years.

The rising absolute levels of green-house gas emissions for the entire U.S.economy occur against a background ofgrowth assumptions for population andGDP. Over the 20-year period, popula-tion and personal income are projectedto rise respectively by 18 and 79 percent. • The CO2 emission intensity of the

residential sector is expected to declineby 30 percent, while the sector’s con-tributions of CO2 are estimated torise by 25 percent, to a total of 1,397Tg CO2 annually by 2020. Over thesame period, the sector is expectedto contribute a diminishing share oftotal U.S. CO2 emissions.

• The projected CO2 emission inten-sity of the commercial sector is expectedto decline by 16 percent over the 20-year interval, as measured against theprojected 79 percent increase inGDP. The sector’s absolute emissioncontributions are estimated to rise by42.5 percent to a total of 1,363 TgCO2 annually by 2020. Over the 20-year projection period, the commer-cial sector is expected to contribute arising share of total U.S. CO2 emis-sions.

• The projected CO2 emission inten-sity of the industrial sector is expectedto decline by 27 percent over the 20-year interval, as measured against theprojected 79 percent increase inGDP. The sector’s absolute emissioncontributions are estimated to rise by22 percent to a total of 2,135 TgCO2 annually by 2020. Over the 20-year projection period, the industrialsector is expected to contribute adiminishing share of total U.S. CO2emissions.

• The projected CO2 emission inten-sity of the transportation sector isexpected to decline by 19 percentover the 20-year interval, as meas-ured against the projected 79 per-cent increase in GDP. The sector’sabsolute emission contributions areestimated to rise by 46 percent to atotal of 2,760 Tg CO2 annually by2020. Over the 20-year projectionperiod, the transportation sector isexpected to contribute a rising shareof estimated total U.S. CO2 emis-sions, reflecting the growth of traveldemand and the relatively limitedprojected use of low-emission fuelseven by 2020.

Nonenergy CO2 EmissionsOther, nonfuel, sources that emit

CO2 include natural gas productionand processing, the cement industry,and waste handling and combustion.These CO2 emissions are subject toincreasing voluntary control and areusing recapture technologies to reducetheir emission levels. Because theunderlying sources are so varied, noclear projection method, other than

Between 2000 and 2020, total net U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are projected to rise by42.7 percent. However, the rate of increase in emissions is projected to diminish over thesame period, reflecting the development and implementation of cleaner, more efficienttechnologies; the substitution of fuels that emit lower volumes of greenhouse gases; andchanges in the composition of GDP to goods and services with fewer fuel inputs.

All Covered Sources 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Energy-Related CO2 5,726 6,210 6,727 7,206 7,655

Non-energy CO2 132 138 145 153 161

Methane 623 633 630 625 611

Nitrous Oxide 433 447 464 483 504

High GWP Gases 124 170 208 290 410

Sequestration Removals -1,205 -1,175 -1,144 -1,096 -1,053

Adjustments - 59 - 58 - 59 - 57 - 51

Total 5,773 6,366 6,972 7,604 8,237

GWP = global warming potential.

Notes: These total U.S. CO2 equivalent emissions correspond to carbon weights of 1,574 teragrams (Tg) for year 2000; 1,901 Tg for 2010; and 2,246 Tg for 2020. Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

TABLE 5-2 Pro jec ted U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions f rom Al l Sources :2000–2020 (Tg CO2 Eq. )


increase in total sales of electric energy.Absolute emissions contributions fromthe electricity sector are estimated to riseby 35 percent during the same period toa total of 2,897 Tg CO2, reflecting risingelectric power sales from 2000 to 2020.The sector’s share of total U.S. CO2emissions is expected to rise as well, dueto the growing role of electricity in pow-ering activities in all economic sectors.

By 2020, the mix of primary fuels inelectricity production is expected to besignificantly different from the mix dur-ing 2000. The expanding role of naturalgas, with its relatively low greenhousegas impact, and the growing dominanceof highly efficient generation technolo-gies are projected to reduce the sector’sgreenhouse gas emissions to a level farbelow what they would have been with-out these changes. As noted above, theemission intensity of electricity produc-tion is estimated to decline significantlyover the projection period. By fuel type,the 2020 CO2 emissions from electricitygeneration are 22 Tg CO2 for energygenerated from petroleum, 554 Tg CO2for energy generated from natural gas,and 2,322 Tg CO2 for generation fromcoal (Table 5-4). Greenhouse gas emis-sions from nuclear and renewablesources are essentially zero.

Sectoral CO2 Emissions fromElectricity Use

Customers in all sectors use electric-ity. In that sense, the greenhouse gasemissions that result from electricity pro-duction and distribution can be attrib-uted to the end-use sectors (Table 5-5).• Electricity demand by the residen-

tial sector is projected to rise by 40percent from 2000 to 2020, whilethe CO2 emissions from the sector’selectricity consumption are pro-jected to rise by 31.7 percent. Theabsolute level of projected CO2emissions attributable to the residen-tial sector from electricity use in2020 is 985 Tg CO2.

• Electricity demand by the commer-cial sector is projected to rise by 49 percent from 2000 to 2020, whilethe CO2 emissions from the sector’s electricity consumption are

Improvements in CO2 emission intensity and the absolute levels of future CO2 emissions varyamong economic sectors. The projected 1 percent annual growth in CO2 emissions fromnonenergy sources is well below the 79 percent GDP growth rate assumed in the fuel emis-sion projections.

Sector/Source 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Residential 1,122 1,223 1,269 1,325 1,397Petroleum 101 95 90 86 83Natural Gas 268 292 300 311 325Coal 4 4 5 5 5Electricity 748 832 874 924 985

Commercial 957 1,057 1,163 1,264 1,363Petroleum 52 48 50 51 51Natural Gas 181 199 213 228 245Coal 7 6 7 7 7Electricity 717 803 893 979 1,059

Industrial 1,753 1,818 1,951 2,049 2,135Petroleum 344 362 393 414 432Natural Gas 499 541 581 612 632Coal 239 231 232 234 237Electricity 671 684 745 790 834

Transportation 1,895 2,112 2,345 2,568 2,760Petroleum 1,843 2,055 2,280 2,495 2,679Natural Gas 42 45 50 57 61Other 0 * * * *Electricity 11 13 14 16 19

Total Energy Uses 5,726 6,210 6,727 7,206 7,655Petroleum 2,339 2,560 2,813 3,045 3,245Natural Gas 990 1,077 1,145 1,208 1,263Coal 250 242 244 245 249Other 0 * * * *Electricity 2,147 2,331 2,526 2,709 2,897

Nonenergy CO2Emissions 132 138 145 153 161Natural Gas Production 39 40 41 43 44Industrial Processes 92 98 104 110 117

Total CO2 Emissions 5,858 6,348 6,872 7,359 7,816


* = less than 0.5 Tg.

TABLE 5-3 U.S. CO2 Emiss ions by Sector and Source : 2000–2020 (Tg CO2)

historical extrapolation, is available.These sources are projected to grow by1 percent annually, well below the 79percent GDP growth rate assumed inthe fuel emission projections. Thesenonfuel emissions are projected to growfrom 132 Tg CO2 in 2000 to 161 TgCO2 in 2020.

CO2 Emissions from the Electricity Sector

Electricity generation typically pro-duces significant CO2 emissions, withthe important exceptions of electricity

generated from nuclear power and fromrenewable sources, such as hydropower,geothermal, wind, biomass and biomassconversion, and solar power applica-tions. While electricity producers differgreatly in their reliance on various pri-mary fuel inputs, their overall CO2 con-tributions are attributable to thenationwide electricity purchases of cus-tomers in all economic sectors.

The electricity sector’s CO2 emissionintensity is projected to decline by 6 per-cent over the 20-year interval, as meas-ured against a 43 percent projected


By 2020, the mix of primary fuels in electricity production is expected to be significantly different from the mix during 2000.

Primary Fuel 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Petroleum 73 25 116 19 22Natural Gas 224 295 369 479 554Coal 1,850 2,011 2,141 2,211 2,322

Total 2,147 2,331 2,526 2,709 2,898


TABLE 5-4 U.S. CO2 Emiss ions f rom E lec t r i c i ty Generators : 2000–2020 (Tg CO2)

TABLE 5-5 Sectora l U .S . CO2 Emiss ions f rom E lec t r i c i ty Use: 2000–2020 (Tg CO2)

For all sectors, demand for electricity is projected to grow more rapidly than direct fuel usein other sectors, as electricity assumes an expanding role in meeting the energy demands ofthe U.S. economy. Emissions of greenhouse gases from the electricity sector are projectedto rise by 34.9 percent over the 20-year projection period.

Sector 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Residential 748 832 874 924 985Commercial 717 803 893 979 1,059Industrial 671 684 745 790 834Transportation 11 13 14 16 19

Total 2,147 2,331 2,526 2,709 2,898


projected to rise by 47.7 percent.The absolute level of projected CO2emissions attributable to the com-mercial sector from electricity use in2020 is 1,059 Tg CO2.

• Electricity demand by the industrialsector is projected to rise by 32 per-cent from 2000 to 2020, while theCO2 emissions from the sector’selectricity consumption are pro-jected to rise by 24.2 percent. Theabsolute level of projected CO2emissions attributable to the indus-trial sector from electricity use in2020 is 834 Tg CO2.

• Emissions of CO2 from the trans-portation sector’s electricity use areprojected to rise by 71 percent from2000 to 2020. However, this sector’soverall electricity use is expected toremain small, constituting less than 1percent of total U.S. electricitydemand in 2020.

• For all sectors, demand for electric-ity is projected to grow more rapidlythan direct fuel use in other sectors,as electricity assumes an expandingrole in meeting the energy demands

of the U.S. economy. Emissions ofCO2 from the electricity sector areprojected to rise by 34.9 percentover the 20-year projection period.Efficient production and use of elec-tricity, as well as development ofclean fuels, will be a continuing pol-icy focus for the United States.

U.S. CO2 Emissions from Energy Activities

Total CO2 emissions are projectedto increase by 33.4 percent from 2000to 2020, to an absolute level of 7,816Tg CO2 (Table 5-6). By contrast, cumu-lative GDP growth over the sameperiod is projected at 79 percent. Con-solidating end-use sectors and the elec-tricity industry to examine theprojected levels of CO2 emissions byprincipal primary fuels shows a growingrelative share for natural gas emissions,reflecting rising natural gas use. Thisshare growth for natural gas is animportant cause of the declining ratioof greenhouse gas—particularly CO2—emissions to U.S. economic output.

Emissions of CO2 from primary fuels

are projected to rise as follows: petro-leum, 35.4 percent; natural gas, 49.7percent; and coal, 22.4 percent. Emis-sions of CO2 from the ancillary powerneeds for electricity generation fromnon-fossil fuels—primarily nuclear andhydro-power, but also including otherrenewable sources—remain at negligi-ble levels (less than 0.4 Tg CO2), eventhough the utilization of low-emissionenergy sources is expected to double by2020. Natural gas is projected to meet agrowing share of U.S. energy demand;coal, a reduced share; and petroleumfuels, approximately the same share.The impact of the changing shares ofprimary fuels is to reduce the intensityof the GDP’s greenhouse gas emissions.Nonenergy CO2 emissions are ex-pected to grow by 22 percent over theprojection period.

Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Emissions other than CO2 includemethane emissions from natural gasproduction and transmission, coal mineoperation, landfills, and livestock oper-ations; nitrous oxide emissions fromagriculture and, to a lesser degree,transportation; and hydrofluorocarbon(HFC), perfluorocarbon (PFC), and sul-fur hexafluoride (SF6) gases from indus-trial activities and, in some cases, thelife cycles of the resulting products(Table 5-7).

MethaneMethane emissions are estimated

for 1990 and 2000, and over the 5-yearbenchmarks of 2005, 2010, 2015, and2020 (U.S. EPA 1999, 2001a). Overthis period, total methane emissionsare estimated to decline by 5.2 per-cent, primarily due to reductions inmethane emissions from coal minesand landfills. However, this decline isexpected to be offset in part by risingmethane emissions from livestockoperations. Projected methane emis-sions from natural gas production,transportation, and use remain nearlyunchanged, as the rising natural gasvolumes produced and transported aregoverned by policies and practices that


TABLE 5-7 Non-CO2 Emiss ions : 2000-2020 (Tg CO2 Eq. )

will curtail methane releases withincreasing effectiveness over the pro-jection period.

Natural Gas Operations. Methane emis-sions from natural gas operations areprojected to increase from 116 Tg CO2Eq. in 2000 to 119 Tg CO2 Eq. in2020—an increase of only 2.5 percent,despite the more than 60 percent pro-jected increase in natural gas use overthe 20-year period.

Coal Mine Operations. Methane emis-sions from coal mine operations areprojected to decline from 70 Tg CO2Eq. in 2000 to 66 Tg CO2 Eq. in2020—a decrease of 6 percent, prima-rily due to the closure of very gassymines and to a projected shift in coalproduction from underground to surface mines. Coal mine methane issubject to continually improving man-agement practices. This decline in coal-related methane emissions is expected,despite the more than 20 percentincrease in coal production projectedover the 20-year period.

Landfills. Landfill methane emissions are projected to decrease from 214 TgCO2 Eq. in 2000 to 186 Tg CO2 Eq. in2020—a decrease of 13 percent, despitegrowing volumes of municipal waste inplace over the period. Landfill sites areassumed to be subject to continuallyimproving methane recovery practicesover the 20-year period.

Livestock Operations and Other Activities.Methane emissions from livestock oper-ations, manure management, and otheractivities not separately listed areexpected to rise from 224 Tg CO2 Eq.in 2000 to 240 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020—an increase of 10.3 percent.Anticipated emission managementpractices for the agricultural and othercategories do not fully offset projectedagricultural growth over the 20-yearperiod.

Total Methane Emissions. Total U.S.methane emissions from all sources are projected to decline from 623 Tg

TABLE 5-6 U.S. CO2 Emiss ions f rom Al l Sectors : 2000–2020 (Tg CO2)

The growing relative share of natural gas emissions resulting from the increased use of nat-ural gas is an important cause of the declining ratio of greenhouse gas—particularly CO2—emissions to U.S. economic output.

Primary Fuel /Source 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Primary Fuel CO2 5,725 6,210 6,728 7,206 7,655Petroleum 2,411 2,584 2,829 3,063 3,266Natural Gas 1,214 1,372 1,513 1,687 1,817Coal 2,100 2,253 2,385 2,456 2,571

Non-energy CO2 132 138 145 153 161

Total CO2 5,857 6,348 6,873 7,359 7,816


Emissions other than CO2 include methane emissions from natural gas production and trans-mission, coal mine operation, landfills, and livestock operations; nitrous oxide emissionsfrom agriculture and, to a lesser degree, transportation; and HFC, PFC, and SF6 gases fromindustrial activities.

Non-CO2 GHG/Source 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Methane Emissions 623 634 630 625 611Natural Gas 116 115 115 117 119Coal Mines 70 73 72 71 66Landfills 214 219 213 202 186Livestock Operations 163 167 171 175 178Other 61 60 59 61 62

High GWP Substances 124 170 208 290 410ODS Substitutes (HFCs) 58 119 171 266 392Aluminum (PFCs) 8 7 6 6 5HCFC-22 (HFC-23) 30 11 6 3 0Stewardship Programs 28 33 24 15 13

(Semiconductors, Magnesium,Electric Power Systems, NewPrograms; HFCs, PFCs, SF6)

Nitrous Oxide 433 447 464 483 504Agriculture 317 326 336 343 350Mobile Combustion 62 62 66 74 83Other 54 59 62 66 71

Total 1,180 1,250 1,302 1,398 1,686


CO2 Eq. in 2000 to 611 Tg CO2 Eq. in2020—a decrease of 2.1 percent.

HFCs, PFCs, and SF6Emissions of HFCs, PFCs, and SF6

are estimated by EPA for 1990, 2000,and over the 5-year interval bench-marks of 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020(U.S. EPA 2001e). While total emis-sions are projected to rise from 124 TgCO2 Eq. in 2000 to 410 Tg CO2 Eq. in2020, this increase is expected to be

predominantly from the use of HFCs asreplacements for ozone-depleting sub-stances (ODS). Growth in the use ofHFCs will allow rapid phase-out ofchlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydro-chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), andhalons in a number of important appli-cations where other alternatives are notavailable.

HFCs are expected to be selectedfor applications where they providesuperior technical (reliability) or safety

TABLE 5-9 Adjustments to U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions (Tg CO2 Eq. )

Adjustments to the emissions reported in this chapter include adding the emissions—pre-dominantly fuel-related—occurring in U.S. territories, and subtracting the international useof bunker fuels, both military and civilian.

Type of Adjustment 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Emissions in U.S. Territories + 51 + 59 + 69 + 79 + 92International Bunker Fuels -110 -117 -128 - 136 -143

Net Adjustments - 59 - 58 - 59 - 57 - 51


TABLE 5-8 Pro jec t ions o f Carbon Sequest ra t ion (Tg CO2)

Improved management practices on forest and agricultural lands and the regeneration ofpreviously cleared forests resulted in annual net uptake (i.e., sequestration) of carbon dur-ing the 1990s. These practices are expected to continue throughout the projection period.

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Carbon Sequestration (-) 1,205 1,175 1,144 1,049 1,053

Note: The above land-use sequestration estimates and projections are based on the U.S. government’s August 1,2000, submission to the UNFCCC on methodological issues related to the treatment of carbon sinks (U.S. DOS2000). The projections are not directly comparable to the estimates provided in Chapter 3 of this report for tworeasons: (1) the values provided in Chapter 3 use updated inventory information, and these projections have notbeen revised to reflect this new information; and (2) these projections are for a slightly different set of forestareas and activities than are accounted for in the national greenhouse gas inventory. A new set of projectionsthat will be consistent with updated inventory estimates will be available from the USDA’s Forest Service inearly 2002. The trends provided in these projections serve to illustrate the impact of forces that are likely toinfluence carbon sequestration rates over the next decades.

CO2 Eq. in 2020.2 Bunker fuels inexcludable uses are estimated to pro-duce emissions of 110 Tg CO2 Eq. in2000 and 143 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020.3

Future of the President’s February 2002 Climate Change Initiative

On February 14, 2002, the Presidentcommitted the United States to reduceits greenhouse gas intensity by 18 per-cent over the next decade andannounced a series of voluntary pro-grams to achieve that goal. Thisincludes proposed enhancements to theexisting emissions registry under sec-tion 1605(b) of the 1992 Energy PolicyAct that would both protect entitiesthat register reductions from penaltyunder a future climate policy, and createtransferable credits for companies thatshow real emission reductions. It alsoincluded expanding sectoral challengesand renewed support for renewableenergy and energy efficiency tax creditscontained in the National Energy Policy.The President indicated that progresswould be evaluated in 2012 and thatadditional policies, including a broad,

programs, which have focused onplanting trees, improving timber man-agement activities, combating soil erosion, and converting marginal crop-lands to forests. These efforts weremaintained throughout the 1990s, andare expected to continue through theprojection period. In addition, becausemost of the timber that is harvestedfrom U.S. forests is used in wood prod-ucts, and much of the discarded woodproducts are disposed of in landfillsrather than by incineration, significantquantities of this harvested carbon arebeing transferred to long-term storagepools, rather than being released to theatmosphere.

Adjustments to Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Adjustments to the emissionsreported in this chapter include addingthe emissions—predominantly fuel-related—occurring in U.S. territories,and subtracting the international use ofbunker fuels, both military and civilian(Table 5-9). Emissions from fuel use inU.S. territories are projected to growfrom 51 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000 to 92 Tg

(low toxicity and flammability) per-formance. In many cases, HFCs provideequal or better energy efficiency com-pared to other available alternatives,and their acceptance in the market willreduce long-term environmentalimpacts. HFCs are expected to replace asignificant portion of past and currentdemand for CFCs and HCFCs in insu-lating foams, refrigeration and air-conditioning, propellants used inmetered dose inhalers, and other appli-cations. Emissions of HFCs, PFCs, andSF6 from all other industrial sources areexpected to be reduced significantlybelow 1990 levels, despite high growthrates of manufacturing in some sectors.

Nitrous OxideNitrous oxide emissions are expected

to rise from 433 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000 to504 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020—an increase of16.3 percent over the 20-year projectionperiod. Although the largest singlesource of these emissions is agriculturalsoils, emissions from this source are pro-jected to grow at only 9.8 percent. Thefastest-growing sources of nitrous oxideemissions are the transportation sectorand adipic and nitric acid production.Emissions from each of these sources areprojected to grow by about 33 percentover the 20-year period (U.S. EPA2001b).

Carbon SequestrationImproved management practices on

forest and agricultural lands and theregeneration of previously clearedforests resulted in annual net uptake(i.e., sequestration) of carbon duringthe 1990s (Table 5-8). Land-use deci-sions influence net carbon uptake longafter their application.

A trend toward managed growth onprivate land since the early 1950s hasresulted in a near doubling of the bio-mass density in eastern U.S. forests.More recently, the 1970s and 1980s sawa resurgence of federally sponsored for-est management and soil conservation

2 The projected annual growth rate is 3 percent (U.S. DOE).

3 The projected annual growth rate is 1.3 percent (U.S. DOE).


market-based program, would be con-sidered in light of the adequacy of thesevoluntary programs and developmentsin our understanding of the science sur-rounding climate change. The conse-quences of this announcement have notyet been incorporated in current emis-sion forecasts.

KEY UNCERTAINTIES AFFECTING PROJECTIONS

Any projection of future emissions issubject to considerable uncertainty. Inthe short term (less than 5 years), thekey factors that can increase ordecrease estimated net emissionsinclude unexpected changes in retailenergy prices, shifts in the price rela-tionship between natural gas and coalused for electricity generation, changesin the economic growth path, abnormalwinter or summer temperatures, andimperfect forecasting methods. Addi-tional factors may influence emissionrates over the longer term, such as tech-nology developments, shifts in thecomposition of economic activity, andchanges in government policies.

Technology Development (+ or -)Forecasts of net U.S. emissions of

greenhouse gases take into considera-tion likely improvements in technologyover time. For example, technology-based energy efficiency gains, whichhave contributed to reductions in U.S.energy intensity for more than 30 years,are expected to continue. However,while long-term trends in technologyare often predictable, the specific areas in which significant technologyimprovements will occur and the specificnew technologies that will become dom-inant in commercial markets are impossi-ble to forecast accurately, especially overthe long term.

Unexpected scientific breakthroughscan cause technology changes and shiftsin economic activity that have some-times had dramatic effects on patterns ofenergy production and use. Such break-throughs could enable the United Statesto dramatically reduce future greenhousegas emissions. While government andprivate support of research and develop-

ment efforts can accelerate the rate oftechnology change, the effect of suchsupport on specific technology develop-ments is difficult to predict.

The Administration has established aNational Climate Change TechnologyInitiative (NCCTI) to strengthen basicresearch and develop advanced mitiga-tion technologies for reducing green-

house gas emissions. Success under theNCCTI could dramatically expand low-cost emission-reduction opportunitiesfor the United States and the rest of theworld.

In a modest high-technology caseexamined as part of the projections,energy use in 2020 under the high-tech-nology regime is 5.6 percent lower than

The May 2001 National Energy Policy (NEP) is a long-term, comprehensive strategy toincrease energy supplies; advance the development of new, environmentally friendly,

energy-conservation technologies; and encourage cleaner, more efficient energy use(NEPD Group 2001). The NEP identified the major energy challenges facing the UnitedStates and developed 105 recommendations for addressing these challenges. When fullyimplemented, many of these recommendations will reduce domestic and internationalgreenhouse gas emissions. Following is a snapshot of the NEP’s proposed initiatives.

Reduce U.S. Energy Consumption

• Expand the ENERGY STAR® program to additional buildings, equipment, and services.• Improve energy efficiency for appliances, and expand the scope of the appliance stan-

dards program.• Encourage the use of combined heat-and-power operations and other clean-energy

forms.• Mitigate transportation congestion by both roadway improvements and information

technology.• Promote the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles, including fuel-cell power plants for per-

sonal and heavy vehicles.• Increase energy conservation in government facilities.

Increase U.S. Energy Supplies

• Enhance the reliability of U.S. energy supplies, and reduce U.S. reliance on energyimports.

• Increase domestic production of oil, natural gas, and coal.• Expand support for advanced clean-coal technology research.• Support the expansion of safe nuclear power technologies.• Increase funding for research and development of renewable and alternative energy

resources.• Optimize the use of hydroelectric generation.• Undertake long-term education and research into hydrogen fuels, advanced fuel cells,

and fusion power.• Extend tax credits for the production of electricity from biomass and wind resources.• Create federal tax incentives to encourage landfill methane recovery.

Strengthen Global Alliances

• Expand international cooperation for energy research and development.• Promote continued research on the science of global climate change.• Cooperate with allies to develop cutting-edge technologies, market-based incentives,

and other innovative approaches to address climate change.

Sample Nat iona l Energy Po l icy In i t ia t ives


growth economy is 8.8 percentlarger than the reference economy,and carbon emissions from energyuse are 462 Tg CO2 Eq. greater thanin the reference case.

• In the low-growth case 2020 energyuse is 5.4 percent lower than in thereference case. By 2020, the low-growth economy is 9.7 percentsmaller than the reference economy,and carbon emissions from energyuse are 395 Tg CO2 Eq. lower thanin the reference case.Faster-than-expected growth during

the late 1990s was the major cause ofhigher-than-expected U.S. greenhousegas emissions during this period. TheU.S. economic slowdown in 2001 andpost-September 11 fallout may wellresult in lower-than-expected green-house gas emissions during 2002 andthe immediately following years. How-ever, the long-run economic growthpath remains unchanged.

Weather (+ or -)Energy use for heating and cooling is

directly responsive to weather varia-tion. The forecast of emissions assumes30-year average values for population-weighted heating and cooling degree-days. Unlike other sources ofuncertainty, for which deviationsbetween assumed and actual trends mayfollow a persistent course over time, theeffect of weather on energy use andemissions in any particular year islargely independent year to year. Forthe United States, a swing in eitherdirection of the magnitude experiencedin individual years during the 1990scould raise or lower annual emissions by70 Tg CO2 Eq. relative to a year withaverage weather that generates typicalheating and cooling demands. Whilesmall relative to total emissions, achange of this magnitude is significantrelative to the year-to-year growth oftotal emissions.

in the reference case. By 2020, carbonemissions from energy use are 507 TgCO2 lower than in the reference case.

Regulatory or Statutory Changes (+ or -)

The current forecast of U.S. green-house gas emissions does not includethe effects of any legislative or regula-tory action that was not finalizedbefore July 1, 2001. Consequently, theforecast does not include any increasein the stringency of equipment effi-ciency standards, even though existinglaw requires DOE to periodicallystrengthen its existing standards andissue new standards for other products.Similarly, the forecast does not assumeany future increase in new building orauto fuel economy standards, eventhough such increases are required bylaw or are under consideration. Electricutility regulation is another area wherefurther federal and state regulatory pol-icy changes are anticipated, but are notreflected in the emissions forecast.Finally, the U.S. Congress is consider-ing a broad range of legislative propos-als, including many contained in theNational Energy Policy, that will affectU.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Untilspecific legislative mandates areenacted, the forecast of emissions willnot reflect their likely effects.

Energy Prices (+ or -)The relationship between energy

prices and emissions is complex. Lowerenergy prices generally reduce theincentive for energy conservation andtend to encourage increased energy useand related emissions. However, reduc-tion in the price of natural gas relativeto other fuels also encourages fuelswitching that can reduce carbon emis-sions.

The AEO 2002 projections do notassume any dramatic changes in theenergy price trends or the inter-fuel

prices ratio that existed during most ofthe 1990s (U.S. DOE/EIA 2001a). Nordo they assume that the dramaticincreases in energy prices that occurredfrom mid-2000 through the beginningof 2001 will persist. This view is sup-ported by the precipitous decline in oilprices that occurred during the secondhalf of 2001.

While some analysts project that fur-ther decreases in delivered energyprices will result from increased compe-tition in the electric utility sector andimproved technology, others projectthat large energy price increases mayresult from the faster-than-expecteddepletion of oil and gas resources, orfrom political or other disruptions inoil-producing countries.

Economic Growth (+ or -)Faster economic growth increases

the future demand for energy services,such as vehicle miles traveled, amountof lighted and ventilated space, andprocess heat used in industrial produc-tion. However, faster growth also stim-ulates capital investment and reducesthe average age of the capital stock,increasing its average energy efficiency.The energy-service demand andenergy-efficiency effects of highergrowth work in offsetting directions.The effect on service demand is thestronger of the two, so that levels of pri-mary energy use are positively corre-lated with the size of the economy.

In addition to the reference caseused in developing the updated base-line, the AEO 2002 provides high andlow economic growth cases, which varythe annual GDP growth rate from thereference case. The high-growth caseraises the GDP growth rate by 0.4 per-cent. The low-growth case reduces theGDP growth rate by 0.6 percent.• In the high-growth case 2020 energy

use is 5.6 percent higher than in thereference case. By 2020, the high-

Chapter 6 Impacts andAdaptation

In its June 2001 report, the Committeeon the Science of Climate Change,which was convened by the National

Research Council (NRC) of theNational Academy of Sciences, con-cluded that “[h]uman-induced warmingand associated sea level rises areexpected to continue through the 21stcentury.” The Committee recognizedthat there remains considerable uncer-tainty in current understanding of howclimate varies naturally and willrespond to projected, but uncertain,changes in the emissions of greenhousegases and aerosols. It also noted thatthe “impacts of these changes will becritically dependent on the magnitudeof the warming and the rate with whichit occurs” (NRC 2001a).

SUMMARY OF THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT

To develop an initial understandingof the potential impacts of climatechange for the United States during the

One of the weakest links in our knowledge is the connection between global and regionalpredictions of climate change. The National Research Council’s response to the President’srequest for a review of climate change policy specifically noted that fundamental scientif-ic questions remain regarding the specifics of regional and local projections (NRC 2001a).Predicting the potential impacts of climate change is compounded by a lack of under-standing of the sensitivity of many environmental systems and resources—both managedand unmanaged—to climate change. (See Chapter 1, page 6.)

Uncer ta in t ies in Regiona l and Loca l Pro jec t ions o f C l imate Change

While current analyses are unable to predict with confidence the timing, magnitude, orregional distribution of climate change, the best scientific information indicates that ifgreenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, changes are likely to occur. The U.S.National Research Council has cautioned, however, that “because there is considerableuncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reactsto emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude offuture warmings should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (eitherupward or downward)” (NRC 2001a). Moreover, there is perhaps even greater uncertaintyregarding the social, environmental, and economic consequences of changes in climate.(See Chapter 1, page 4, “The Science” box.)

Uncer ta in t ies in Es t imates o f the Timing, Magni tude, and Dis t r ibut ion o f Future Warming


21st century, the U.S. Global ChangeResearch Program has sponsored awide-ranging set of assessment activi-ties since the submission of the SecondNational Communication in 1997.These activities examined regional, sec-toral, and national components of thepotential consequences for the envi-ronment and key societal activities inthe event of changes in climate consis-tent with projections drawn from theIntergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC). Regional studiesranged from Alaska to the Southeastand from the Northeast to the PacificIslands. Sectoral studies considered thepotential influences of climate changeon land cover, agriculture, forests,human health, water resources, andcoastal areas and marine resources. Anational overview drew together thefindings to provide an integrated andcomprehensive perspective.

These assessment studies recog-nized that definitive prediction ofpotential outcomes is not yet feasible asa result of the wide range of possiblefuture levels of greenhouse gas andaerosol emissions, the range of possibleclimatic responses to changes in atmos-pheric concentration, and the range ofpossible environmental and societalresponses. These assessments, there-fore, evaluated the narrower questionconcerning the vulnerability of theUnited States to a specified range ofclimate warming, focusing primarily onthe potential consequences of climatescenarios that project global averagewarming of about 2.5 to almost 4ºC(about 4.5–7ºF). While narrower thanthe IPCC’s full 1.4–5.8ºC (2.5–10.4ºF)range of estimates of future warming,the selection of the climate scenariosthat were considered recognized that itis important to treat a range of condi-tions about the mid-range of projectedwarming, which was given by the NRCas 3ºC (5.4ºF). Similarly, assumption ofa mid-range value of sea level rise ofabout 48 cm (19 inches) was near themiddle of the IPCC’s range of 9–88 cm(about 4–35 inches) (2001d).

Because of these ranges and theiruncertainties, and because of uncertain-

ties in projecting potential impacts, it isimportant to note that this chapter can-not present absolute probabilities ofwhat is likely to occur. Instead, it canonly present judgments about the rela-tive plausibility of outcomes in theevent that the projected changes in cli-mate that are being considered dooccur. To the extent that actual emis-sions of greenhouse gases turn out to belower than projected, or that climatechange is at the lower end of the pro-jected ranges and climate variabilityabout the mean varies little from thepast, the projected impacts of climatechange are likely to be reduced ordelayed, and continued adaptation andtechnological development are likely toreduce the projected impacts and costsof climate change within the UnitedStates. Even in this event, however, thelong lifetimes of greenhouse gasesalready in the atmosphere and themomentum of the climate system areprojected to cause climate to continueto change for more than a century.Conversely, if the changes in climateare toward the upper end of the pro-jected ranges and occur rapidly or leadto unprecedented conditions, the levelof disruption is likely to be increased.Because of the momentum in the cli-mate system and natural climate vari-ability, adapting to a changing climateis inevitable. The question is whetherwe adapt poorly or well. With eitherweak or strong warming, however, theU.S. economy should continue to grow,with impacts being reduced if actionsare taken to prepare for and adapt tofuture changes.

Although successful U.S. adaptationto the changing climate conditions dur-ing the 20th century provides somecontext for evaluating potential U.S.vulnerability to projected changes, theassessments indicate that the challengeof adaptation is likely to be greater dur-ing the 21st century than in the past.Natural ecosystems appear to be themost vulnerable to climate changebecause generally little can be done tohelp them adapt to the projected rateand amount of change. Sea level rise atmid-range rates is projected to cause

additional loss of coastal wetlands, par-ticularly in areas where there areobstructions to landward migration, andput coastal communities at greater riskof storm surges, especially in the south-eastern United States. Reduced snow-pack is very likely to alter the timing andamount of water supplies, potentiallyexacerbating water shortages, particu-larly throughout the western UnitedStates, if current water managementpractices cannot be successfully alteredor modified. Increases in the heat index(which combines temperature andhumidity) and in the frequency of heatwaves are very likely. At a minimum,these changes will increase discomfort,particularly in cities; however, theirhealth impacts can be amelioratedthrough such measures as the increasedavailability of air conditioning.

At the same time, greater wealth andadvances in technologies are likely tohelp facilitate adaptation, particularly forhuman systems. In addition, highly man-aged ecosystems, such as crops and tim-ber plantations, appear more robust thannatural and lightly managed ecosystems,such as grasslands and deserts.

Some potential benefits were alsoidentified in the assessments. For exam-ple, due to increased carbon dioxide(CO2) in the atmosphere and anextended growing season, crop and for-est productivities are likely to increasewhere water and nutrients are sufficient,at least for the next few decades. As aresult, the potential exists for an increasein exports of some U.S. food products,depending on impacts in other food-growing regions around the world.Increases in crop production in fertileareas could cause prices to fall, benefit-ing consumers. Other potential benefitscould include extended seasons for con-struction and warm-weather recreation,and reduced heating requirements andcold-weather mortality.

While most studies conducted todate have primarily had an internalfocus, the United States also recognizesthat its well-being is connected to theworld through the global economy, thecommon global environment, sharedresources, historic roots and continuing

Impacts and Adaptation ■ 83

family relations, travel and tourism,migrating species, and more. As a result,in addition to internal impacts, theUnited States is likely to be affected,both directly and indirectly and bothpositively and detrimentally, by thepotential consequences of climatechange on the rest of the world. To bet-ter understand those potential conse-quences and the potential for adaptationworldwide, we are conducting and par-ticipating in research and assessmentsboth within the United States and inter-nationally (see Chapter 8). To alleviatevulnerability to adverse consequences,we are undertaking a wide range of activ-ities that will help nationally and inter-nationally, from developing medicinesfor dealing with infectious disease topromoting worldwide developmentthrough trade and assistance. Asdescribed in Chapter 7, the UnitedStates is also offering many types ofassistance to the world community,believing that information about andpreparation for climate change can helpreduce adverse impacts.

INTRODUCTION This chapter provides an overview of

the potential impacts of climate changeaffecting the United States. The chapteralso summarizes current measures andfuture adaptation and response optionsthat are designed to increase resilience toclimate variations and reduce vulnerabil-ity to climate change. The chapter is notintended to serve as a separate assess-ment in and of itself, but rather is drawnlargely from analyses prepared for theU.S. National and IPCC Assessments,where more detailed consideration andspecific references to the literature canbe found (see NAST 2000, 2001 andIPCC 2001d, including the review ofthese results presented in NRC 2001aand IPCC 2001a).

As indicated by the findings pre-sented here, considerable scientificprogress has been made in gaining anunderstanding of the potential conse-quences of climate change. At the sametime, considerable uncertainties remainbecause the actual impacts will dependon how emissions change, how the cli-

mate responds at global to regionalscales, how societies and supportingtechnologies evolve, how the environ-ment and society are affected, and howmuch ingenuity and commitment soci-eties show in responding to the poten-tial impacts. While the range ofpossible outcomes is very broad, allprojections prepared by the IPCC(2001d) indicate that the anthro-pogenic contribution to global climatechange will be greater during the 21stcentury than during the 20th century.Although the extents of climate changeand its impacts nationally and region-ally remain uncertain, it is generallypossible to undertake “if this, then that”types of analyses. Such analyses canthen be used to identify plausibleimpacts resulting from projectedchanges in climate and, in some cases,to evaluate the relative plausibility ofvarious outcomes.

Clear and careful presentation ofuncertainties is also important. Becausethe information is being provided topolicymakers and because the limitedscientific understanding of theprocesses involved generally precludesa fully quantitative analysis, extensiveconsideration led both the IPCC andthe National Assessment experts toexpress their findings in terms of therelative likelihood of an outcome’soccurring. To integrate the wide varietyof information and to differentiatemore likely from less likely outcomes, acommon lexicon was developed toexpress the considered judgment of theNational Assessment experts about therelative likelihood of the results. Anadvantage of this approach is that itmoves beyond the vagueness of ill-defined terms, such as may or might,which allow an interpretation of thelikelihood of an outcome’s occurring torange from, for example, 1 to 99 per-cent, and so provide little basis for dif-ferentiating the most plausible from theleast plausible outcomes.

In this chapter, which uses a lexiconsimilar to that developed for theNational Assessment, the term possible isintended to indicate there is a finitelikelihood of occurrence of a potential

consequence, the term likely is used toindicate that the suggested impact ismore plausible than other outcomes,and the term very likely is used to indicatethat an outcome is much more plausiblethan other outcomes. Although thedegree of scientific understandingregarding most types of outcomes is notcomplete, the judgments included herehave been based on an evaluation of theconsistency and extent of available sci-entific studies (e.g., field experiments,model simulations), historical trends,physical and biological relationships,and the expert judgment of highly qual-ified scientists actively engaged in rele-vant research (see NAST 2000, 2001).Because such judgments necessarilyhave a subjective component, the indi-cations of relative likelihood maychange as additional information isdeveloped or as new approaches toadaptation are recognized.

Because this chapter is an overview,it generally focuses on types of out-comes that are at least considered likely,leaving discussion of the consequencesof potential outcomes with lower likeli-hood to the more extensive scientificand assessment literature. However, it isimportant to recognize that there arelikely to be unanticipated impacts ofclimate change that occur. Such “sur-prises,” positive or negative, may stemfrom either (1) unforeseen changes inthe physical climate system, such asmajor alterations in ocean circulation,cloud distribution, or storms; or (2)unpredicted biological consequences ofthese physical climate changes, such aspest outbreaks. For this reason, the setof suggested consequences presentedhere should not be considered compre-hensive. In addition, unexpected socialor economic changes, including majorchanges in wealth, technology, or polit-ical priorities, could affect society’s abil-ity to respond to climate change.

This chapter first describes theweather and climate context for theanalysis of impacts, and then provides asummary of the types of consequencesthat are considered plausible across arange of sectors and regions. The chapter then concludes with a brief


summary of actions being taken at thenational level to learn more about thepotential consequences of climatechange and to encourage steps toreduce vulnerability and increaseresilience to its impacts. Although thefederal government can supportresearch that expands understandingand the available set of options and thatprovides information about the poten-tial consequences of climate change andviable response strategies, many of theadaptation measures are likely to beimplemented at state and local levelsand by the private sector. For these rea-sons and because of identified uncertain-ties, the results presented should not beviewed as definitive. Nonetheless, themore plausible types of consequencesand impacts resulting from climatechange and the types of steps that mightbe taken to reduce vulnerability andincrease adaptation to climate variationsand change are identified.

WEATHER AND CLIMATE CONTEXT

The United States experiences awide variety of climate conditions.Moving across from west to east, the cli-mates range from the semi-arid and aridclimates of the Southwest to the conti-nental climates of the Great Plains andthe moister conditions of the easternUnited States. North to south, the cli-mates range from the Arctic climate ofnorthern Alaska to the extensive forestsof the Pacific Northwest to the tropicalclimates in Hawaii, the Pacific Islands,and the Caribbean. Although U.S. soci-ety and industry have largely adapted tothe mean and variable climate condi-tions of their region, this has not beenwithout some effort and cost. In addi-tion, various extreme events each yearstill cause significant impacts across thenation. Weather events causing the mostdeath, injury, and damage include hurri-canes (or more generally tropicalcyclones) and associated storm surges,lightning, tornadoes and other wind-storms, hailstorms, severe winter storms,deep snow and avalanches, and extremesummer temperatures. Heat waves,floods, landslides, droughts, fires, land

subsidence, coastal inundation and ero-sion, and even dam failures also canresult when extremes persist over time.

To provide an objective and quantita-tive basis for an assessment of the poten-tial consequences of climate change, theU.S. National Assessment was organizedaround the use of climate model scenar-ios that specified changes in the climatethat might be experienced across theUnited States (NAST 2001). Ratherthan simply considering the potentialinfluences of arbitrary changes in tem-perature, precipitation, and other vari-ables, the use of climate model scenariosensured that the set of climate condi-tions considered was internally consis-tent and physically plausible. For theNational Assessment, the climate scenar-ios were primarily drawn from resultsavailable from the climate models devel-oped and used by the United Kingdom’sHadley Centre and the Canadian Centrefor Climate Modeling and Analysis. Inaddition, some analyses also drew onresults from model simulations carriedout at U.S. centers, including theNational Center for AtmosphericResearch, the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s)Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Labora-tory, and the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration’s (NASA’s) God-dard Institute for Space Studies.

Use of these model results is notmeant to imply that they provide accu-rate predictions of the specific changes inclimate that will occur over the next100 years. Rather, the models are con-sidered to provide plausible projections ofpotential changes for the 21st century.1

For some aspects of climate, all models,as well as other lines of evidence, are inagreement on the types of changes tobe expected. For example, compared tochanges during the 20th century, all cli-mate model results suggest that warm-ing during the 21st century across thecountry is very likely to be greater, that

sea level and the heat index are going torise more, and that precipitation is morelikely to come in the heavier categoriesexperienced in each region. Also,although there is not yet close agree-ment about how regional changes in cli-mate can be expected to differ fromlarger-scale changes, the model simula-tions indicate some agreement in pro-jections of the general seasonal andsubcontinental patterns of the changes(IPCC 2001d).

This consistency has lent some con-fidence to these results. For someaspects of climate, however, the modelresults differ. For example, some mod-els, including the Canadian model,project more extensive and frequentdrought in the United States, whileothers, including the Hadley model, donot. As a result, the Canadian modelsuggests a hotter and drier Southeastduring the 21st century, while theHadley model suggests warmer andwetter conditions. Where such differ-ences arise, the primary model scenar-ios provide two plausible, but differentalternatives. Such differences provedhelpful in exploring the particular sensi-tivities of various activities to uncertain-ties in the model results.

Projected Changes in the Mean Climate

The model scenarios used in theNational Assessment project that thecontinuing growth in greenhouse gasemissions is likely to lead to annual-average warming over the United Statesthat could be as much as several degreesCelsius (roughly 3–9ºF) during the 21stcentury. In addition, both precipitationand evaporation are projected toincrease, and occurrences of unusualwarmth and extreme wet and dry con-ditions are expected to become morefrequent. For areas experiencing thesechanges, they would feel similar to anoverall northern shift in weather

1 For the purposes of this chapter, prediction is meant to indicate forecasting of an outcome that will occur as a result ofthe prevailing situation and recent trends (e.g., tomorrow’s weather or next winter’s El Niño event), whereas projectionis used to refer to potential outcomes that would be expected if some scenario of future conditions were to come about(e.g., concerning greenhouse gas emissions). In addition to uncertainties in how the climate is likely to respond to achanging atmospheric concentration, projections of climate change necessarily encompass a wide range because ofuncertainties in projections of future emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols and because of the potential effectsof possible future agreements that might limit such emissions.


enced more periods of very wet or verydry conditions, and most areas experi-enced more intense rainfall events.While warming over the 48 contiguousstates amounted to about 0.6ºC (about1ºF), warming in interior Alaska was asmuch as 1.6ºC (about 3ºF), causingchanges ranging from the thawing ofpermafrost to enhanced coastal erosionresulting from melting of sea ice.

Model simulations project that min-imum temperatures are likely to con-tinue to rise more rapidly thanmaximum temperatures, extending thetrend that started during the 20th cen-tury. Although winter temperatures areprojected to increase somewhat morerapidly than summer temperatures, thesummertime heat index is projected torise quite sharply because the risingabsolute humidity will make summerconditions feel much more uncomfort-able, particularly across the southernand eastern United States.

Although a 0.6ºC (1ºF) warming may

systems and climate condition. Forexample, the central tier of states wouldexperience climate conditions roughlyequivalent to those now experienced inthe southern tier, and the northern tierwould experience conditions much likethe central tier. Figure 6-1 illustrateshow the summer climate of Illinoismight change under the two scenarios.While the two models roughly agree onthe amount of warming, the differencesbetween them arise because of differ-ences in projections of changing sum-mertime precipitation.

Recent analyses indicate that, as aresult of an uncertain combination ofnatural and human-induced factors,changes of the type that are projectedfor the 21st century were occurring tosome degree during the 20th century.For example, over the last 100 yearsmost areas in the contiguous UnitedStates warmed, although there wascooling in the Southeast. Also, duringthe 20th century, many areas experi-

not seem large compared to daily varia-tions in temperature, it caused a declineof about two days per year in the num-ber of days that minimum temperaturesfell below freezing. Across the UnitedStates, this change was most apparent inwinter and spring, with little change inautumn. The timing of the last springfrost changed similarly, with earlier ces-sation of spring frosts contributing to alengthening of the frost-free season overthe country. Even these seemingly smalltemperature-related changes have hadsome effects on the natural environment,including shorter duration of lake ice, anorthward shift in the distributions ofsome species of butterflies, changes inthe timing of bird migrations, and alonger growing season.

With respect to changes in precipi-tation, observations for the 20th cen-tury indicate that total annualprecipitation has been increasing, bothworldwide and over the country. Forthe contiguous United States, totalannual precipitation increased by anestimated 5–10 percent over the past100 years. With the exception of local-ized decreases in parts of the upperGreat Plains, the Rocky Mountains, andAlaska, most regions experiencedgreater precipitation (Figure 6-2). Thisincreased precipitation is evident indaily precipitation rates and in thenumber of rain days. It has caused wide-spread increases in stream flow for alllevels of flow conditions, particularlyduring times of low to moderate flowconditions—changes that have gener-ally improved water resource condi-tions and have reduced situations ofhydrologic drought.

For the 21st century, models project acontinuing increase in global precipita-tion, with much of the increase occur-ring in middle and high latitudes. Themodels also suggest that the increasesare likely to be evident in rainfall eventsthat, based on conditions in each region,would be considered heavy (Figure 6-3).However, estimates of the regional pat-tern of changes vary significantly. Whilethere are some indications that winter-time precipitation in the southwesternUnited States is likely to increase due to

F IGURE 6-1 Potent ia l E f fec ts o f 21st-Century Warming on the Summer C l imate o f I l l ino is

This schematic illustrates how the summer climate of Illinois would shift under two plausibleclimate scenarios. Under the Canadian Climate Centre model’s hot-dry climate scenario, thechanges in summertime temperature and precipitation in Illinois would resemble the currentclimatic conditions in southern Missouri by the 2030s and in Oklahoma by the 2090s. For thewarm-moist climate scenario projected by U.K.’s Hadley Centre model, summer in Illinoiswould become more like current summer conditions in the central Appalachians by the 2030sand North Carolina by the 2090s. Both shifts indicate warming of several degrees, but the sce-narios differ in terms of projected changes in precipitation.

Note: The baseline climatic values are for the period 1961–90.

Source: D.J. Wuebbles, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, as included in NAST 2000.

Average Summer Temperatures (°F)Total Summer Precipitation (inches)

70°F

75°F

80°F

10"

10"15"

15"2030s

2090s

20"

Canadian Model

70°F

75°F

80°F

10"

10"15"

15"

20"

Hadley Model

2030s

2090s


FIGURE 6-2 Observed Changes in Prec ip i ta t ion : 1901–1998

The geographical pattern of observed changes in U.S. annual precipitation during the 20thcentury indicates that, although local variations are occurring, precipitation has beenincreasing in most regions. The results are based on data from 1,221 Historical ClimatologyNetwork stations. These data are being used to derive estimates of a 100-year trend foreach U.S. climate division.

+10

+20

+40

-10

-20

-40

Trends (%/100 Years)

F IGURE 6-3 Pro jec ted Changes in the In tens i ty o f U.S. Prec ip i ta t ion fo r the 21st Century

The projected changes in precipitation over the United States as calculated by two models indicate that most of the increase is likely to occur inthe locally heaviest categories of precipitation. Each bar represents the percentage change of precipitation in a different category of storm inten-sity. For example, the two bars on the far right indicate that the Canadian Centre model projects an increase of over 20 percent in the 5 percentmost intense rainfall events in each region, whereas the Hadley Centre model projects an increase of over 55 percent in such events. Becauseboth historic trends and future projections from many global climate models indicate an increase in the fraction of precipitation occurring duringthe heaviest categories of precipitation events in each region, a continuation of this trend is considered likely. Although this does not necessarilytranslate into an increase in flooding, higher river flows are likely to be a consequence.

Source: Byron Gleason, NOAA National Climatic Data Center (updated from NAST 2000).

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%100%

Tren

ds (%

cha

nge

in p

reci

pita

tion

per

cen

tury

) Canadian Model

Hadley Model

Lightest 5%

Moderate

Heaviest 5%

2.6

-6.0 -6.2

0.1

-4.7-6.5

2.54.0 3.1 2.9 1.5

4.7 5.1 4.56.5 7.9 8.6

6.58.8 7.9

6.48.3

10.6

22.8

-4.3

-10.0

-5.4-6.9

-9.0-9.0-5.7

-7.7

-3.8 -3.00.3

1.33.7

11.6

20.3

57.2

warming of the Pacific Ocean, changesacross key U.S. forest and agriculturalregions remain uncertain.

Soil moisture is critical for agricul-ture, vegetation, and water resources.Projections of changes in soil moisturedepend on precipitation and runoff;changes in the timing and form of theprecipitation (i.e., rain or snow); andchanges in water loss by evaporation,which in turn depends on temperaturechange, vegetation, and the effects ofchanges in CO2 concentration on evapotranspiration. As a result of themany interrelationships, projectionsremain somewhat uncertain of howchanges in precipitation are likely toaffect soil moisture and runoff, althoughthe rising summertime temperature islikely to create additional stress by sig-nificantly increasing evaporation.

Note: All stations/trends are displayed, regardless of statistical significance.

Sources: Groisman et al. 2001; NOAA National Climatic Data Center.


Projected Changes in Climate Variability

As in other highly developed nations,U.S. communities and industries havemade substantial efforts to reduce theirvulnerability to normal weather and cli-mate fluctuations. However, adaptationto potential changes in weather extremesand climate variability is likely to bemore difficult and costly. Unfortunately,projections of such changes remain quiteuncertain, especially because variationsin climate differentially affect differentregions of the country. Perhaps the best-known example of a natural variation ofthe climate is caused by the ElNiño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO),which is currently occurring every sev-eral years. ENSO has reasonably well-established effects on seasonal climateconditions across the country. For exam-ple, in the El Niño phase, unusually highsea-surface temperatures (SSTs) in theeastern and central equatorial Pacific actto suppress the occurrence of Atlantichurricanes (Figure 6-4) and result inhigher-than-average wintertime precipi-tation in the southwestern and south-eastern United States, and inabove-average temperatures in the Mid-west (Figure 6-5). During a strong ElNiño, effects can extend into the north-ern Great Plains.

During the La Niña phase, which ischaracterized by unusually low SSTs offthe west coast of South America, higher-than-average wintertime temperaturesprevail across the southern half of theUnited States, more hurricanes occur inthe tropical Atlantic, and more torna-does occur in the Ohio and Tennesseevalleys (Figures 6-4 and 6-5). During thesummer, La Niña conditions can con-tribute to the occurrence of drought inthe eastern half of the United States.

Other factors that affect the inter-annual variability of the U.S. climateinclude the Pacific Decadal Oscillation(PDO) and the North Atlantic Oscilla-tion (NAO).

The PDO is a phenomenon similarto ENSO, but is most apparent in theSSTs of the North Pacific Ocean. ThePDO has a periodicity that is on theorder of decades and, like ENSO, has

The frequency at which various numbers of hurricanes struck the United States during the 20thcentury has been found to depend on whether El Niño or La Niña events were occurring.Because of this observed relationship, changes in the frequency and intensity of these eventsare expected to affect the potential for damaging hurricanes striking the United States.

F IGURE 6-4 Likelihood of Hurricanes to Strike the United States Based on El Niño and La Niña Occurrence

Chan

ce o

f Occ

uren

ce (%

)

La Niña

El Niño

Number of Hurricanes per Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 ormore

2 ormore

3 ormore

4 ormore

5 ormore

6 ormore

7 ormore

90

76

67

27

39

0 0 0 0 0

19

83 1

Source: Bove et al. 1998.

Source: Florida State University, Center for Ocean–Atmospheric Prediction Studies. <http://www.coaps.fsu.edu>

F IGURE 6-5 C l imat ic Tendenc ies across Nor th Amer ica dur ing E l N iño and La Niña Events

Temperature and precipitation across North America have tended to vary from normal wintertime conditions as a result of El Niño (warmer-than-normal) and La Niña (colder-than-normal) events in the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean. For many regions, the state of oceantemperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean has been found to be the most importantdeterminant of whether winter conditions are relatively wet or dry, or relatively warm orcold. For example, winters in the Southeast tend to be generally cool and wet during El Niño(warm) events, and warm and dry during La Niña (cold) events.

Dry

Very Dry

Wet

Very Wet

COLD

Cold-Event Winter (La Niña)

WARM

COLD

Warm-Event Winter (El Niño)

WARM

COLD


two distinct phases—a warm phase anda cool phase. In the warm phase,oceanic conditions lead to an intensifi-cation of the storm-generating AleutianLow, higher-than-average winter tem-peratures in the Pacific Northwest, andrelatively high SSTs along the PacificCoast. The PDO also leads to dry win-ters in the Pacific Northwest, but wet-ter conditions both north and south ofthere. Essentially, the opposite condi-tions occur during the cool phase.

The NAO is a phenomenon that dis-plays a seesaw in temperatures andatmospheric pressure between Green-land and northern Europe. However,the NAO also includes effects in theUnited States. For example, whenGreenland is warmer than normal, theeastern United States is usually colder,particularly in winter, and vice-versa.

Given these important and diverseinteractions, research is being intensifiedto improve model simulations of naturalclimate variations, especially to improveprojections of how such variations arelikely to change. Although projectionsremain uncertain, the climate model ofthe Max Planck Institute in Germany,which is currently considered to providethe most realistic simulation of theENSO cycle, calculates stronger andwider swings between El Niño and LaNiña conditions as the global climatewarms (Timmermann et al. 1999), whileother models simply project more ElNiño-like conditions over the easterntropical Pacific Ocean (IPCC 2001d).Either type of result would be likely tocause important climate fluctuationsacross the United States.

Using the selected model scenariosas guides, but also examining the poten-tial consequences of a continuation ofpast climate trends and of the possibil-ity of exceeding particular thresholdconditions, the National Assessmentfocused its analyses on evaluating thepotential environmental and societalconsequences of the climate changesprojected for the 21st century, asdescribed in the next section.

POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF AND ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Since the late 1980s, an increasingnumber of studies have been undertakento investigate the potential impacts ofclimate change on U.S. society and theenvironment (e.g., U.S. EPA 1989, U.S.Congress 1993) and as components ofinternational assessments (e.g., IPCC1996a, 1998). While these studies havegenerally indicated that many aspects ofthe U.S. environment and society arelikely to be sensitive to changes in cli-mate, they were unable to provide in-depth perspectives of how various typesof impacts might evolve and interact. In1997, the interagency U.S. GlobalChange Research Program (USGCRP)initiated a National Assessment processto evaluate and synthesize availableinformation about the potential impactsof climate change for the United States,to identify options for adapting to cli-mate change, and to summarize researchneeds for improving knowledge aboutvulnerability, impacts, and adaptation(see Chapter 8). The findings were alsoundertaken to provide a more in-depthanalysis of the potential time-varyingconsequences of climate change for con-sideration in scheduled internationalassessments (IPCC 2001a) and to con-tribute to fulfilling obligations under sec-tions 4.1(b) and (e) of the UnitedNations Framework Convention on Cli-mate Change.

The U.S. National Assessment wascarried out recognizing that climatechange is only one among many poten-tial stresses that society and the environ-ment face, and that, in many cases,adaptation to climate change can beaccomplished in concert with efforts toadapt to other stresses. For example, cli-mate variability and change will interactwith such issues as air and water pollu-tion, habitat fragmentation, wetlandloss, coastal erosion, and reductions infisheries in ways that are likely to com-pound these stresses. In addition, anaging national populace and rapidlygrowing populations in cities, coastalareas, and across the South and West are

social factors that interact with and insome ways can increase the sensitivity ofsociety to climate variability and change.In both evaluating potential impacts anddeveloping effective responses, it istherefore important to consider interac-tions among the various stresses.

In considering the potential impactsof climate change, however, it is alsoimportant to recognize that U.S. cli-mate conditions vary from the cold ofan Alaskan winter to the heat of a Texassummer, and from the year-round near-constancy of temperatures in Hawaii tothe strong variations in North Dakota.Across this very wide range of climateconditions and seasonal variation,American ingenuity and resources haveenabled communities and businesses todevelop, although particular economicsectors in particular regions can experi-ence losses and disruptions fromextreme conditions of various types. Forexample, the amount of property dam-age from hurricanes has been rising,although this seems to be mainly due toincreasing development and populationin vulnerable coastal areas. On theother hand, the number of deaths eachyear from weather extremes and fromclimatically dependent infectious dis-eases has been reduced sharply com-pared to a century ago, and total deathsrelating to the environment are cur-rently very small in the context of totaldeaths in the United States, eventhough the U.S. population has beenrising. In addition, in spite of climatechange, the productivity of the agricul-ture and forest sectors has never beenhigher and continues to rise, withexcess production helping to meetglobal demand.

This adaptation to environmentalvariations and extremes has been accom-plished because the public and privatesectors have applied technologicalchange and knowledge about fluctuatingclimate to implement a broad series ofsteps that have enhanced resilience andreduced vulnerability. For example, thesesteps have ranged from better design andconstruction of buildings and communi-ties to greater availability of heating in


winter and cooling in summer, and frombetter warnings about extreme events toadvances in public health care. Becauseof this increasing resilience to climatevariations and relative success in adapt-ing to the modest changes in climatethat were observed during the 20th cen-tury, information about likely future cli-mate changes and continuing efforts toplan for and adapt to these changes arelikely to prove useful in minimizingfuture impacts and preparing to takeadvantage of the changing conditions.

With these objectives in mind, theU.S. National Assessment process,which is described more completely inChapter 8, initiated a set of regional, sec-toral, and national activities. This pagepresents an overview of key nationalfindings, and the following subsectionselaborate on these findings, coveringboth potential consequences and thetypes of adaptive steps that are underwayor could be pursued to moderate or dealwith adverse outcomes. The subsectionssummarize the types of impacts that areprojected, covering initially the potentialimpacts on land cover; then the potentialimpacts on agriculture, forest, and waterresources, which are key naturalresource sectors on which societydepends; then potential impacts associ-ated with coastal regions and humanhealth that define the environment inwhich people live; and finally summa-rization of the primary issues that arespecific to particular U.S. regions. A fulllist of regional, sectoral, and nationalreports prepared under the auspices ofthe U.S. National Assessment processand additional materials relating toresearch and assessment activities canbe found at http://www.usgcrp.gov.

Potential Interactions with Land Cover

The natural vegetative cover of theUnited States is largely determined bythe prevailing climate and soil. Wherenot altered by societal activities, climateconditions largely determine whereindividual species of plants and animalscan live, grow, and reproduce. Thus, thecollections of species that we are familiarwith—e.g., the southeastern mixed

Increased warming is projected for the 21st century—Assuming continued growth inworld greenhouse gas emissions, the primary climate models drawn upon for the analysescarried out in the U.S. National Assessment projected that temperatures in the contiguousUnited States will rise 3–5°C (5–9°F) on average during the 21st century. A wider range ofoutcomes, including a smaller warming, is also possible.

Impacts will differ across regions—Climate change and its potential impacts are likely tovary widely across the country. Temperature increases are likely to vary somewhat amongregions. Heavy precipitation events are projected to become more frequent, yet someregions are likely to become drier.

Ecosystems are especially vulnerable—Many ecosystems are highly sensitive to the pro-jected rate and magnitude of climate change, although more efficient water use will helpsome ecosystems. A few ecosystems, such as alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountainsand some barrier islands, are likely to disappear entirely in some areas. Other ecosystems,such as southeastern forests, are likely to experience major species shifts or break up intoa mosaic of grasslands, woodlands, and forests. Some of the goods and services lostthrough the disappearance or fragmentation of natural ecosystems are likely to be costlyor impossible to replace.

Widespread water concerns arise—Water is an issue in every region, but the nature of thevulnerabilities varies. Drought is an important concern virtually everywhere. Floods andwater quality are concerns in many regions. Snowpack changes are likely to be especiallyimportant in the West, Pacific Northwest, and Alaska.

Food supply is secure—At the national level, the agriculture sector is likely to be able toadapt to climate change. Mainly because of the beneficial effects of the rising carbon diox-ide levels on crops, overall U.S. crop productivity, relative to what is projected in theabsence of climate change, is very likely to increase over the next few decades. However,the gains are not likely to be uniform across the nation. Falling prices are likely to cause dif-ficulty for some farmers, while benefiting consumers.

Near-term forest growth increases—Forest productivity is likely to increase over the nextseveral decades in some areas as trees respond to higher carbon dioxide levels by increas-ing water-use efficiency. Such changes could result in ecological benefits and additionalstorage of carbon. Over the longer term, changes in larger-scale processes, such as fire,insects, droughts, and disease, could decrease forest productivity. In addition, climatechange is likely to cause long-term shifts in forest species, such as sugar maples movingnorth out of the country.

Increased damage occurs in coastal and permafrost areas—Climate change and theresulting rise in sea level are likely to exacerbate threats to buildings, roads, power lines,and other infrastructure in climate-sensitive areas. For example, infrastructure damage isexpected to result from permafrost melting in Alaska and from sea level rise and stormsurges in low-lying coastal areas.

Adaptation determines health outcomes—A range of negative health impacts is possiblefrom climate change. However, as in the past, adaptation is likely to help protect much ofthe U.S. population. Maintaining our nation’s public health and community infrastructure,from water treatment systems to emergency shelters, will be important for minimizing theimpacts of water-borne diseases, heat stress, air pollution, extreme weather events, anddiseases transmitted by insects, ticks, and rodents.

Other stresses are magnified by climate change—Climate change is very likely to modifythe cumulative impacts of other stresses. While it may magnify the impacts of some stress-es, such as air and water pollution and conversion of habitat due to human developmentpatterns, it may increase agricultural and forest productivity in some areas. For coral reefs,the combined effects of increased CO2 concentration, climate change, and other stressesare very likely to exceed a critical threshold, causing large, possibly irreversible impacts.

Uncertainties remain and surprises are expected—Significant uncertainties remain in thescience underlying regional changes in climate and their impacts. Further research wouldimprove understanding and capabilities for projecting societal and ecosystem impacts.Increased knowledge would also provide the public with additional useful informationabout options for adaptation. However, it is likely that some aspects and impacts of climatechange, both positive and negative, will be totally unanticipated as complex systemsrespond to ongoing climate change in unforeseeable ways.

Sources: NAST 2000, 2001.

Key Nat iona l Find ings Adapted f rom the U.S. Nat iona l Assessment


deciduous forest, the desert ecosystemsof the arid Southwest, the productivegrasslands of the Great Plains—are pri-marily a consequence of present climateconditions. Past changes in ecosystemsindicate that some species are sostrongly influenced by the climate towhich they are adapted that they arevulnerable even to modest changes inclimate. For example, alpine meadows athigh elevations in the West exist wherethey do entirely because the plants thatcomprise them are adapted to cold con-ditions that are too harsh for otherspecies in the region. The desert vegeta-tion of the Southwest is adapted to theregion’s high summer temperatures andaridity. Similarly, the forests in the Easttend to have adapted to relatively highrainfall and soil moisture; if drought con-ditions were to persist, grasses andshrubs could begin to out-compete treeseedlings, leading to completely differ-ent ecosystems.

To provide a common base of infor-mation about potential changes in vege-tation across the nation for use in theNational Assessment (NAST 2000), spe-cialized ecosystem models were used toevaluate the potential consequences ofclimate change and an increasing CO2concentration for the dominant vegeta-tion types. Biogeography models wereused to simulate potential shifts in thegeographic distribution of major plantspecies and communities (ecosystemstructure). And biogeochemistry modelswere used to simulate changes in basicecosystem processes, such as the cyclingof carbon, nutrients, and water (ecosys-tem function). Each type of model wasused in considering the potential conse-quences of the two primary model-basedclimate scenarios. These scenarios repre-sented conditions across much of theUnited States that were generally eitherwarmer and moister, or hotter and drier.The results from both types of modelsindicated that changes in ecosystemswould be likely to be significant.

Climate changes that affect the landsurface and terrestrial vegetation willalso have implications for fresh-waterand coastal marine ecosystems thatdepend on the temperature of runoff

water, on the amount of erosion, andon other factors dependent on the landcover. For example, in aquatic ecosys-tems, many fish can breed only in waterthat falls within a narrow range of tem-peratures. As a result, species of fishthat are adapted to cool waters canquickly become unable to breed suc-cessfully if water temperatures rise. Asanother example, because washed-offsoil and nutrients can benefit wetlandspecies (within limits) and harm estuar-ine ecosystems, changes in the fre-quency or intensity of runoff eventscaused by changes in land cover can be important. Such impacts aredescribed in the subsections dealingwith climate change interactions withwater resources and the coastal envi-ronment, while issues affecting terres-trial land cover are covered in thefollowing subsection.

Redistribution of Land CoverThe responses of ecosystems to pro-

jected changes in climate and CO2 aremade up of the individual responses oftheir constituent species and how theyinteract with each other. Species in cur-rent ecosystems can differ substantiallyin their tolerances to changes in tem-perature and precipitation, and in theirresponses to changes in the CO2 con-centration. As a result, the ranges ofindividual species are likely to shift atdifferent rates, and different species arelikely to have different degrees of suc-cess in establishing themselves in newlocations and environments. Whilechanges in climate projected for thecoming hundred years are very likely toalter current ecosystems, projectingthese kinds of biological and ecologicalresponses and the structure and func-tioning of the new plant communities isvery difficult.

Analyses of present ecosystem dis-tributions and of past shifts indicatethat natural ecosystems are sensitive tochanges in surface temperature, precip-itation patterns, and other climateparameters and changes in the atmos-pheric CO2 concentration. For example,changes in temperature and precipita-tion of the magnitude being projected

are likely to cause shifts in the areasoccupied by dominant vegetation typesrelative to their current distribution.Some ecosystems that are already con-strained by climate, such as alpine mead-ows in the Rocky Mountains, are likelyto face extreme stress and disappearentirely in some places. Other morewidespread ecosystems are also likely tobe sensitive to climate change. Forexample, both climate model scenariossuggest that the southwestern UnitedStates will become moister, allowingmore vegetation to grow (Figure 6-6).Such a change is likely to transformdesert landscapes into grasslands orshrublands, altering both their potentialuse and the likelihood of fire. In thenortheastern United States, both cli-mate scenarios suggest changes mainlyin the species composition of the forests,including the northward displacementof sugar maples, which could lead to lossin some areas. However, the studies alsoindicate that conditions in this regionwill remain conducive to maintaining aforested landscape, mainly oak and hick-ory. In the southeastern United States, however, there was less agreementamong the models: the hot-dry climatescenario was projected to lead to conditions that would be conducive tothe potential breakup of the forest land-scape into a mosaic of forests, savannas,and grasslands; in contrast, the warm-moist scenario was projected to lead to anorthward expansion of the southeast-ern mixed forest cover. (See additionaldiscussion in the Forest subsection.)

Basically, changes in land cover wereprojected to occur, at least to somedegree, in all locations, and thesechanges cannot generally be preventedif the climate changes and vegetationresponds as much as projected.

Effects on the Supply of VitalEcosystem Goods and Services

In addition to the value of naturalecosystems in their own right, ecosys-tems of all types, from the most naturalto the most extensively managed, provide a variety of goods and servicesthat benefit society. Some products ofecosystems enter the market and


contribute directly to the economy. Forexample, forests serve as sources of tim-ber and pulpwood, and agro-ecosystemsserve as sources of food. Ecosystemsalso provide a set of unpriced servicesthat are valuable but that typically arenot traded in the marketplace. Althoughthere is no current market, for example,for the services that forests and wet-lands provide for improving water qual-ity, regulating stream flow, providingsome measure of protection fromfloods, and sequestering carbon, someof these services are very valuable tosociety. Ecosystems are also valued forrecreational, aesthetic, and ethical rea-sons. For example, the bird life of thecoastal marshes of the Southeast andthe brilliant autumn colors of the NewEngland forests are treasured compo-nents of the nation’s regional heritagesand important elements of our qualityof life.

Based on the studies carried out,changes in land cover induced by climate change, along with an increasedlevel of disturbances, could have variedimpacts on ecosystem services, includ-ing the abilities of ecosystems tocleanse the air and water, stabilize land-scapes against erosion, and store car-bon. Even in such regions as theSouthwest, where vegetation isexpected to increase as a result of

increased rainfall and enhanced plantgrowth due to the rising CO2 concen-tration, an important potential conse-quence is likely to be a heightenedfrequency and intensity of fires duringthe prolonged summer season. In-creased fire frequency would likely be athreat not only to the natural landcover, but also to the many residentialstructures being built in vulnerable sub-urban and rural areas, and later wouldincrease vulnerability to mudslides as aresult of denuded hills. Considering thefull range of available results, it is plau-sible that climate change-induced alter-ations to natural ecosystems couldaffect the availability of some ecosys-tem goods and services.

Effects of an Increased CO2Concentration on Plants

The ecosystem models used in theNational Assessment considered thepotential effects of increases in theatmospheric CO2 concentration be-cause the CO2 concentration affectsplant species via a direct physiologicaleffect on photosynthesis (the process bywhich plants use CO2 to create new bio-logical material). Higher CO2 concen-trations generally enhance plant growthif the plants also have sufficient waterand nutrients (such as nitrogen) that areneeded to sustain this enhanced growth.

For example, the CO2 level in commer-cial greenhouses is sometimes boosted tostimulate plant growth. In addition toenhancing plant growth, higher CO2levels can raise the efficiency with whichplants use water and reduce their suscep-tibility to damage by air pollutants.

As a result of these various influences,different types of plants respond at dif-ferent rates to increases in the atmos-pheric CO2 concentration, resulting in adivergence of growth rates. Most speciesgrow faster and increase biomass; how-ever, the nutritional value of some ofthese plants could be altered. Bothbecause of biochemical processing andbecause warming temperatures increaseplant respiration, the beneficial effects ofincreased CO2 on plants are also pro-jected to flatten at some higher level ofCO2 concentration, beyond which con-tinuing increases in the CO2 concentra-tion would not enhance plant growth.

While there is still much to belearned about the CO2 “fertilization”effect, including its limits and its directand indirect implications, many ecosys-tems are projected to benefit from ahigher CO2 concentration, and plantswill use water more efficiently.

Effects on Storage of CarbonIn response to changes in climate and

the CO2 concentration, the biogeo-

Both the Hadley and the Canadian models project increasing wintertime precipitation in the U.S. Southwest toward the end of the 21st century and a conversion of desert ecosystems to shrub and grassland ecosystems.

F IGURE 6-6 Potent ia l E f fec ts o f Pro jec ted C l imate Change on Ecosystem Dis t r ibut ion

Canadian Model Hadley ModelCurrent Ecosystems

Alpine

Forest

Savanna

Shrubland

Grassland

Arid LandSource: R.P. Neilson, USDA Forest Service, Corvallis, Oregon, as presented in NAST 2000.


chemistry models used in the NationalAssessment generally simulated in-creases in the amount of carbon storedin vegetation and soils for the continen-tal United States. The calculatedincreases were relatively small, however,and not uniform across the country. Forexample, one of the biogeochemistrymodels, when simulating the effects ofhotter and drier conditions, projectedthat the southeastern forests would losemore carbon by respiration than theywould gain by increased photosynthesis,causing an overall carbon loss of up to20 percent by 2030. Such a loss wouldindicate that the forests were in a state ofdecline. The same biogeochemistrymodel, however, when calculating thepotential effects of the warmer andmoister climate scenario, projected thatforests in the same part of the Southeastwould likely gain between 5 and 10 per-cent in carbon over the next 30 years,suggesting a more vigorous forest.

Susceptibility of Ecosystems to Disturbances

Prolonged stress due to insufficientsoil moisture can make trees more sus-ceptible to insect attack, lead to plantdeath, and increase the probability offire as dead plant material adds to anecosystem’s “fuel load.” The biogeogra-phy models used in this analysis simu-lated at least part of this sequence ofclimate-triggered events in ecosystemsas a prelude to calculating shifts in thegeographic distribution of major plantspecies.

For example, one of the biogeogra-phy models projected that a hot, dryclimate in the Southeast would be likelyto result in the replacement of the cur-rent mixed evergreen and deciduousforests by savanna/woodlands andgrasslands, with much of the changeeffected by an increased incidence offire. Yet the same biogeography modelprojected a slight northward expansionof the mixed evergreen and deciduousforests of the Southeast in response tothe warm, moist climate scenario, withno significant contraction along thesouthern boundary. Thus, in thisregion, changes in the frequency and

intensity of such disturbances as fire arelikely to be major determinants of thetype and rapidity of the conversion ofthe land cover to a new state.

As explained more fully in the sec-tions on the interactions of climatechange with coastal and waterresources, aquatic ecosystems are alsolikely to be affected by both climatechange and unusual disturbances, suchas storms and storm surges.

Potential Adaptation Options toPreserve Prevailing Land Cover

The National Assessment concludedthat the potential vulnerability of natu-ral ecosystems is likely to be moreimportant than other types of potentialimpacts affecting the U.S. environmentand society. This importance arisesbecause in many cases little can be doneto help these ecosystems adapt to theprojected rate and amount of climate change. While adjustments inhow some systems are managed canperhaps reduce the potential impacts,the complex, interdependent webs thathave been naturally generated over verylong periods are not readily shiftedfrom one place to another or easilyrecreated in new locations, even toregions of similar temperature andmoisture. Although many regions haveexperienced changes in ecosystems as aresult of human-induced changes inland cover, and people have generallybecome adapted to—and have evenbecome defenders of—the altered con-ditions (e.g., reforestation of New Eng-land), the climate-induced changesduring the 21st century are likely toaffect virtually every region of thecountry—both the ecosystems wherepeople live, as well as those in the pro-tected areas that have been created asrefuges against change.

Potential Interactions with Agriculture

U.S. croplands, grassland pasture,and range occupy about 420 millionhectares (about 1,030 million acres), or nearly 55 percent of the U.S. landarea, excluding Alaska and Hawaii(USDA/ERS 2000). Throughout the

20th century, agricultural productionshifted toward the West and Southwest.This trend allowed regrowth of someforests and grasslands, generally enhanc-ing wildlife habitats, especially in theNortheast, and contributing to seques-tration of carbon in these regions.

U.S. food production and distribu-tion comprise about 10 percent of theU.S. economy. The value of U.S. agri-cultural commodities (food and fiber)exceeds $165 billion at the farm leveland over $500 billion after processingand marketing, Because of the produc-tivity of U.S. agriculture, the UnitedStates is a major supplier of food andfiber for the world, accounting for morethan 25 percent of total global trade inwheat, corn, soybeans, and cotton.

Changes in AgriculturalProductivity

U.S. agricultural productivity hasimproved by over 1 percent a year since1950, resulting in a decline in both pro-duction costs and commodity prices,limiting the net conversion of naturalhabitat to cropland, and freeing up landfor the Conservation Reserve Program.Although the increased production andthe two-thirds drop in real commodityprices have been particularly beneficialto consumers inside and outside theUnited States and have helped toreduce hunger and malnourishmentaround the world, the lower prices havebecome a major concern for producersand have contributed to the continuingdecline in the number of small farmersacross the country. Continuation ofthese trends is expected, regardless ofwhether climate changes, with continu-ing pressures on individual producers tofurther increase productivity andreduce production costs.

On the other hand, producers con-sider anything that might increase theircosts relative to other producers or thatmight limit their markets as a threat totheir economic well-being. Issues ofconcern include regulatory actions,such as efforts to control the off-siteconsequences of soil erosion, agricul-tural chemicals, and livestock wastes;extreme weather or climate events; new


pests; and the development of pestresistance to existing pest controlstrategies.

Future changes in climate areexpected to interact with all of theseissues. In particular, although some fac-tors may tend to limit growth in yields,rising CO2 concentrations and continu-ing climate change are projected, onaverage, to contribute to extending thepersistent upward trend in crop yieldsthat has been evident during the secondhalf of the 20th century. In addition, ifall else remains equal, these changescould change supplies of and require-ments for irrigation water, increase theneed for fertilizers to sustain the gain incarbon production, lead to changes insurface-water quality, necessitateincreased use of pesticides or othermeans to limit damage from pests, andalter the variability of the climate to which the prevailing agricultural sector has become accustomed. How-ever, agricultural technology is cur-rently undergoing rapid change, andfuture production technologies andpractices seem likely to be able to con-tain or reduce these impacts.

Assuming that technological ad-vances continue at historical rates, thatthere are no dramatic changes in federalpolicies or in international markets, thatadequate supplies of nutrients are avail-able and can be applied without exacer-bating pollution problems, and that noprolonged droughts occur in majoragricultural regions, U.S. analyses indi-cate that it is unlikely that climatechange will imperil the ability of theUnited States to feed its population andto export substantial amounts of food-stuffs (NAAG 2002). These studiesindicate that, at the national level, over-all agricultural productivity is likely toincrease as a result of changes in theCO2 concentration and in climate pro-jected for at least the next severaldecades. The crop models used in thesestudies assume that the CO2 fertiliza-tion effect will be strongly beneficialand will also allow for a limited set ofon-farm adaptation options, includingchanging planting dates and varieties,in res-ponse to the changing condi-

tions. These adaptation measures con-tribute small additional gains in yields ofdry-land crops and greater gains inyields of irrigated crops. However,analyses performed to date have neitherconsidered all of the consequences ofpossible changes in pests, diseases,insects, and extreme events that mayresult, nor been able to consider the fullrange of potential adaptation options(e.g., genetic modification of crops toenhance resistance to pests, insects, anddiseases).

Recognizing these limitations, avail-able evaluations of the effects of anticipated changes in the CO2 concen-tration and climate on crop productionand yield and the adaptive actions byfarmers generally show positive resultsfor cotton, corn for grain and silage,soybeans, sorghum, barley, sugar beets,and citrus fruits (Figure 6-7). The pro-ductivity of pastures may also increase asa result of these changes. For othercrops, including wheat, rice, oats, hay,sugar cane, potatoes, and tomatoes,yields are projected to increase undersome conditions and decrease underothers, as explained more fully in theagriculture assessment (NAAG 2002).

The studies also indicate that not allU.S. agricultural regions are likely to beaffected to the same degree by the pro-jected changes in climate that have beeninvestigated. In general, northern areas,such as the Midwest, West, and PacificNorthwest, are projected to show largegains in yields, while influences on cropyields in other regions vary more widely,depending on the climate scenario andtime period. For example, projectedwheat yields in the southern Great Plainscould decline if the warming is notaccompanied by sufficient precipitation.

These analyses used market-scaleeconomic models to evaluate the overalleconomic implications for various crops.These models allow for a wide range ofadaptations in response to changing pro-ductivity, prices, and resource use,including changes in irrigation, use offertilizer and pesticides, crops grownand the location of cropping, and a vari-ety of other farm management options.Based on studies to date, unless there is

inadequate or poorly distributed precip-itation, the net effects of climate changeon the agricultural segment of the U.S.economy over the 21st century are gen-erally projected to be positive. Thesestudies indicate that, economically, con-sumers are likely to benefit more fromlower prices than producers suffer fromthe decline in profits. Complicating theanalyses, however, the studies indicatethat producer versus consumer effectswill depend on how climate changeaffects production of these crops else-where in the world. For example, forcrops grown in the United States, eco-nomic losses to farmers due to lowercommodity prices are offset under someconditions by an increased advantage ofU.S. farmers over foreign competitors,leading to an increased volume ofexports.

Because U.S. food variety and sup-plies depend not only on foodstuffs pro-duced nationally, the net effect ofclimate change on foods available forU.S. consumers will also depend on theeffects of climate change on global pro-duction of these foodstuffs. Theseeffects will in turn depend not only oninternational markets, but also on howfarmers around the world are able toadapt to climate change and other fac-tors they will face. While there are likelyto be many regional variations, experi-ence indicates that research sponsoredby the United States and other nationshas played an important role in promot-ing the ongoing, long-term increase inglobal agricultural productivity. Furtherresearch, covering opportunities rangingfrom genetic design to improving thesalt tolerance of key crops, is expectedto continue to enhance overall globalproduction of foodstuffs.

Changes in Water Demands by Agriculture

Within the United States, a keydeterminant of agricultural productivitywill be the ongoing availability of suffi-cient water where and when it isneeded. The variability of the U.S. cli-mate has provided many opportunitiesfor learning to deal with a wide range ofclimate conditions, and the U.S. regions


FIGURE 6-7 E f fec ts o f Potent ia l Changes in C l imate on U.S Crop Yie lds

Results for 16 crops, given as the percentage differences between future yields for two periods (2030s and 2090s) and current yields indicate thatwarmer climate conditions are likely to lead to increased yields for most crops. The results consider the physiological responses of the crops tofuture climate conditions under either dry-land or irrigated cultivation, assuming a limited set of reasonable adaptive response by producers.Climate scenarios are drawn from two different climate models that are likely to span the range of changes of future conditions, ranging from thewarm-moist changes projected by the U.K.’s Hadley Centre model (version 2) to the hot-dry changes projected by the Canadian Climate Centremodel. The most positive responses resulted when conditions were warmer and wetter in key growing regions (e.g., cotton), when frost occur-rence was reduced (e.g., grapefruit), and when northern areas warmed (e.g., silage from pasture improvement).

Source: NAAG 2002.

-30% 0% 30% 60% 90% 120% 150%

0%

Cotton

Corn

Soybeans

Spring Wheat

Winter Weat

Sorghum

Rice

Barley

Oats

Hay

Sugar Cane

Sugar Beets

Potatoes

Tomatoes,Processed

Oranges,Processed

Grapefruit,Processed

1%

36%122%

56%102%

1%9%

23%33%

23%40%

-1%-6%

7%10%

-1%0%

8%16%

22%8%

22%21%

7%4%

9%18%

3%-16%

28%40%

3%

24%23%

2%

6%

23%22%

7%

-6%-15%

17%33%

7%16%

39%42%

-4%-21%

-1%-8%

10%44%

10%17%

13%

15%

120%

112%

28%49%

29%53%

Canadian Scenario, 2090s

Canadian Scenario, 2030s

Hadley Scenario, 2090s

Hadley Scenario, 2030s


where many crops are grown havechanged over time without disruptingproduction. In addition, steps to build upthe amount of carbon in soils—which islikely to be one component of any car-bon mitigation program—will enhancethe water-holding capacity of soils anddecrease erosion and vulnerability todrought, thereby helping to improveoverall agricultural productivity. Forareas that are insufficiently moist, irriga-tion has been used to enhance crop pro-ductivity. In addition, about 27 percentof U.S. cultivated land is currently underreduced tillage. Several projects, such asthe Iowa Soil Carbon Sequestration Pro-ject, that are underway to promote con-servation tillage practices as a means tomitigate climate change will have theancillary benefits of reducing soil ero-sion and runoff while increasing soilwater and nitrogen retention.

Analyses conducted for the NationalAssessment project that climate changewill lead to changes in the demand forirrigation water and, if water resourcesare insufficient, to changes in the cropsbeing grown. Although regional differ-ences will likely be substantial, modelprojections indicate that, on average forthe nation, agriculture’s need for irriga-tion water is likely to slowly decline. Atleast two factors are responsible for thisprojected reduction: (1) precipitationwill increase in some agricultural areas,and (2) faster development of crops dueto higher temperatures and an increasedCO2 concentration is likely to result in ashorter growing period and consequentlya reduced demand for irrigation water.Moreover, a higher CO2 concentrationgenerally enhance a plant’s water-use effi-ciency. These factors can combine tocompensate for the increased transpira-tion and soil water loss due to higher airtemperatures. However, a decreasedperiod of crop growth also leads todecreased yields, although it may be pos-sible to overcome this disadvantagethrough crop breeding.

Changes in Surface-Water Quality due to Agriculture

Potential changes in surface-waterquality as a result of climate change is an

issue that has only started to be investi-gated. For example, in recent decades,soil erosion and excess nutrient runofffrom crop and livestock production haveseverely degraded Chesapeake Bay, ahighly valuable natural resource. In simu-lations for the National Assessment,loading of excess nitrogen from cornproduction into Chesapeake Bay is pro-jected to increase due to both the changein average climate conditions and theeffects of projected changes in extremeweather events, such as floods or heavydownpours that wash large amounts offertilizers and animal manure into surfacewaters. Across the country, changes infuture farm practice (such as no-till orreduced-till agriculture) that enhancebuildup and retention of soil moisture,and better matching of the timing of a crop’s need for fertilizer with the timing of application are examples ofapproaches that could reduce projectedadverse impacts on water quality. In addi-tion, the potential for reducing adverseimpacts of fertilizer application and soilerosion by using genetically modifiedcrops has not yet been considered.

Changes in Pesticide Use by Agriculture

Climate change is projected to causefarmers in most regions to increase theiruse of pesticides to sustain the productiv-ity of current crop strains. While thisincrease is expected to result in slightlypoorer overall economic performance,this effect is minimal because pesticideexpenditures are a relatively small shareof production costs. Neither the poten-tial changes in environmental impacts asa result of increased pesticide use nor thepotential for genetic modification toenhance pest resistance have yet beenevaluated.

Effects of Changes in ClimateVariability on Agriculture

Based on experience, agriculture isalso likely to be affected if the extent andoccurrence of climate fluctuations andextreme events change. The vulnerabilityof agricultural systems to climate andweather extremes varies with locationbecause of differences in soils, produc-

tion systems, and other factors. Changesin the form (rain, snow, or hail), timing,frequency, and intensity of precipitation,and changes in wind-driven events (e.g.,wind storms, hurricanes, and tornadoes)are likely to have significant conse-quences in particular regions. For exam-ple, in the absence of adaptive measures,an increase in heavy precipitation eventsseems likely in some areas to aggravateerosion, water-logging of soils, andleaching of animal wastes, pesticides,fertilizers, and other chemicals into sur-face and ground water. Conversely,lower precipitation in other areas mayreduce some types of impacts.

A major source of U.S. climate vari-ability is the El Niño–Southern Oscilla-tion (ENSO). The effects of ENSOevents vary widely across the country,creating wet conditions in some areasand dry conditions in others that canhave significant impacts on agriculturalproduction. For example, over the pastseveral decades, average corn yield hasbeen reduced by about 15–30 percentin years with widespread floods ordrought. Better prediction of such vari-ations is a major focus of U.S. and inter-national research activities (e.g.,through the International ResearchInstitute for Climate Prediction)because, in part, such information couldincrease the range of adaptive responsesavailable to farmers. For example, givensufficient warning of climate anomalies(e.g., of conditions being warm and dry,cool and moist, etc.), crop species andcrop planting dates could be optimizedfor the predicted variation, helping toreduce the adverse impact on yields andoverall production. Because long-termprojections suggest that ENSO varia-tions may become even stronger asglobal average temperature increases,achieving even better predictive skill inthe future will be especially importantto efforts to maximize production inthe face of climate fluctuations.

Potential Adaptation Strategies for Agriculture

To ameliorate the deleterious effectsof climate change generally, such adap-tation strategies as changing planting


dates and varieties are likely to help tosignificantly offset economic losses andincrease relative yields. Adaptive meas-ures are likely to be particularly criticalfor the Southeast because of the largereductions in yields projected for somecrops if summer precipitation declines.With the wide range of growing condi-tions across the United States, specificbreeding for response to CO2 is likelyto be required to more fully benefitfrom the CO2 fertilization effectdetected in experimental crop studies.Breeding for tolerance to climatic stresshas already been exploited, and vari-eties that do best under ideal condi-tions usually also out-perform othervarieties under stress conditions.

Although many types of changescan likely be adapted to, some adapta-tions to climate change and its impactsmay have negative secondary effects.For example, an analysis of the poten-tial effects of climate change on wateruse from the Edward’s aquifer regionnear San Antonio, Texas, foundincreased demand for ground-waterresources. Increased water use from thisaquifer would threaten endangeredspecies dependent on flows fromsprings supported by the aquifer.

In addition, in the absence ofgenetic modification of available cropspecies to counter these influences,pesticide and herbicide use is likely toincrease with warming. Greater chemi-cal inputs would be expected toincrease the potential for chemicallycontaminated runoff reaching prairiewetlands and ground water, which, ifnot controlled by on-site measures,could pollute rivers and lakes, drinking-water supplies, coastal waters, recre-ation areas, and waterfowl habitat.

As in the past, farmers will need tocontinue to adapt to the changing con-ditions affecting agriculture, andchanging climate is likely to become anincreasingly influential factor. Presum-ing adaptation to changing climateconditions is successful, the U.S. agri-cultural sector should remain strong—growing more on less land whilecontinuing to lower prices for the con-sumer, exporting large amounts of food

to help feed the world, and storing car-bon to enhance resilience to droughtand contribute to the slowing of climatechange.

Potential Interactions with Forests

Forests cover nearly one-third of theUnited States, providing wildlife habi-tat; clean air and water; carbon storage;and recreational opportunities, such ashiking, camping, and fishing. In addi-tion, harvested products include timber,pulpwood, fuelwood, wild game, ferns,mushrooms, berries, and much more.This wealth of products and servicesdepends on forest productivity and bio-diversity, which are in turn stronglyinfluenced by climate.

Across the country, native forests are adapted to the local climates inwhich they developed, such as the cold-tolerant boreal forests of Alaska, thesummer drought-tolerant forests of thePacific Northwest, and the drought-adapted piñon-juniper forests of theSouthwest. Given the overall impor-tance of the nation’s forests, the poten-tial impacts from climate change arereceiving close attention, although it isonly one of several factors meritingconsideration.

A range of human activities causeschanges in forests. For example, signifi-cant areas of native forests have beenconverted to agricultural use, andexpansion of urban areas has frag-mented forests into smaller, less con-tiguous patches. In some parts of thecountry, intensive management andfavorable climates have resulted indevelopment of highly productiveforests, such as southern pine planta-tions, in place of the natural land cover.Fire suppression, particularly in south-eastern, midwestern, and westernforests, has also led to changes in forestarea and in species composition. Har-vesting methods have also changedspecies composition, while plantingtrees for aesthetic and landscaping pur-poses in urban and rural areas hasexpanded the presence of some species.In addition, large areas, particularly inthe Northeast, have become reforested

as forests have taken over abandonedagricultural lands, allowing reestablish-ment of the ranges of many wildlifespecies.

Changes in climate and in the CO2concentration are emerging as impor-tant human-induced influences that areaffecting forests. These factors areinteracting with factors already causingchanges in forests to further affect thesocioeconomic benefits and the goodsand services forests provide, includingthe extent, composition, and produc-tivity of forests; the frequency andintensity of such natural disturbances asfire; and the level of biodiversity(NFAG 2001). Based on model projec-tions of moderate to large warming,Figure 6-8 gives an example of the gen-eral character of changes that couldoccur for forests in the eastern UnitedStates by the late 21st century.

Effects on Forest ProductivityA synthesis of laboratory and field

studies and modeling indicates that thefertilizing effect of atmospheric CO2will increase forest productivity. How-ever, increases are likely to be stronglytempered by local conditions, such asmoisture stress and nutrient availability.Across a wide range of scenarios, mod-est warming is likely to result inincreased carbon storage in most U.S.forests, although under some of thewarmer model scenarios, forests in theSoutheast and the Northwest couldexperience drought-induced losses ofcarbon, possibly exacerbated byincreased fire disturbance. Thesepotential gains and losses of carbonwould be in addition to changes result-ing from changes in land use, such asthe conversion of forests to agriculturallands or development.

Other components of environmen-tal change, such as nitrogen depositionand ground-level ozone concentra-tions, are also affecting forestprocesses. Models used in the forestsector assessment suggest a synergisticfertilization response between CO2and nitrogen enrichment, leading tofurther increases in productivity(NFAG 2001). However, ozone acts in


the opposite direction. Current ozonelevels, for example, have importanteffects on many herbaceous species andare estimated to decrease production insouthern pine plantations by 5 percent,in northeastern forests by 10 percent,and in some western forests by evenmore. Interactions among these physi-cal and chemical changes and othercomponents of global change will beimportant in projecting the future stateof U.S. forests. For example, a higherCO2 concentration can tend to sup-press the impacts of ozone on plants.

Effects on Natural DisturbancesNatural disturbances having the

greatest effects on forests includeinsects, disease, non-native species, fires,droughts, hurricanes, landslides, windstorms, and ice storms. While some treespecies are very susceptible to fire, others, such as lodgepole pine, aredependent on occasional fires for suc-cessful reproduction.

Over millennia, local, regional, and

global-scale changes in temperatureand precipitation have influenced theoccurrence, frequency, and intensity ofthese natural disturbances. Thesechanges in disturbance regimes are anatural part of all ecosystems. However,as a consequence of climate change,forests may soon be facing more rapidalterations in the nature of these distur-bances. For example, unless there is alarge increase in precipitation, the sea-sonal severity of fire hazard is projectedto increase during the 21st century overmuch of the country, particularly in theSoutheast and Alaska.

The consequences of droughtdepend on annual and seasonal climatechanges and whether the current adap-tations of forests to drought will offerresistance and resilience to new condi-tions. The ecological models used inthe National Assessment indicated thatincreases in drought stresses are mostlikely to occur in the forests of theSoutheast, southern Rocky Mountains,and parts of the Northwest. Hurricanes,

ice storms, wind storms, landslides,insect infestations, disease, and intro-duced species are also likely to be climate-modulated influences thataffect forests. However, projection ofchanges in the frequencies, intensities,and locations of such factors and theirinfluences are difficult to project. Whatis clear is that, as climate changes, alter-ations in these disturbances and in theireffects on forests are possible.

Effects on Forest BiodiversityIn addition to the very large influ-

ences of changes in land cover, changesin the distribution and abundance ofplant and animal species are a result ofboth (1) the birth, growth, death, anddispersal rates of individuals in a popula-tion and (2) the competition betweenindividuals of the same species and otherspecies. These can all be influenced inturn by weather, climate, contaminants,nutrients, and other abiotic factors.When aggregated, these processes canresult in the local disappearance or

Note: All cases were calculated using the DISTRIB tree species distribution model, which calculates the most likely dominant types of vegetation for the given climatic conditions,assuming they have persisted for several decades.

Source: A.M. Prasad and L. R. Iverson, Northeastern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Delaware, Ohio, as reported in NAST 2000.

Both the warm-moist climate change scenario from the Hadley climate model and the hot-dry scenario from the Canadian climate model sug-gest a significant northward shift in prevailing forest types. For example, the maple-beech-birch forest type is projected to shift north intoCanada and no longer be dominant in the late 21st century in the northeastern United States.

F IGURE 6-8 Potent ia l E f fec ts o f Pro jec ted C l imate Change on Dominant Forest Types

White-Red-Jack Pine

Spruce-Fir

Longleaf-Slash Pine

Loblolly-Shortleaf Pine

Oak-Pine

Oak-Hickory

Oak-Gum-Cypress

Elm-Ash-Cottonweed

Maple-Beech-Birch

Aspen-Birch No Data

Hadley Scenario � 2070�2100Canadian Scenario � 2070�2100Current � 1960�1990


introduction of a species, and ultimatelydetermine the species’ range and influ-ence its population.

Although climate and soils exertstrong controls on the establishment andgrowth of plant species, the response ofplant and animal species to climatechange will be the result of many inter-acting and interrelated processes operat-ing over several temporal and spatialscales. Movement and migration rates,changes in disturbance regimes and abi-otic environmental variables, and inter-actions within and between species willall affect the distributions and popula-tions of plants and animals.

Analyses conducted using ecologicalmodels indicate that plausible climatescenarios are very likely to cause shiftsin the location and area of the potentialhabitats for many tree species. Forexample, potential habitats for treesacclimated to cool environments arevery likely to shift northward. Habitatsof alpine and sub-alpine spruce-fir inthe contiguous United States are likelyto be reduced and, possibly in the longterm, eliminated as their mountainhabitats warm. The extents of aspen,eastern birch, and sugar maple arelikely to contract dramatically in theUnited States and largely shift intoCanada, with the shift in sugar maplecausing loss of syrup production innorthern New York and New England.In contrast, oak/hickory and oak/pinecould expand in the East, and Pon-derosa pine and arid woodland commu-nities could expand in the West. Howwell these species track changes in theirpotential habitats will be strongly influ-enced by the viability of their mecha-nisms for dispersal to other locationsand the disturbances to these alterna-tive environments.

Because of the dominance of non-forest land uses along migration routes,the northward shift of some nativespecies to new habitats is likely to bedisrupted if the rate of climate change istoo rapid. For example, coniferencroachment, grazing, invasivespecies, and urban expansion are cur-rently displacing sagebrush and aspencommunities. The effects of climate

change on the rate and magnitude ofdisturbance (forest damage anddestruction associated with fires,storms, droughts, and pest outbreaks)will be important factors in determiningwhether transitions from one foresttype to another will be gradual orabrupt. If the rate and type of distur-bances in New England do not increase,for example, a smooth transition fromthe present maple, beech, and birchtree species to oak and hickory mayoccur. Where the frequency or inten-sity of disturbances increases, however,transitions are very likely to occur morerapidly. As these changes occur, inva-sive (weedy) species that disperse rap-idly are likely to find opportunities innewly forming ecological communities.As a result, the species composition ofthese communities will likely differ sig-nificantly in some areas from thoseoccupying similar habitats today.

Changes in the composition ofecosystems may, in turn, have impor-tant effects on wildlife. For example, tothe extent that climate change and ahigher CO2 concentration increase for-est productivity, this might result inreduced overall land disturbance andimproved water quality, tending to helpwildlife, at least in some areas. How-ever, changes in composition can alsoaffect predator–prey relationships, pesttypes and populations, the potential fornon-native species, links in the chain ofmigratory habitats, the health of key-stone species, and other factors. Giventhese many possibilities, much remainsto be examined in projecting influencesof climate change on wildlife.

Socioeconomic ImpactsNorth America is the world’s leading

producer and consumer of wood prod-ucts. U.S. forests provide for substantialexports of hardwood lumber, woodchips, logs, and some types of paper.Coming the other way, the UnitedStates imports, for example, about 35percent of its softwood lumber andmore than half of its newsprint fromCanada.

The U.S. market for wood productswill be highly dependent upon the

future area in forests, the species com-position of forests, future supplies ofwood, technological changes in pro-duction and use, the availability of suchsubstitutes as steel and vinyl, nationaland international demands for woodproducts, and competitiveness amongmajor trading partners. Analyses indi-cate that, for a range of climate scenar-ios, forest productivity gains are verylikely to increase timber inventoriesover the next 100 years (NFAG 2001).Under these scenarios, the increasedwood supply leads to reductions in logprices, helping consumers, butdecreasing producers’ profits. The pro-jected net effect on the economic wel-fare of participants in timber marketsincreases by about 1 percent abovecurrent values.

Analyses conducted for the forestsector assessment indicate that land usewill likely shift between forestry andagriculture as these economic sectorsadjust to climate-induced changes inproduction. U.S. hardwood and soft-wood production is projected to gener-ally increase, although the projectionsindicate that softwood output will onlyincrease under moderate warming. Tim-ber output is also projected to increasemore in the South than in the North,and saw-timber volume is projected toincrease more than pulpwood volume.

Patterns and seasons of outdoor, forest-oriented recreation are likely tobe modified by the projected changes inclimate. For example, changes in forest-oriented recreation, as measured byaggregate days of activities and totaleconomic value, are likely to be affectedand are likely to vary by type of recre-ation and location. In some areas, highertemperatures are likely to shift typicalsummer recreation activities, such ashiking, northward or to higher eleva-tions and into other seasons. In winter,downhill skiing opportunities are verylikely to shift geographically because offewer cold days and reduced snowpackin many existing ski areas. Therefore,costs to maintain skiing opportunitiesare likely to rise, especially for the moresouthern areas. Effects on fishing arealso likely to vary. For example, warmer


waters are likely to increase fish produc-tion and opportunities to fish for somewarm-water species, but decrease habi-tat and opportunities to fish for cold-water species.

Possible Adaptation Strategies to Protect Forests

Even though forests are likely to beaffected by the projected changes inclimate, the motivation for adaptationstrategies is likely to be most stronglyinfluenced by the level of U.S. eco-nomic activity. This level, in turn, isintertwined with the rate of populationgrowth, changes in taste, and generalpreferences, including society’s per-ceptions about these changes. Marketforces have proven to be powerfulwhen it comes to decisions involvingland use and forestry and, as such, willstrongly influence adaptation on pri-vate lands. For forests valued for theircurrent biodiversity, society and landmanagers will have to decide whethermore intense management is necessaryand appropriate for maintaining plantand animal species that may beaffected by climate change and otherfactors.

If new technologies and markets arerecognized in a timely manner, timberproducers could adjust and adapt toclimate change under plausible climatescenarios. One possible adaptationmeasure could be to salvage dead anddying timber and to replant speciesadapted to the changed climate condi-tions. The extent and pattern of U.S.timber harvesting and prices will alsobe influenced by the global changes inforest productivity and prices of over-seas products.

Potential climate-induced changesin forests must also be put into thecontext of other human-induced pres-sures, which will undoubtedly changesignificantly over future decades.While the potential for rapid changesin natural disturbances could challengecurrent management strategies, thesechanges will occur simultaneously withhuman activities, such as agriculturaland urban encroachment on forests,multiple uses of forests, and air pollu-

tion. Given these many interacting fac-tors, climate-induced changes shouldbe manageable if planning is proactive.

Potential Interactions with Water Resources

Water is a central resource support-ing human activities and ecosystems,and adaptive management of thisresource has been an essential aspect ofsocietal development. Increases inglobal temperatures during the 20thcentury have been accompanied bymore precipitation in the middle andhigh latitudes in many regions of NorthAmerica. For example, U.S. precipita-tion increased by 5–10 percent, pre-dominantly from the spring through theautumn. Much of this increase resultedfrom a rise in locally heavy and veryheavy precipitation events, which hasled to the observed increases in low tomoderate stream flow that have beencharacteristic of the warm season acrossmost of the contiguous United States.

Local to global aspects of the hydro-logic cycle, which determine the avail-ability of water resources, are likely tobe altered in important ways by climatechange (NWAG 2000). Because higherconcentrations of CO2 and other green-house gases tend to warm the surface,all models project that the global totalsof both evaporation and precipitationwill continue to increase, with increasesparticularly likely in middle and highlatitudes.

The regional patterns of the pro-jected changes in precipitation remainuncertain, however, although there aresome indications that changes in atmos-pheric circulation brought on by suchfactors as increasing Pacific Ocean tem-peratures may bring more precipitationto the Southwest and more winter pre-cipitation to the West. Continuingtrends first evident during the 20th cen-tury, model simulations project thatincreases in precipitation are likely tobe most evident in the most intenserainfall categories typical of variousregions. To the extent such increasesoccur during the warm season whenstream flows are typically low to mod-erate, they could augment available

water resources. If increases in precipi-tation occur during high stream flow orsaturated soil conditions, the resultssuggest a greater potential for floodingin susceptible areas where additionalcontrol measures are not taken, espe-cially because under these conditionsthe relative increase in runoff is gener-ally observed to be greater than the rel-ative increase in precipitation.

Effects on Available Water Supplies

Water is a critical national resource,providing services to society for refresh-ment, irrigation of crops, nourishment ofecosystems, creation of hydroelectricpower, industrial processing, and more.Many U.S. rivers and streams do nothave enough water to satisfy existingwater rights and claims. Changing publicvalues about preserving in-stream flows,protecting endangered species, and set-tling Indian water rights claims havemade competition for water suppliesincreasingly intense. Depending on howwater managers are able to take adaptivemeasures, the potential impacts of cli-mate change could include increasedcompetition for water supplies, stresseson water quality in areas where flows arediminished, adverse impacts on ground-water quantity and quality, an increasedpossibility of flooding in the winter andearly spring, a reduced possibility offlooding later in the spring, and morewater shortages in the summer. In someareas, however, an increase in precipita-tion could outweigh these factors andincrease available supplies.

Significant changes in average tem-perature, precipitation, and soil moistureresulting from climate change are alsolikely to affect water demand in mostsectors. For example, demand for waterassociated with electric power genera-tion is projected to increase due to theincreasing demand for air conditioningwith higher summer temperatures. Climate change is also likely to reducewater levels in the Great Lakes and sum-mertime river levels in the central UnitedStates, thereby adversely affecting navi-gation, general water supplies, and pop-ulations of aquatic species.


Effects on Water QualityIncreases in heavy precipitation

events are likely to flush more contam-inants and sediments into lakes andrivers, degrading water quality. Whereuptake of agricultural chemicals andother nonpoint sources could be exa-cerbated, steps to limit water pollutionare likely to be needed. In someregions, however, higher average flowswill likely dilute pollutants and, thus,improve water quality. In coastalregions where river flows are reduced,increased salinity could also becomemore of a problem. Flooding can alsocause overloading of storm-water andwastewater systems, and can damagewater and sewage treatment facilities,mine tailing impoundments, and land-fills, thereby increasing the risks of con-tamination and toxicity.

Because the warmer temperatures willlead to increased evaporation, soil mois-ture is likely to be reduced during thewarm season. Although this effect islikely be alleviated somewhat byincreased efficiency in water use andreduced demand by native plants forwater, the drying is likely to create agreater susceptibility to fire and thenloss of the vegetation that helps to control erosion and sediment flows. Inagricultural areas, the CO2-inducedimprovement of water-use efficiency bycrops is likely to decrease demands forwater, particularly for irrigation water. Inaddition, in some regions, increasing no-till or reduced-till agriculture is likely toimprove the water-holding capacity ofsoils, regardless of whether climatechanges, thereby reducing the suscepti-bility of agricultural lands to erosionfrom intensified heavy rains (NAAG2002, NWAG 2000).

Effects on Snowpack Rising temperatures are very likely to

affect snowfall and increase snowmeltconditions in much of the western andnorthern portions of the country thatdepend on winter snowpack for runoff.This is particularly important becausesnowpack provides a natural reservoirfor water storage in mountainous areas,gradually releasing its water in spring

and even summer under current climateconditions.

Model simulations project that snow-pack in western mountain regions islikely to decrease as U.S. climate warms(Figure 6-9). These reductions are pro-jected, despite an overall increase in pre-cipitation, because (1) a larger fraction ofprecipitation will fall as rain, rather thansnow; and (2) the snowpack is likely todevelop later and melt earlier. Theresulting changes in the amount and tim-ing of runoff are very likely to have sig-nificant implications in some basins forwater management, flood protection,power production, water quality, and theavailability of water resources for irriga-tion, hydropower, communities, indus-try, and the sustainability of naturalhabitats and species.

Effects on Ground-Water Quantity and Quality

Several U.S. regions, includingparts of California and the GreatPlains, are dependent on dwindlingground-water supplies. Althoughground-water supplies are less suscep-tible to short-term climate variabilitythan surface-water supplies, they aremore affected by long-term trends.Ground water serves as the base flowfor many streams and rivers. Especiallyin areas where springtime snow coveris reduced and where higher summertemperatures increase evaporation anduse of ground water for irrigation,ground-water levels are very likely tofall, thus reducing seasonal streamflows. River and stream temperaturesfluctuate more rapidly with reducedvolumes of water, affecting fresh-waterand estuarine habitats. Small streamsthat are heavily influenced by groundwater are more likely to have reducedflows and changes in seasonality offlows, which in turn is likely to damageexisting wetland habitats.

Pumping ground water at a faster ratethan it can be recharged is already amajor concern, especially in parts of thecountry where other water resources arelimited. In the Great Plains, for example,model projections indicate that droughtis likely to be more frequent and intense,

which will create additional stressesbecause ground-water levels are alreadydropping in parts of important aquifers,such as the Ogallala.

The quality of ground water is beingdiminished by a variety of factors,including chemical contamination. Salt-water intrusion is another key ground-water quality concern, particularly incoastal areas where changes in fresh-water flows and increases in sea level willboth occur. As ground-water pumpingincreases to serve municipal demandalong the coast and less recharge occurs,coastal ground-water aquifers areincreasingly being affected by sea-waterintrusion. Because the ground-waterresource has been compromised bymany factors, managers are increasinglylooking to surface-water supplies, whichare more sensitive to climate change andvariability.

Effects on Floods, Droughts, andHeavy Precipitation Events

Projected changes in the amount,timing, and distribution of rainfall andsnowfall are likely to lead to changes inthe amount and timing of high and lowwater flows—although the relation-ships of changes in precipitation rate tochanges in flood frequency and inten-sity are uncertain, especially due touncertainties in the timing and persist-ence of rainfall events and river levelsand capacities. Because changes in cli-mate extremes are more likely thanchanges in climate averages to affectthe magnitude of damages and raise theneed for adaptive measures at theregional level, changes in the timing ofprecipitation events, as well as increasesin the intensity of precipitation events,are likely to become increasinglyimportant considerations.

Climate change is likely to affect thefrequency and amplitude of high streamflows, with major implications for infrastructure and emergency manage-ment in areas vulnerable to flooding.Although projections of the number ofhurricanes that may develop remainuncertain, model simulations indicatethat, in a warmer climate, hurricanesthat do develop are likely to have


higher wind speeds and produce morerainfall. As a result, they are likely tocause more damage, unless more exten-sive (and therefore more costly) adap-tive measures are taken, includingreducing the increasing exposure ofproperty to such extreme events. His-torical records indicate that improvedwarning has been a major factor inreducing the annual number of deathsdue to storms, and that the primarycause of the increasing property dam-age in recent decades has been theincrease in at-risk structures, such aswidespread construction of vacationhomes on barrier islands.

Despite the overall increase in pre-cipitation and past trends indicating anincrease in low to moderate streamflow, model simulations suggest thatincreased air temperatures and moreintense evaporation are likely to causemany interior portions of the countryto experience more frequent and longerdry conditions. To the extent that thefrequency and intensity of these condi-tions lead to an increase in droughts,some areas are likely to experiencewide-ranging impacts on agriculture,water-based transportation, and ecosys-tems, although the effects on vegeta-tion (including crops and forests) arelikely to be mitigated under some con-ditions by increased efficiency in wateruse due to higher CO2 levels.

Water-driven Effects on Ecosystems

Species live in the larger context ofecosystems and have differing environ-mental needs. In some ecosystems,existing stresses could be reduced ifincreases in soil moisture or the inci-dence of freezing conditions arereduced. Other ecosystems, includingsome for which extreme conditions arecritical, are likely to be most affectedby changes in the frequency and intensity of flood, drought, or fireevents. For example, model projectionsindicate that changes in temperature,moisture availability, and the waterdemand from vegetation are likely tolead to significant changes in someecosystems in the coming decades

Source: Redrawn from McCabe and Wolock 1999, as presented in NAST 2000.

F IGURE 6-9 Pro jec ted Reduct ions in Western Snowpack Resu l t ing f rom Potent ia lChanges in C l imate

Climate model scenarios for the 21st century project significant decreases from the1961–1990 baseline in the average April 1 snowpack for four mountainous areas in thewestern United States. Scenarios from the Canadian model, which simulates warmingtoward the upper end of IPCC projections, and from the Hadley model, which simulateswarming near the middle of IPCC projections, provide similar results. Such a steep reduc-tion in the April 1 snowpack would significantly shift the time of peak runoff and reduceaverage river flows in spring and summer.

19992015

20312047

20632079

2095

20

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

19992015

20312047

20632079

2095

20

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Canadian Model

Pacific Northwesta c o w

Southern Rocky MountainsSouthern Rocky Mountainso R k M t s

Central Rocky Mountainse a o u i

Sierra Nevada

gg

Hadley Model

Perc

ent C

hang

efr

om 1

961–

1990

Bas

elin

ePe

rcen

t Cha

nge

from

196

1–19

90 B

asel

ine


(NAST 2000). As specific examples, thenatural ecosystems of the Arctic, GreatLakes, Great Basin, and Southeast, andthe prairie potholes of the Great Plainsappear highly vulnerable to the pro-jected changes in climate (see Figures6-6 and 6-8).

The effects of changes in water tem-peratures are also important. For exam-ple, rising water temperatures are likelyto force out some cold-water fishspecies (such as salmon and trout) thatare already near the threshold of theirviable habitat, while opening up addi-tional areas for warm-water species.Increasing temperatures are also likelyto decrease dissolved oxygen in water,degrade the health of ecosystems,reduce ice cover, and alter the mixingand stratification of water in lakes—allof which are key to maintaining opti-mal habitat and suitable nutrient levels.In addition, warmer lake waters com-bining with excess nutrients from agri-cultural fertilizers (washed into lakes byheavy rains) would be likely to createalgal blooms on the lake surfaces, fur-ther depleting some lake ecosystems oflife-sustaining oxygen.

Potential Adaptation Options toEnsure Adequate Water Resources

In contrast to the vulnerability of nat-ural ecosystems, humans have exhibiteda significant ability to adapt to the availability of different amounts ofwater. There are many types of waterbasins across the country, and manyapproaches are already in use to ensurecareful management of water resources.For example, more than 80,000 damsand reservoirs and millions of miles ofcanals, pipes, and tunnels have beendeveloped to store and transport water.Some types of approaches that studieshave indicated might prove useful arehighlighted on this page.

Strategies for adapting to climatechange and other stresses include chang-ing the operation of dams and reservoirs,re-evaluating basic engineering assump-tions used in facility construction, andbuilding new infrastructure (although for a variety of reasons, large dams areno longer generally viewed as a cost-

effective or environmentally acceptablesolution to water supply problems).Other potentially available optionsinclude conserving water; changingwater pricing; using reclaimed waste-water; using water transfers; and devel-oping markets for water, which can leadto increased prices that discouragewasteful practices.

Existing or new infrastructure canalso be used to dampen the impacts ofclimate-induced influences on flowregimes and aquatic ecosystems of manyof our nation’s rivers. While significantadaptation is possible, its cost could be reduced if the probable effects of climate change are factored in beforemaking major long-term investments inrepairing, maintaining, expanding, andoperating existing water supply andmanagement infrastructure.

Because of the uncertainties associ-ated with the magnitude and direction ofchanges in precipitation and runoff dueto climate change, more flexible institu-tional arrangements may be needed toensure optimal availability of water assupplies and demand change. Althoughsocial, equity, and environmental con-siderations must be addressed, marketsolutions offer the potential for resolvingsupply problems in some parts of thecountry. However, because water rightssystems vary from state to state and evenlocally, water managers will need to takethe lead in selecting the most appropri-ate adaptive responses.

Because the United States shareswater resources with Canada and Mex-ico, it participates in a number of insti-tutions designed to address commonwater issues. These institutions, whichinclude the U.S.–Canada Great LakesCommission and joint commissions andagreements covering the Colorado andRio Grande rivers, could provide theframework for designing adaptivemeasures for responding to the effectsof climate change. For example, theU.S.–Canada Great Lakes Commissionhas already conducted studies to evalu-ate options for dealing with the poten-tial for increased evaporation, shorterduration of lake ice, and other climatechanges that are projected to affect the

Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River basin.Close coordination will be needed toefficiently manage the levels of thesecrucial water resources to ensure ade-quate water supplies for communitiesand irrigation, high water quality,needed hydroelectric power, highenough levels for recreation and

Following are some potential adaptationoptions for water management in

response to climate change and otherstresses:• Improve capacity for moving water

within and between water-use sectors(including agriculture to urban).

• Use pricing and market mechanismsproactively to decrease waste.

• Incorporate potential changes indemand and supply in long-term plan-ning and infrastructure design.

• Create incentives to move people andstructures away from flood plains.

• Identify ways to sustainably managesupplies, including ground water, sur-face water, and effluent.

• Restore and maintain watersheds toreduce sediment loads and nutrients inrunoff, limit flooding, and lower watertemperature.

• Encourage the development of institu-tions to confer property rights towater. This would be intended toencourage conservation, recycling,and reuse of water by all users, as wellas to provide incentives for researchand development of such conservationtechnologies.

• Reduce agricultural demand for waterby focusing research on developmentof crops and farming practices forminimizing water use, for example, viaprecision agricultural techniques thatclosely monitor soil moisture.

• Reuse municipal wastewater, improvemanagement of urban storm-waterrunoff, and promote collection of rainwater for local use.

• Increase the use of forecasting toolsfor water management. Some weatherpatterns, such as those resulting fromEl Niño, can now be predicted, allow-ing for more efficient management ofwater resources.

• Enhance monitoring efforts to improvedata collection for weather, climate,and hydrologic modeling to aid under-standing of water-related impacts andmanagement strategies.

Source: Adapted from NWAG 2000.

Potent ia l Adaptat ion Opt ions fo r Water Management


shipping, low enough levels to protectcommunities and shorelines fromflooding and wave-induced erosion,and more.

Potential Interactions with Coastal Areas and Marine Resources

The United States has over 95,000miles of coastline and over 3.4 millionsquare miles of ocean within its territo-rial waters. These areas provide a widerange of goods and services to the U.S.economy. Approximately 53 percent ofthe U.S. population lives on the 17 per-cent of land in counties that are adja-cent to or relatively near the coast.Over recent decades, populations inthese coastal counties have been grow-ing more rapidly than elsewhere in thecountry. As a result of this populationgrowth and increased wealth, demandson coastal and marine resources forboth leisure activities and economicbenefits are rapidly intensifying, whileat the same time exposure to coastalhazards is increasing.

Coastal and marine environmentsare intrinsically linked to the prevailingclimate in many ways. Heat given offby the oceans warms the land duringthe winter, and ocean waters help tokeep coastal regions cooler during thesummer. Moisture evaporated from theoceans is the ultimate source of precip-itation, and the runoff of precipitationcarries nutrients, pollutants, and othermaterials from the land to the ocean.Sea level exerts a major influence onthe coastal zone, shaping barrierislands and pushing salt water up estu-aries and into aquifers. For example,cycles of beach and cliff erosion alongthe Pacific Coast have been linked tothe natural sequence of El Niño eventsthat alter storm tracks and temporarilyraise average sea levels by severalinches in this region (NCAG 2000).During the 1982–83 and 1997–98 ElNiño events, erosion damage was wide-spread along the Pacific coastline.

Climate change will affect interac-tions among conditions on the land andsea and in the atmosphere. Warming islikely to alter coastal weather and could

affect the intensity, frequency, andextent of severe storms. Melting of gla-ciers and ice sheets and thermal expan-sion of ocean waters will cause sea levelto rise, which is likely to intensify ero-sion and endanger coastal structures.Rising sea level and higher tempera-tures are also likely to affect the ecol-ogy of estuaries and coastal wetlands.Higher temperatures coupled withincreasing CO2 concentrations arelikely to severely stress coral reefs, andthe changing temperature patterns arelikely to cause fisheries to relocate andalter fish migration patterns. Whilequantifying these consequences is diffi-cult, indications of the types of out-comes that are possible have emergedfrom U.S. assessments (NCAG 2000).

Effects on Sea LevelGlobal sea level rose by 10–20 cm

(about 4–8 inches) during the 20thcentury, which was significantly morethan the rate of rise that was typicalover the last few thousand years. Evenin the absence of a change in Atlanticstorminess, the deeper inundation thathas resulted from recent storms hasexacerbated flooding and has led todamage to fixed coastal structures fromstorms that were previously inconse-quential.

Looking to the future, climate mod-els project that global warming willincrease sea level by 9–88 cm (4–35inches) during the 21st century, withmid-range values more likely than thevery high or very low estimates (IPCC2001d). Because of the long time con-stants involved in ocean warming andglacier and ice sheet melting, furthersea level rise is likely for several cen-turies, even after achieving significantlimitations in emissions of CO2 andother greenhouse gases. However,these global changes are only one fac-tor in what determines sea level changeat any particular coastal location. Forexample, along the Mid-Atlantic coast,where land levels are subsiding, relativesea level rise will be somewhat greater;conversely, in New England, whereland levels are rising, relative sea levelrise will be somewhat less.

Not surprisingly, an increased rate ofglobal sea level rise is likely to have themost dramatic impacts in regions wheresubsidence and erosion problemsalready exist. Estuaries, wetlands, andshorelines along the Atlantic and Gulfcoasts are especially vulnerable.Impacts on fixed structures will inten-sify, even in the absence of an increasein storminess. However, because theslope of these areas is so gentle, even asmall rise in sea level can produce alarge inland shift of the shoreline. Therise will be particularly important if thefrequency or intensity of storm surgesor hurricanes increases.

Increases in the frequency or inten-sity of El Niño events would also likelyexacerbate the impacts of long-term sealevel rise. Coastal erosion increases thethreats to coastal development, trans-portation infrastructure, tourism, fresh-water aquifers, fisheries (many of whichare already stressed by human activi-ties), and coastal ecosystems. Coastalcities and towns, especially those instorm-prone regions, such as the South-east, are particularly vulnerable. Inten-sive residential and commercialdevelopment in these regions is placingmore and more lives and property atrisk (Figure 6-10).

Effects on EstuariesClimate change and sea level rise

could present significant threats to valu-able, productive coastal ecosystems. Forexample, estuaries filter and purify waterand provide critical nursery and habitatfunctions for many commercially impor-tant fish and shellfish populations.Because the temperature increase is pro-jected to be greater in the winter than inthe summer, a narrowing of the annualwater temperature range of many estuar-ies is likely. This, in turn, is likely tocause a shift in species’ ranges and toincrease the vulnerability of some estuar-ies to invasive species (NCAG 2000).

Changes in runoff are also likely toadversely affect estuaries. Unless newagricultural technologies allow reduceduse of fertilizers, higher rates of runoffare likely to deliver greater amounts of nutrients such as nitrogen and


FIGURE 6-10 Pro jec ted Rates o f Annual E ros ion a long U.S. Shore l ines

Source: U.S. Geological Survey Coastal Geology Program, as presented in NAST 2000.

Relatively Stable

Severely Eroding

Moderately Eroding

The U.S. coastal areas that are most vulnerable to future increases in sea level are thosewith low relief and those that are already experiencing rapid erosion rates, such as theSoutheast and Gulf Coast.

phosphorus to estuaries, while simulta-neously increasing the stratificationbetween fresh-water runoff and marinewaters. Such conditions would be likelyto increase the potential for algalblooms that deplete the water of oxy-gen. These conditions would alsoincrease stresses on sea grasses, fish,shellfish, and other organisms living inlakes, streams, and oceans (NCAG2000, and regional assessment reportslisted at http://www.usgcrp.gov). Inaddition, decreased runoff is likely toreduce flushing, decrease the size ofestuarine nursery zones, and increasethe range of estuarine habitat suscepti-ble to predators and pathogens ofshellfish.

Effects on WetlandsCoastal wetlands (marshes and

mangroves) are highly productiveecosystems, particularly because theyare strongly linked to the productivityof fisheries. Dramatic losses of coastalwetlands have occurred along the GulfCoast due to subsidence, alterations inflow and sediment load caused bydams and levees, dredge and fill activ-ities, and sea level rise. Louisiana alonehas been losing land at rates of about68–104 square kilometers (24–40square miles) per year for the last 40years, accounting for as much as 80

percent of the total U.S. coastal wet-land loss.

In general, coastal wetlands will sur-vive if soil buildup equals the rate of rel-ative sea level rise or if they are able tomigrate inland (although this migrationnecessarily displaces other ecosystemsor land uses). However, if soil accumu-lation does not keep pace with sea levelrise, or if bluffs, coastal development,or shoreline protective structures (suchas dikes, sea walls, and jetties) blockwetland migration, wetlands may beexcessively inundated and, thus, lost.The projected increase in the currentrate of sea level rise is very likely toexacerbate the nationwide rate of lossof existing coastal wetlands, althoughthe extent of impacts will vary amongregions, and some impacts may bemoderated by the inland formation ofnew wetlands.

Effects on Coral ReefsThe demise or continued deteriora-

tion of reefs could have profound impli-cations for the United States. Coralreefs play a major role in the environ-ment and economies of Florida andHawaii as well as in most U.S. territo-ries in the Caribbean and Pacific. Theysupport fisheries, recreation, andtourism and protect coastal areas. Inaddition, coral reefs are one of the

largest global storehouses of marinebiodiversity, sheltering one-quarter ofall marine life and containing extensiveuntapped genetic resources.

The last few years have seen unprece-dented declines in the health of coralreefs. The 1998 El Niño was associatedwith record sea-surface temperaturesand associated coral bleaching (whichoccurs when coral expel the algae thatlive within them and that are necessaryto their survival). In some regions, asmuch as 70 percent of the coral mayhave died in a single season. There hasalso been an upsurge in the variety, inci-dence, and virulence of coral diseases inrecent years, with major die-offs inFlorida and much of the Caribbeanregion (NCAG 2000).

Other factors that are likely to becontributing to the decline of coralreefs include increased sediment depo-sition, sewage and agricultural runoff,excessive harvesting of fish, and dam-age from ships and tourists. In additionto the potential influences of furtherglobal warming, increasing atmosphericCO2 concentrations are likely todecrease the calcification rates of thereef-building corals, resulting in weakerskeletons, reduced growth rates, andincreased vulnerability to wave-induceddamage. Model results suggest that theseeffects would likely be most severe at thecurrent margins of coral reef distribu-tion, meaning that it is unlikely coralreefs will be able to spread northward toreach cooler waters. While steps can betaken to reduce the impacts of sometypes of stress on coral reefs (e.g., bycreating Marine Protected Areas, ascalled for in Executive Order 13158, andconstructing artificial reefs to providehabitat for threatened species), damageto coral reefs from climate change andthe increasing CO2 concentration maybe moderated to some extent only bysignificantly reducing other stresses.

Effects on Marine FisheriesBased on studies summarized in the

coastal sector assessment, recreationaland commercial fishing has contributedapproximately $40 billion a year to theU.S. economy, with total marine


landings averaging about 4.5 millionmetric tons over the last decade. Cli-mate change is very likely to substan-tially alter the distribution andabundance of major fish stocks, manyof which are a shared internationalresource.

Along the Pacific Coast, impacts tofisheries related to the El Niño–South-ern Oscillation illustrate how climatedirectly affects marine fisheries on shorttime scales. For example, elevated sea-surface temperatures associated withthe 1997–98 El Niño had a tremendousimpact on the distribution and abun-dance of market squid. Although Cali-fornia’s largest fishery by volume, squidlandings fell to less than 1,000 metrictons in the 1997–98 season, down froma record-breaking 110,000 metric tonsin the 1996–97 season. Many otherunusual events occurred during thissame El Niño as a result of elevated sea-surface temperatures. Examples includewidespread deaths of California sea lionpups, catches of warm-water marlin inthe usually frigid waters off Washing-ton State, and poor salmon returns inBristol Bay, Alaska.

The changes in fish stocks resultingfrom climate change are also likely tohave important implications formarine populations and ecosystems.Changes over the long term that willaffect all nations are likely to includepoleward shifts in distribution ofmarine populations, and changes inthe timing, locations, and, perhaps,viability of migration paths and nest-ing and feeding areas for marine mam-mals and other species.

With changing ocean temperaturesand conditions, shifts in the distribu-tion of commercially important speciesare likely, affecting U.S. and interna-tional fisheries. For example, modelprojections suggest that several speciesof Pacific salmon are likely to havereduced distribution and productivity,while species that thrive in warmerwaters, such as Pacific sardine andAtlantic menhaden, are likely to showan increased distribution. Presumingthat the rate of climate change is grad-ual, the many efforts being made to bet-

ter manage the world’s fisheries mightpromote adaptation to climate change,along with helping to relieve the manyother pressures on these resources.

Potential Adaptation Options for Coastal Regions

Because climate variability is cur-rently a dominant factor in shapingcoastal and marine systems, projectingthe specific effects of climate changeover the next few decades and evaluatingthe potential effectiveness of possibleresponse options is particularly challeng-ing. Effects will surely vary greatlyamong the diverse coastal regions of thenation. Human-induced disturbancesalso influence coastal and marine sys-tems, often reducing the ability of sys-tems to adapt, so that systems that mightordinarily be capable of responding tovariability and change are less able to doso. In this context, climate change islikely to add to the cumulative impact ofboth natural and human-caused stresseson ecological systems and resources. Asa result, strategies for adapting to thepotential consequences of long-term cli-mate change in the overall context ofcoastal development and managementare only beginning to be considered(NCAG 2000).

However, as further plans are madefor development of land in the coastalzone, it is especially urgent for govern-ing bodies at all levels to begin to consider the potential changes in the coastal climate and sea level. Forexample, the U.S. Geological Survey is expanding its gathering and assemblyof relevant coastal information, and the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency’s Sea Level Rise project is dedicated to motivating adaptation torising sea level. This project hasassessed the probability and has identified and mapped vulnerable low-elevation coastal zones. In addition,cost-effective strategies and land-useplanning approaches involving land-ward migration of wetlands, leveebuilding, incorporation of sea level risein beach conservation plans, engineeredlandward retreats, and sea walls have allbeen developed.

Several states have already includedsea level rise in their planning, andsome have already implemented adap-tation activities. For example, in NewJersey, where relative sea level is risingapproximately one inch (2.5 cm) everysix years, $15 million is now set asideeach year for shore protection, and thestate discourages construction thatwould later require sea walls. In addi-tion, Maine, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Massachusetts haveimplemented various forms of “rollingeasement” policies to ensure that wet-lands and beaches can migrate inland assea level rises, and that coastallandowners and conservation agenciescan purchase the required easements.Other states have modified regulationson, for example, beach preservation,land reclamation, and inward migrationof wetlands and beaches. Wider consid-eration of potential consequences isespecially important, however, becausesome regulatory programs continue topermit structures that may block theinland shift of wetlands and beaches,and in some locations shoreline move-ment is precluded due to the highdegree of coastal development.

To safeguard people and better man-age resources along the coast, NOAAprovides weather forecasts andremotely sensed environmental data tofederal, state, and local governments,coastal resource managers and scien-tists, and the public. As part of its man-date and responsibilities to administerthe National Flood Insurance Program,the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA) prepares Flood Insur-ance Rate Maps that identify and delin-eate areas subject to severe (1 percentannual chance) floods. FEMA also mapscoastal flood hazard areas as a separateflood hazard category in recognition ofthe additional risk associated with waveaction. In addition, FEMA is workingwith many coastal cities to encouragesteps to reduce their vulnerability tostorms and floods, including purchasingvulnerable properties.

University and state programs arealso underway across the country. Thisis particularly important because most


coastal planning in the United States isthe responsibility of state and localgovernments, with the federal govern-ment interacting with these effortsthrough the development of coastalzone management plans.

Potential Interactions with Human Health

Although the overall susceptibilityof Americans to environmental healthconcerns dropped dramatically duringthe 20th century, certain health out-comes are still recognized to be associ-ated with the prevailing environmentalconditions. These adverse outcomesinclude illnesses and deaths associatedwith temperature extremes; storms andother heavy precipitation events; airpollution; water contamination; anddiseases carried by mosquitoes, ticks,and rodents. As a result of the potentialconsequences of these stresses actingindividually or in combination, it ispossible that projected climate changewill have measurable beneficial andadverse impacts on health (see NHAG2000, 2001).

Adaptation offers the potential toreduce the vulnerability of the U.S.population to adverse health out-comes—including possible outcomes ofprojected climate change—primarily byensuring strong public health systems,improving their responsiveness tochanging weather and climate condi-tions, and expanding attention given tovulnerable subpopulations. Althoughthe costs, benefits, and availability ofresources for such adaptation must befound, and further research into keyknowledge gaps on the relationshipsbetween climate/weather and health isneeded, to the extent that the U.S. pop-ulation can keep from putting itself atgreater risk by where it lives and what itdoes, the potential impacts of climatechange on human health can likely beaddressed as a component of efforts toaddress current vulnerabilities.

Projections of the extent and direc-tion of potential impacts of climatevariability and change on health areextremely difficult to make with confi-dence because of the many confound-

ing and poorly understood factors asso-ciated with potential health outcomes.These factors include the sensitivity ofhuman health to aspects of weather andclimate, differing vulnerability of variousdemographic and geographic segmentsof the population, the internationalmovement of disease vectors, and howeffectively prospective problems can bedealt with. For example, uncertaintiesremain about how climate and associ-ated environmental conditions maychange. Even in the absence of improv-ing medical care and treatment, whilesome positive health outcomes—notably, reduced cold-weather mortal-ity—are possible, the balance betweenincreased risk of heat-related illnessesand death and changes in winter ill-nesses and death cannot yet be confi-dently assessed. In addition touncertainties about health outcomes, itis very difficult to anticipate whatfuture adaptive measures (e.g., vaccines,improved use of weather forecasting tofurther reduce exposure to severe con-ditions) might be taken to reduce therisks of adverse health outcomes.

Effects on Temperature-RelatedIllnesses and Deaths

Episodes of extreme heat cause moredeaths in the United States than anyother category of deaths associatedwith extreme weather. In one of themost severe examples of such an event,the number of deaths rose by 85 per-cent during a five-day heat wave in1995 in which maximum temperaturesin Chicago, Illinois, ranged from 34 to40°C (93 to 104°F) and minimum tem-peratures were nearly as high. At least700 excess deaths (deaths in that popu-lation beyond those expected for thatperiod) were recorded, most of whichwere directly attributable to heat.

For particular years, studies in cer-tain urban areas show a strong associa-tion between increases in mortality andincreases in heat, measured by maxi-mum or minimum daily temperatureand by heat index (a measure of tem-perature and humidity). Over longerperiods, determination of trends isoften difficult due to the episodic

nature of such events and the presenceof complicating health conditions, aswell as because many areas are takingsteps to reduce exposure to extremeheat. Recognizing these complications,no nationwide trend in deaths directlyattributed to extreme heat is evidentover the past two decades, even thoughsome warming has occurred.

Based on available studies, heat strokeand other health effects associated withexposure to extreme and prolonged heatappear to be related to environmentaltemperatures above those to which thepopulation is accustomed. Thus, theregions expected to be most sensitive toprojected increases in severity and fre-quency of heat waves are likely to bethose in which extremely high tempera-tures occur only irregularly. Within heat-sensitive regions, experience indicatesthat populations in urban areas are mostvulnerable to adverse heat-related healthoutcomes. Daily average heat indicesand heat-related mortality rates arehigher in these urban core areas than insurrounding areas, because urban areasremain warmer throughout the nightcompared to outlying suburban and ruralareas. The absence of nighttime relieffrom heat for urban residents has beenidentified as a factor in excessive heat-related deaths. The elderly, young chil-dren, the poor, and people who arebedridden, who are on certain medica-tions, or who have certain underlyingmedical conditions are at particular risk.

Plausible climate scenarios projectsignificant increases in average summertemperatures, leading to new recordhighs. Model results also indicate thatthe frequency and severity of heatwaves would be very likely to increasealong with the increase in average tem-peratures. The size of U.S. cities andthe proportion of U.S. residents livingin them are also projected to increasethrough the 21st century. Because citiestend to retain daytime heat and so arewarmer than surrounding areas, climatechange is very likely to lead to anincrease in the population potentially atrisk from heat events. While the poten-tial risk may increase, heat-related ill-nesses and deaths are largely preventable


through behavioral adaptations, includ-ing use of air conditioning, increasedfluid intake, and community warningand support systems. The degree towhich these adaptations can be evenmore broadly made available andadopted than in the 20th century, espe-cially for sensitive populations, willdetermine if the long-term trendtoward fewer deaths from extreme heatcan be maintained.

Death rates not only vary with sum-mertime temperature, but also show aseasonal dependence, with more deathsin winter than in summer. This relation-ship suggests that the relatively largeincreases in average winter temperaturecould reduce deaths in winter months.However, the relationship betweenwinter weather and mortality is not asclear as for summertime extremes.While there should be fewer deathsfrom shoveling snow and slipping onice, many winter deaths are due to res-piratory infections, such as influenza,and it is not clear how influenza trans-mission would be affected by higherwinter temperatures. As a result, the neteffect on winter mortality from milderwinters remains uncertain.

Influences on Health EffectsRelated to Extreme Weather Events

Injury and death also result fromnatural disasters, such as floods andhurricanes. Such outcomes can resultboth from direct bodily harm and fromsecondary influences, such as thosemediated by changes in ecological sys-tems (such as bacterial and fungal pro-liferation) and in public healthinfrastructures (such as reduced avail-ability of safe drinking water).

Projections of climate change forthe 21st century suggest a continuationof the 20th-century trend towardincreasing intensity of heavy precipita-tion events, including precipitationduring hurricanes. Such events, in addi-tion to the potential consequenceslisted above, pose an increased risk offloods and associated health impacts.However, much can be done to preparefor powerful storms and heavy precipi-tation events, both through community

design and through warning systems.As a result of such efforts, the loss oflife and the relative amounts of damagehave been decreasing. For the future,therefore, the net health impacts ofextreme weather events hinge on con-tinuing efforts to reduce societal vul-nerabilities. For example, FEMA’s SafeCommunities program is promotingimplementation of stronger buildingcodes and improved warning systems,as well as enhancing the recoverycapacities of the natural environmentand the local population, which are alsobeing addressed through disaster assis-tance programs.

Influences on Health EffectsRelated to Air Pollution

Current exposures to air pollutionexceed health-based standards in manyparts of the country. Health assess-ments indicate that ground-level ozonecan exacerbate respiratory diseases andcause short-term reductions in lungfunction. Such studies also indicate thatexposure to particulate matter canaggravate existing respiratory and car-diovascular diseases, alter the body’sdefense systems against foreign materi-als, damage lung tissue, lead to prema-ture death, and possibly contribute tocancer. Health effects of exposure tocarbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, andnitrogen dioxide have also been relatedto reduced work capacity, aggravationof existing cardiovascular diseases,effects on breathing, respiratory ill-nesses, lung irritation, and alterations inthe lung’s defense systems.

Projected changes in climate wouldbe likely to affect air quality in severalways, some of which are likely to bedealt with by ongoing changes in tech-nology, and some of which can be dealtwith, if necessary, through changes inregulations. For example, changes inthe weather that affect regional pollu-tion emissions and concentrations canbe dealt with by controlling sources ofemissions. However, adaptation will beneeded in response to changes in natu-ral sources of air pollution that resultfrom changes in weather. Analysesshow that hotter, sunnier days tend to

increase the formation of ground-levelozone, other conditions being thesame. This creates a risk of higher con-centrations of ground-level ozone inthe future, especially because highertemperatures are frequently accompa-nied by stagnating circulation patterns.However, more specific projections ofexposure to air pollutants cannot bemade with confidence without moreaccurate projections of changes in localand regional weather and projections ofthe amounts and locations of futureemissions, which will in turn be affectedby the implementation and success ofair pollution control policies designedto ensure air quality. Also, more exten-sive health-warning systems could helpto reduce exposures, decreasing anypotential adverse consequences.

In addition to affecting exposure toair pollutants, there is some chance thatclimate change will play a role in exposure to airborne allergens. Forexample, it is possible that climatechange will alter pollen production insome plants and change the geographicdistribution of plant species. Conse-quently, there is some chance that cli-mate change will affect the timing orduration of seasonal allergies. Theimpact of pollen and of pollen changeson the occurrence and severity ofasthma, the most common chronic dis-ease among children, is currently veryuncertain.

Effects on Water- and Food-borne Diseases

In the United States, the incidenceof and deaths due to waterborne dis-eases declined dramatically during the20th century. While much less frequentor lethal nowadays, exposure to water-borne disease can still result from drink-ing contaminated water, eating seafoodfrom contaminated water, eating freshproduce irrigated or processed withcontaminated water, and participatingin such activities as fishing or swimmingin contaminated water. Water-bornepathogens of current concern includeviruses, bacteria (such as Vibrio vulnificus,a naturally occurring estuarine bac-terium responsible for a high


FIGURE 6-11 Reported Cases of DengueFever : 1980–1999

In 1922, there were an estimated 500,000cases of dengue fever in Texas. The mos-quitoes that transmit this viral diseaseremain abundant. The striking contrast in incidence in Texas over the last twodecades, and in three Mexican states thatborder Texas, illustrates the importance offactors other than climate in the incidenceof vector-borne diseases.

Sources: National Institute of Health, Mexico, TexasDepartment of Health, U.S. Public Health Service, andunpublished data analyzed by the National HealthAssessment Group and presented in NAST 2001.

Mexico

3 MexicanBorder States:62,514 Cases

Texas:64 Cases

percentage of the deaths associatedwith shellfish consumption), and proto-zoa (such as Cryptosporidium, associatedwith gastrointestinal illnesses).

Because changes in precipitation,temperature, humidity, salinity, andwind have a measurable effect on waterquality, future changes in climate havethe potential to increase exposure towater-borne pathogens. In 1993, forexample, Cryptosporidium contaminatedthe Milwaukee, Wisconsin, drinking-water supply. As a result, 400,000 peo-ple became ill. Of the 54 individualswho died, most had compromisedimmune systems because of HIV infec-tion or other illness. A contributing factor in the contamination, in additionto treatment system malfunctions, washeavy rainfall and runoff that resulted in a decline in the quality of raw surface water arriving at the Milwaukeedrinking-water plants.

In another example, during thestrong El Niño winter of 1997–98,heavy precipitation and runoff greatlyelevated the counts of fecal bacteriaand infectious viruses in Florida’scoastal waters. In addition, toxic redtides proliferate as sea-water tempera-tures increase. Reports of marine-related illnesses have risen over the pasttwo and a half decades along the EastCoast, in correlation with El Niñoevents. Therefore, climate changes pro-jected to occur in the next severaldecades—in particular, the likelyincrease in heavy precipitationevents—raise the risk of contaminationevents.

Effects on Insect-, Tick-, andRodent-borne Diseases

Malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever,and other diseases transmitted betweenhumans by blood-feeding insects, ticks,and mites were once common in theUnited States. The incidence of manyof these diseases has been significantlyreduced, mainly because of changes inland use, agricultural methods, residen-tial patterns, human behavior, vectorcontrol, and public health systems.However, diseases that may be trans-mitted to humans from wild animals

continue to circulate in nature in manyparts of the country. Humans maybecome infected with the pathogensthat cause these diseases through trans-mission by insects or ticks (such asLyme disease, which is tick-borne) orby direct contact with the host animalsor their body fluids (such as han-taviruses, which are carried by numer-ous rodent species and transmitted tohumans through contact with rodenturine, droppings, and saliva). Theorganisms that directly transmit thesediseases are known as vectors.

The ecology and transmissiondynamics of vector-borne infections arecomplex, and the factors that influencetransmission are unique for eachpathogen. Most vector-borne diseasesexhibit a distinct seasonal pattern,which clearly suggests that they areweather-sensitive. Rainfall, tempera-ture, and other weather variables affectboth vectors and the pathogens theytransmit in many ways. For example,epidemics of malaria are associatedwith rainy periods in some parts of theworld, but with drought in others.Higher temperatures may increase orreduce vector survival rate, dependingon each specific vector, its behavior,ecology, and many other factors. Insome cases, specific weather patternsover several seasons appear to be asso-ciated with increased transmissionrates. For example, in the Midwest, out-breaks of St. Louis encephalitis (a viralinfection of birds that can also infectand cause disease in humans) appear tobe associated with the sequence ofwarm, wet winters, cold springs, andhot, dry summers. Although the poten-tial for such diseases seems likely toincrease, both the U.S. NationalAssessment (NHAG 2000, 2001) and aspecial report prepared by the NationalResearch Council (NRC 2001b) agreethat significant outbreaks of these dis-eases as a result of climate change areunlikely because of U.S. health andcommunity standards and systems.However, even with actions to limitbreeding habitats of mosquitoes andother disease vectors and to carefullymonitor for infectious diseases, the

continued occurrence of local, isolatedincidences of such diseases probablycannot be fully eliminated.

Although the United States has beenable to reduce the incidence of such climatically related diseases as dengueand malaria, these diseases continue to extract a heavy toll elsewhere (Figure 6-11). Accordingly, the U.S.government and other governmentaland nongovernmental organizations areactively supporting efforts to reducethe incidence and impacts of such dis-eases. For instance, U.S. agencies andphilanthropies are in the forefront ofmalaria research, including the searchfor vaccines and genome sequencing ofthe anopheles mosquitoes and themalaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum.Efforts such as these should help toreduce global vulnerability to malariaand other vector-borne diseases, andneed to be considered in global adapta-tion strategies.

The results from this work will servethe world in the event that human-induced climate change, through what-ever mechanism, increases the potentialfor malaria. This work will also be


beneficial for U.S. residents because ournation cannot be isolated from diseasesoccurring elsewhere in the world. Ofsignificant importance, the potential fordisease vectors to spread into the UnitedStates via travel and trade is likely toincrease just as the natural, cold-winterconditions that have helped to protectU.S. residents are moderating.

Potential Adaptation Options to Ensure Public Health

The future vulnerability of the U.S.population to the health impacts of cli-mate change will largely depend onmaintaining—if not enhancing—thenation’s capacity to adapt to potentialadverse changes through legislative,administrative, institutional, technolog-ical, educational, and research-relatedmeasures. Examples include basicresearch into climate-sensitive diseases,building codes and zoning to preventstorm or flood damage, severe weatherwarning systems to allow evacuation,improved disease surveillance and prevention programs, improved sanita-tion systems, education of health pro-fessionals and the public, and researchaddressing key knowledge gaps in climate–health relationships.

Many of these adaptive responsesare desirable from a public health per-spective, irrespective of climate change.For example, reducing air pollutionobviously has both short- and long-term health benefits. Improving warn-ing systems for extreme weather eventsand eliminating existing combinedsewer and storm-water drainage sys-tems are other measures that can ame-liorate some of the potential adverseimpacts of current climate extremes andof the possible impacts of climatechange. Improved disease surveillance,prevention systems, and other publichealth infrastructure at the state andlocal levels are already needed. Becauseof this, we expect awareness of thepotential health consequences of cli-mate change to allow adaptation toproceed in the normal course of socialand economic development.

Potential Impacts in Various U.S. Regions

While some appreciation can begained about the potential nationalconsequences of climate change bylooking at sectors such as the six con-sidered above, the United States is avery large and diverse nation. There areboth important commonalities andimportant differences in the climate-related issues and in the potential eco-nomic and environmental consequencesfaced by different regions across thecountry. Therefore, there are many dif-ferent manifestations of a changing cli-mate in terms of vulnerability andimpacts, and the potential for adapta-tion. For example, while all coastalregions are at risk, the magnitude of thevulnerabilities and the types of adapta-tion necessary will depend on particularcoastal conditions and development.Water is a key issue in virtually allregions, but the specific changes andimpacts in the West, in the Great Lakes,and in the Southeast will differ.

With this variability in mind, 20regional workshops that broughttogether researchers, stakeholders, andcommunity, state, and national leaderswere conducted to help identify keyissues facing each region and to beginidentifying potential adaptation strate-gies. These workshops were followedby the initiation of 16 regionally basedassessment studies, some of which arealready completed and others of whichare nearing completion. Each of theregional studies has examined thepotential consequences that wouldresult from the climate model scenariosused in the national level analysis (the first finding in the Key NationalFindings on page 89), and from modelsimulations of how such climatechanges would affect the types and dis-tributions of ecosystems. The followingpage provides highlights of what hasbeen learned about the regional mosaicof consequences from these studies. Amuch more comprehensive presenta-tion of the results is included in the National Assessment regional reports(see http://www.usgcrp.gov).

In summarizing potential conse-quences for the United States, it isimportant to recognize that the U.S.government represents not only the 50states, but also has trust responsibilityfor a number of Caribbean and Pacificislands and for the homelands of NativeAmericans. In particular, the U.S. gov-ernment has responsibilities of varioustypes for Puerto Rico, the American Vir-gin Islands, American Samoa, the Com-monwealth of the Northern MarianaIslands, Guam, and more than 565 tribaland Alaska Native governments that arerecognized as “domestic dependentnations.”

For the island areas, the potentialconsequences are likely to be quite simi-lar to those experienced by nearby U.S.states. With regard to Native Americans,treaties, executive orders, tribal legisla-tion, acts of Congress, and decisions ofthe federal courts determine the rela-tionships between the tribes and the fed-eral government. These agreementscover a range of issues that will beimportant in facing the potential conse-quences of climate change, including useand maintenance of land and waterresources. Although the diversity of landareas and tribal perspectives and situa-tions makes generalizations difficult, anumber of key issues have been identi-fied for closer study concerning how cli-mate variability and change will affectNative populations and their communi-ties. These issues include tourism andcommunity development; human healthand extreme events; rights to and avail-ability of water and other naturalresources; subsistence economies andcultural resources; and cultural sites,wildlife, and natural resources. Closerexamination of the potential conse-quences for tribes in the Southwest is thetopic of one of the regional assessmentsnow underway.

FEDERAL RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

The types and nature of impacts ofclimate change that are projected toaffect the United States make clear thatclimate change is likely to become an


The following key vulnerability and consequence issues were identified across the set ofregions considered in the U.S. National Assessment. Additional details may be found in

the regional reports indexed at http://www.usgcrp.gov.

Northeast, Southeast, and Midwest—Rising temperatures are likely to increase the heatindex dramatically in summer. Warmer winters are likely to reduce cold-related stresses.Both types of changes are likely to affect health and comfort.

Appalachians—Warmer and moister air is likely to lead to more intense rainfall events inmountainous areas, increasing the potential for flash floods.

Great Lakes—Lake levels are likely to decline due to increased warm-season evaporation,leading to reduced water supply and degraded water quality. Lower lake levels are alsolikely to increase shipping costs, although a longer shipping season is likely. Shorelinedamage due to high water levels is likely to decrease, but reduced wintertime ice cover islikely to lead to higher waves and greater shoreline erosion.

Southeast—Under warmer, wetter scenarios, the range of southern tree species is likelyto expand. Under hotter, drier scenarios, it is likely that grasslands and savannas will even-tually displace southeastern forests in many areas, with the transformation likely acceler-ated by increased occurrence of large fires.

Southeast Atlantic Coast, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands—Rising sea level and high-er storm surges are likely to cause loss of many coastal ecosystems that now provide animportant buffer for coastal development against the impacts of storms. Currently andnewly exposed communities are more likely to suffer damage from the increasing intensi-ty of storms.

Midwest/Great Plains—A rising CO2 concentration is likely to offset the effects of risingtemperatures on forests and agriculture for several decades, increasing productivity andthereby reducing commodity prices for the public. To the extent that overall production isnot increased, higher crop and forest productivity is likely to lead to less land being farmedand logged, which may promote recovery of some natural environments.

Great Plains—Prairie potholes, which provide important habitat for ducks and othermigratory waterfowl, are likely to become much drier in a warmer climate.

Southwest—With an increase in precipitation, the desert ecosystems native to this regionare likely to be replaced in many areas by grasslands and shrublands, increasing both fireand agricultural potential.

Northern and Mountain Regions—It is very likely that warm-weather recreational oppor-tunities like hiking will expand, while cold-weather activities like skiing will contract.

Mountain West—Higher winter temperatures are very likely to reduce late winter snow-pack. This is likely to cause peak runoff to be lower, which is likely to reduce the potentialfor spring floods associated with snowmelt. As the peak flow shifts to earlier in the spring,summer runoff is likely to be reduced, which is likely to require modifications in water man-agement to provide for flood control, power production, fish runs, cities, and irrigation.

Northwest—Increasing river and stream temperatures are very likely to further stressmigrating fish, complicating current restoration efforts.

Alaska—Sharp winter and springtime temperature increases are very likely to cause con-tinued melting of sea ice and thawing of permafrost, further disrupting ecosystems, infra-structure, and communities. A longer warm season could also increase opportunities forshipping, commerce, and tourism.

Hawaii and Pacific Trust Territories—More intense El Niño and La Niña events are possi-ble and would be likely to create extreme fluctuations in water resources for island citi-zens and the tourists who sustain local economies.

increasingly important factor in thefuture management of our land andwater resources. To better prepare forcoming changes, it is important toenhance the basis of understandingthrough research and to start to considerthe potential risks that may be createdby these impacts in the making of short-and long-term decisions in such areas asplanning for infrastructure, land use, andother natural resource management. Topromote these steps, the U.S. govern-ment sponsors a wide range of relatedactivities reaching across federal agen-cies and on to the states, communities,and the general public.

Interagency Research Subcommittees

At the federal level, climate changeand, even more generally, global envi-ronmental change and sustainability aretopics that have ties to many agenciesacross the U.S. government. To ensurecoordination, the U.S. Congress passedthe Global Change Research Act of1990 (Public Law 101-606). This lawprovides for the interagency coordina-tion of global change activities, includ-ing research on how the climate is likelyto change and on the potential conse-quences for the environment and soci-ety. Responsibility is assigned to theExecutive Office of the President and isimplemented under the guidance of theOffice of Science and Technology Pol-icy (OSTP). To implement this coordi-nation, OSTP has established severalinteragency subcommittees. The U.S.Global Change Research Program(USGCRP) provides a framework forcoordination of research to reduceuncertainties about climate change andpotential impacts on climate, ecosys-tems, natural resources, and society (seeChapter 8). A number of the activities ofthe other subcommittees are also relatedto the issues of vulnerability and adapta-tion to global climate change:• Natural Disaster Reduction—This sub-

committee promotes interagencyefforts to assemble and analyze dataand information about the occurrenceand vulnerability of the United Statesto a wide range of weather- and

Key Regiona l Vulnerab i l i ty and Consequence Issues


climate-related events. Through itsparticipating agencies, the subcom-mittee is also promoting efforts bycommunities, universities, and othersto increase their preparation for, andresilience to, natural disasters. In thatclimate change may alter the inten-sity, frequency, duration and locationof such disasters, enhancing resilienceand flexibility will assist in copingwith climate change.

• Air Quality—This subcommittee pro-motes interagency efforts to docu-ment and investigate the factorsaffecting air quality on scales fromregional and subcontinental to inter-continental and global, focusing par-ticularly on tropospheric ozone andparticulate matter, both of whichcontribute to climate change as wellas being affected by it.

• Ecological Systems—This subcommitteepromotes interagency efforts toassemble information about ecologi-cal systems and services and theircoupling to society and environmen-tal change. It is sponsoring assess-ments that document the currentstate of the nation’s ecosystems, andthat provide scenarios of future con-ditions under various managementand policy options, providing a base-line for the National Assessment stud-ies concerning how ecosystems arelikely to change over the long term.

Individual Agency Research Activities

In addition to their interagencyactivities, many of the USGCRP agen-cies have various responsibilities relat-ing to the potential consequences ofclimate change and of consideration ofresponses and means for coping withand adapting to climate change.

U.S. Department of AgricultureResearch sponsored by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA)focuses on understanding terrestrial sys-tems and the effects of global change(including water balance, atmosphericdeposition, vegetative quality, and UV-Bradiation) on food, fiber, and forestryproduction in agricultural, forest, and

range ecosystems. USDA research alsoaddresses how resilient managed agricul-tural, rangeland, and forest ecosystemsare to climate change and what adapta-tion strategies will be needed to adjust toa changing climate. Programs includelong-term studies addressing the struc-ture, function, and management of forestand grassland ecosystems; research inapplied sciences, including soils, climate,food and fiber crops, pest management,forests and wildlife, and social sciences;implementation of ecosystem manage-ment on the national forests and grass-lands; and human interaction withnatural resources.

For example, U.S. Forest Serviceresearch has established a national planof forest sustainability to continue toprovide water, recreation, timber, andclean air in a changing environment.Two goals of this program are to improvestrategies for sustaining forest healthunder multiple environmental stressesand to develop projections of future for-est water quality and yield in light ofpotential changes in climate.

Similarly, research at the U.S. Agri-cultural Research Service (ARS) looks todetermine the impacts of increasedatmospheric CO2 levels, rising tempera-tures, and water availability on crops andtheir interactions with other biologicalcomponents of agricultural ecosystems.ARS also conducts research on charac-terizing and measuring changes inweather and the water cycles at local andregional scales, and determining how tomanage agricultural production systemsfacing such changes.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The National Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Administration (NOAA) supportsin situ and remote sensing and monitor-ing, research, and assessment to improvethe accuracy of forecasts of weather andintense storms, and projections of cli-mate change; to improve the scientificbasis for federal, state, and local manage-ment of the coastal and marine environ-ment and its natural resources; and toensure a safe and productive marinetransportation system. In addition to

direct responsibilities for managingNational Marine Sanctuaries and forprotecting threatened, endangered, andtrust resources, NOAA works with statesto implement their coastal zone manage-ment plans and with regional councils toensure sustained productivity of marinefisheries. Climate change and variabilityinfluence all areas of NOAA’s responsi-bilities, both through direct effects andthrough intensification of other stresses,such as pollution, invasive species, andland and resource use.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Through the National Institutes ofHealth, the Department of Health andHuman Services sponsors research on awide variety of health-related issuesranging from research on treatments forexisting and emerging diseases to studiesof risks from exposures to environmentalstresses. For example, the National Insti-tute of Environmental Health Sciences(NIEHS) conducts research on theeffects of exposure to environmentalagents on human health. The core pro-grams of the NIEHS provide data andunderstanding for risk assessments dueto changes in human vulnerability andexposures. Climate change raises issuesof susceptibility to disease and needs forensuring public health services. Changesin crop production techniques canincrease human exposures to toxicagents and to disease vectors.

U.S. Department of the InteriorThe U.S. Department of the Interior

(DOI) is the largest manager of landand the associated biological and othernatural resources within the UnitedStates. Its land management agencies,which include the Bureau of Land Man-agement, the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, and the National Park Service,cumulatively manage over 180 millionhectares (445 million acres) or 20 percent of the nation’s land area for avariety of purposes, including preserva-tion, tourism and recreation, timber harvesting, migratory birds, fish,wildlife, and a multiplicity of otherfunctions and uses.


DOI’s Bureau of Reclamation is thelargest supplier and manager of water inthe 17 western states, delivering waterto over 30 million people for agricul-tural, municipal, industrial, and domes-tic uses. The Bureau also generates overa billion dollars worth of hydroelectricpower and is responsible for multi-purpose projects encompassing floodcontrol, recreation, irrigation, fish, andwildlife. Management of land, water,and other natural resources is of neces-sity an exercise in adaptive manage-ment (IPCC 1991).

Research related to climate changeconducted by DOI’s U.S. Geological Sur-vey includes efforts to identify whichparts of the natural and human-controlledlandscapes, ecosystems, and coastlinesare at the highest risk under potentialchanges in climate and climate variability,water availability, and different land andresource management practices.

U.S. Department of Transportation The U.S. Department of Transporta-

tion has recognized that many of thenation's transportation facilities andoperations, which are now generallyexposed to weather extremes, are alsolikely to be affected as the climatechanges. Among a long list of potentialimpacts, sea level rise is likely to affectmany port facilities and coastal airports;higher peak stream flows are likely toaffect bridges and roadways, whereaslower summertime levels of rivers andthe Great Lakes are likely to inhibitbarge and ship traffic; and higher peaktemperatures and more intense storms

are likely to adversely affect pavementsand freight movement. An assessmentof the potential significance of changesfor the U.S. transportation system andof guidelines for improving resilience isbeing organized.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) works closely with otherfederal agencies, state and local govern-ments, and Native American tribes todevelop and enforce regulations underexisting environmental laws, such asthe Clean Air Act, the Clean WaterAct, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.In line with EPA’s mission to protecthuman health and safeguard the naturalenvironment, EPA’s Global ChangeResearch Program is assessing the con-sequences of global change for humanhealth, aquatic ecosystem health, airquality, and water quality. Recognizingthe need for “place-based” information,these assessments will focus on impactsat appropriate geographic scales (e.g.,regional, watershed). In addition, EPAis supporting three integrated regionalassessments in the Mid-Atlantic, GreatLakes, and Gulf Coast regions. Finally,in support of these assessments, EPAlaboratories and centers conductresearch through intramural and extra-mural programs.

OTHER RESEARCH ACTIVITIESIn addition to federal activities, a

number of local, state, and regional activ-ities are underway. Many of these activi-

ties have developed from the variousregional assessments sponsored by theUSGCRP or with the encouragement ofvarious federal agencies. In addition, theUSGCRP and federal agencies have beenexpanding their education and outreachactivities to the public and private sec-tors, as described in Chapter 9.

Recognizing our shared environmentand the resources it provides, it is impor-tant that the nations of the world worktogether in planning and coordinatingtheir steps to adapt to the changing cli-mate projected for coming decades. Aspart of this effort, the United States hasbeen co-chair of Working Group II ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, which is focused on impacts,adaptation, and vulnerability. For theIPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, theUnited States will co-chair IPCC Work-ing Group I on Climate Science.

The United States is also a leader inorganizing the Arctic Climate ImpactAssessment (ACIA), which is being car-ried out under the auspices of the eight-nation Arctic Council to “evaluate andsynthesize knowledge on climate vari-ability, climate change, and increasedultraviolet radiation and their conse-quences…. The ACIA will examine pos-sible future impacts on the environmentand its living resources, on human health,and on buildings, roads and other infra-structure” (see http://www.acia.uaf.edu/).These and other assessments need tocontinue to be pursued in order to ensurethe most accurate information possiblefor preparing for the changing climate.

Chapter 7 FinancialResources andTransfer ofTechnology

The United States is committed toworking with developing countriesand countries with economies in

transition to address the challenge ofglobal climate change. The U.S. gov-ernment has participated actively in theTechnology Transfer ConsultativeProcess under the United NationsFramework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC), and has imple-mented international programs andactivities to facilitate the transfer ofenvironmentally sound technologiesand practices that reduce growth ingreenhouse gas emissions and addressvulnerability to climate impacts.

Under Article 4.5 of the UNFCCC,Annex I Parties, such as the UnitedStates, committed to “take all practica-ble steps to promote, facilitate andfinance, as appropriate, the transfer of,or access to, environmentally soundtechnologies and know-how to otherParties.” The Parties defined technologytransfer at the Second Meeting of the


Conference of the Parties to the FCCC(COP-2) in Geneva as follows:

The term “transfer of technology”encompasses practices and processes suchas “soft” technologies, for example, capac-ity building, information networks, train-ing and research; as well as “hard”technologies, for example, equipment tocontrol, reduce, or prevent anthropogenicemissions of greenhouse gases in energy,transport, forestry, agriculture, andindustry sectors, to enhance removal bysinks, and to facilitate adaptation. This chapter summarizes efforts

undertaken by the United States in sup-port of its strong commitment to tech-nology cooperation and transfer. It alsoreports financial flows from the UnitedStates to different international bodies,foreign governments, and institutionsthat support climate-friendly activities.

Between 1997 and 2000, the U.S.government appropriated $285.8 millionto the Global Environment Facility(GEF). A significant portion of overallGEF financing has been dedicated to cli-mate-related activities. It providednearly $4.5 billion to multilateral institu-tions and programs, such as the UnitedNations and affiliated multilateral banks,to address climate change and relatedinternational development priorities.

In addition, during the years1997–2000 U.S. direct, bilateral, andregional assistance in support of climatechange mitigation, adaptation, andcrosscutting activities totaled $4.1 bil-lion. Commercial sales for technologiesthat supported emissions mitigation andreduced vulnerability amounted to $3.6billion. Over this same period, theUnited States leveraged $954.3 millionin indirect financing through U.S. government-based financial instruments.

Some important highlights of U.S.assistance described in this chapterinclude:• The U.S. Initiative on Joint Imple-

mentation, accepting 52 pioneeringprojects in 26 countries, with sub-stantial cooperation and supportfrom U.S. and host-country govern-ments, nongovernmental organiza-tions (NGOs), and the privatesector.

• The U.S. Country Studies Program,which has helped 56 countries meettheir UNFCCC obligations toreport climate trends.

• The U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment’s Climate Change Ini-tiative, a program to leverage $1 bil-lion in development assistance toaddress climate change throughactivities supporting renewable- andclean-energy activities, energy effi-ciency, forest and biodiversity con-servation, and reduced vulnerabilityto climate impacts.

• A variety of public–private partner-ship programs that provide access tofunding and expertise from the pri-vate sector, government, and NGOsto facilitate cooperation and fosterinnovation in climate-friendly sus-tainable development.

• Targeted programs to assist develop-ing countries that are particularlyvulnerable to the adverse effects ofclimate change, through weatherforecasting and warning systems, cli-mate and vulnerability modeling,and disaster preparedness andresponse.This chapter also provides success

stories to illustrate programs thatdemonstrate significant achievementand innovation in climate change miti-gation and adaptation activities underU.S. leadership.

TYPES AND SOURCES OF U.S. ASSISTANCE

The United States recognizes thateffectively addressing global climatechange requires assistance to develop-ing countries and countries witheconomies in transition to limit theirnet greenhouse gas emissions andreduce their vulnerability to climateimpacts. As such, U.S. governmentagencies, private foundations, NGOs,research institutions, and businesseschannel significant financial and tech-nical resources to these countries topromote technology transfer that helpsaddress the challenges posed by globalclimate change. In addition to thetransfer of “hard” technologies, theUnited States supports extensive “soft”

technology transfer, such as the sharingof technical experience and know-howfor targeted capacity building andstrengthening of in-country institu-tions.

U.S. financial flows to developingand transition economies that supportthe diffusion of climate-friendly tech-nologies include official developmentassistance (ODA) and official aid (OA),government-based project financing,foundation grants, NGO resources, private-sector commercial sales, com-mercial lending, foreign direct invest-ment, foreign private equityinvestment, and venture capital. Finan-cial resources are also provided indirectly in the forms of U.S. govern-ment-supported credit enhancements(loan and risk guarantees) and invest-ment insurance. U.S. ODA and OAprovide grants for a variety of technol-ogy transfer programs, while U.S. gov-ernment-supported project financingand credit enhancements, commercialsales, commercial lending, foreign pri-vate equity investment, and foreigndirect investment typically involveinvestments in physical capital, such asplants and equipment.1 Note that thischapter provides only a partial mone-tary accounting of the flow types men-tioned above, and does not account forcommercial lending, foreign privateequity investment, or venture capital,except for some brief illustrative exam-ples. Further detail on how these flowsare accounted is provided in the sectionof this chapter entitled “U.S. FinancialFlow Information: 1997–2000.”

ODA and OA are important to helpcreate the economic, legal, and regula-tory environment that is necessary toattract potential foreign investors, andenable larger flows of private financialresources to be leveraged in recipientcountries. Private-sector participation iscritical to the successful transfer ofmuch-needed technical know-how andtechnologies in most regions of theworld because it finances, produces,and supplies most climate-friendly

1 The financial flow types reported in this chapterreflect those described in chapter 2 of IPCC 2000.

Financial Resources and Transfer of Technology ■ 115

technologies, and thus can providemuch of the human and financial capi-tal for their effective deployment. U.S.government agencies, foundations,NGOs, and businesses each play a dif-ferent role in promoting climate tech-nology transfer to developing andtransition economies.

U.S. Government AssistanceThe U.S. government has facilitated

technology transfer initiatives in devel-oping and transition economies byforming partnerships and creatingincentives for investment in climate-friendly technologies. U.S. governmentclimate change projects support coreU.S. development assistance prioritiesand the essential elements needed toachieve sustainable development. Thesepriorities include supporting economicgrowth and social development thatprotects the resources of the host coun-try; supporting the design and imple-mentation of policy and institutionalframeworks for sustainable develop-ment; and strengthening in-countryinstitutions that involve and empowercitizenry.

Official Development Assistance and Official Aid

The U.S. government provides ODAand OA to foreign governments and pro-vides financial support to U.S. and host-country NGOs that have expertise inclimate change mitigation and adapta-tion measures. Through this kind of assis-tance, the U.S. government hasfacilitated technology transfer in devel-oping and transition economies byadvancing the market for climate-friendly technologies and by formingpartnerships and creating incentives forinvestment in climate-friendly technolo-gies. U.S. ODA and OA strive to buildlocal capacity as well as the policy frame-works and regulatory reforms needed toensure that developing and transitioneconomies can grow economically whilelimiting their net greenhouse gas emis-sions. U.S. ODA and OA are especiallyimportant in sectors where private-sectorflows are comparatively low.

U.S. Agency for International Develop-ment. To date, U.S. bilateral assistancehas primarily been implementedthrough the U.S. Agency for Inter-national Development (USAID), theforeign assistance arm of the U.S. gov-ernment. Since 1997, USAID hasimplemented many new programs indeveloping and transition economies toaddress climate change. Specifically,USAID launched a $1 billion ClimateChange Initiative to expand theAgency’s already extensive efforts tohelp developing and transitioneconomies. The goals of this initiativehave been to help USAID-assistedcountries reduce their net greenhousegas emissions and their vulnerability tothe impacts of climate change, andincrease their participation in theUNFCCC. Between 1998 (when theinitiative began) and 2000, USAID hadcommitted $478.6 million to supportclimate change objectives throughoutits programs and $6.3 million in lever-aged credit. (Additional informationabout USAID’s Climate ChangeInitiative is provided in the followingsections.) USAID also works closelywith other U.S. government agenciesto leverage additional resources andexpertise in addressing a variety of cli-mate-related issues.

U.S. Department of Energy. In additionto providing funding support for intera-gency activities such as the U.S.Initiative on Joint Implementation(USIJI), the U.S. Country StudiesProgram (CSP), and the TechnologyCooperation Agreement Pilot Project(TCAPP), the U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE) works directly with for-eign governments and institutions topromote dissemination of energy-effi-ciency, renewable-energy, and clean-energy technologies and practices.DOE’s International Clean Cities pro-gram, for example, works with foreigngovernments, industry, and NGOs tohelp them implement viable activitiesthat address climate change, transporta-tion needs, local air quality, and relatedhealth risks.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) supports bilateral climatechange programs, as well as such inter-national programs as USIJI, CSP, andTCAPP. EPA is instrumental in design-ing and implementing innovative programs on a variety of global envi-ronmental challenges, including effortsto reduce greenhouse gas emissions andlocal air pollution and efforts to protectmarine resources.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. TheU.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)supports international efforts to promoteforest conservation and sustainableforestry, agroforestry, and improvedagricultural practices. Such activitieshave provided meaningful benefits inaddressing both climate change mitiga-tion, through improved carbon seques-tration, and adaptation to climateimpacts, often related to food supply andconservation of agricultural resources.USDA is also instrumental in establish-ing food security warning systems.

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration. The National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) has played an important role asa world leader in the study and provisionof meteorological and hydrological fore-casting and modeling; satellite imagingand analysis; climate change assessment,analysis, and modeling; and hazardousweather prediction. Critical informationgained from these activities is madeavailable to developing and transitioncountry partners to address areas of vul-nerability to climate-related impacts.

National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration. Like NOAA, the Na-tional Aeronautics and Space Adminis-tration (NASA) provides importanttechnical information; satellite imagingand other surveillance; analysis andresearch related to climate changes,predictions, and weather trends; as well as analysis of shifts in the condi-tions of forests, natural areas, and agri-cultural zones.


Trade and Development FinancingU.S. government agencies also pro-

vide trade and development financing todeveloping and transition economies.These agencies facilitate the transfer ofclimate-friendly technologies by provid-ing OA, export credits, project financ-ing, risk and loan guarantees, andinvestment insurance to U.S. companiesas well as credit enhancements for host-country financial institutions. Trade anddevelopment financing leverages foreigndirect investment, foreign private equityinvestment, or host-country and non-U.S. private capital by decreasing therisk involved in long-term, capital-inten-sive projects or projects in nontraditionalsectors. Several agencies engage in thistype of financing.

Overseas Private Investment Corpora-tion. The Overseas Private InvestmentCorporation (OPIC) provides projectfinancing, political risk insurance, andinvestment guarantees for U.S. companyprojects covering a range of investments,including clean-energy projects in devel-oping countries. OPIC also supports avariety of funds that make direct equityand equity-related investments in new,expanding, and privatizing companies inemerging market economies.

Export-Import Bank. The Export–Import Bank (Ex–Im) provides loanguarantees to U.S. exporters, guaran-tees the repayment of loans, and makesloans to foreign purchasers of U.S.goods and services. It also providescredit insurance that protects U.S.exporters against the risks of nonpay-ment by foreign buyers for political orcommercial reasons. Ex–Im has provid-ed project loans and risk guaranteesrelated to climate change mitigation forclean-energy and renewable-energyprojects in developing and transitioneconomies.

USAID Development Credit Authority.USAID’s Development Credit Auth-ority (DCA) provides partial loans andrisk guarantees to host-country andinternational financial intermediaries toencourage project finance in nontradi-

tional sectors, such as energy efficiency.In addition to this immediate financialleverage benefit, DCA facilitates long-term relationships with the private sec-tor that outlive USAID’s projectinvolvement, allowing USAID to con-tribute to the direction of investment ofthe ever-increasing global private capi-tal flows.

U.S. Trade and Development Agency.The U.S. Trade and DevelopmentAgency (TDA) helps U.S. companiespursue overseas business opportunitiesthrough OA. By supporting feasibilitystudies, orientation visits, specializedtraining grants, business workshops,and technical assistance, TDA enablesAmerican businesses to compete forinfrastructure and industrial projects indeveloping countries. TDA has pro-moted the transfer of climate-friendlytechnology in the energy, environment,and water resources sectors.

U.S. Department of Commerce. TheU.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)recently established an InternationalClean Energy Initiative that links U.S.companies with foreign markets tofacilitate dissemination of clean-energytechnologies, products, and services.The initiative seeks to realize a visionfor enhanced exports of clean-energytechnology.

NGO AssistanceU.S. foundations and NGOs have

played a pivotal role in helping coun-tries undertake sustainable develop-ment projects that have increased theirability to mitigate and adapt to theeffects of global climate change. Theseorganizations help improve host-country capacity by implementingsmall-scale, targeted initiatives relatedto the mitigation of and adaptation toclimate change impacts. Following aresome examples of these organizations.

W. Alton Jones FoundationThe W. Alton Jones Foundation

supports the development of climate-friendly energy in developing coun-tries. The Foundation also seeks to

build the capacity of entrepreneurs indeveloping countries to bring renew-able-energy technologies to market.

Rockefeller Brothers FundThe Rockefeller Brothers Fund seeks

to help developing countries define andpursue locally appropriate developmentstrategies. In East Asia, the Fund pro-vides grants for coastal zone manage-ment and integrated watershedplanning efforts that will help thesecountries prepare to adapt to the effectsof global climate change.

The Nature Conservancy The Nature Conservancy (TNC), in

partnership with the U.S. private sec-tor,2 is working to lower net CO2 emis-sions in Belize (the Río Bravo CarbonSequestration Pilot Project) and Bolivia(the Noel Kempff Mercado ClimateAction Project) through the preventionof deforestation and sustainable forestmanagement practices. These projectsare also helping to conserve local biodi-versity, improve local environmentalquality, and meet sustainable develop-ment goals.

Conservation InternationalThrough its innovative partnerships

with donors, businesses, and founda-tions, Conservation International (CI)protects biodiversity and promotes cost-effective emission reductions with a spe-cial emphasis on conservation andrestoration of critical forest ecosystems.CI implements programs through itsconservation financing mechanism, theConservation Enterprise Fund. It has alsoestablished the Center for Environmen-tal Leadership in Business, a CI/FordMotor Company joint venture that pro-motes collaborative business practicesthat reduce industry’s ecological impacts,contribute to conservation efforts, andcreate economic value for the compa-nies that adopt them.

2 U.S. private-sector investors participating in theseactivities have included Cinergy, Detroit Edison,PacifiCorp, Suncor, Utilitree Carbon Company, Wis-consin Electric/Wisconsin Gas (formerly WisconsinElectric Power Company), and American ElectricPower.


Private-Sector AssistanceAs part of their normal business

practices, many U.S. private-sectorentities seek opportunities to expandtheir markets outside of the UnitedStates. As a result, these companies arecontributing to the transfer of climate-friendly technologies through foreigndirect investment, commercial lending,private equity investment, venture cap-ital investment, and commercial sales of“hard” technology in developing andtransition economies. Consequently,many technologies have been trans-ferred to the industrial, energy supply,transportation, agriculture, and watersupply sectors.

Foreign direct investment and com-mercial lending together represent theprimary means for long-term, private-sector technology transfer. U.S. com-panies like the Global EnvironmentFund are making investments in foreignprivate equity through such funds asthe Global Environment StrategicTechnology Partners, LP fund. ThisFund seeks investments in U.S.-basedcompanies whose technologies pro-mote improvements in economic effi-ciency, the environment, health, andsafety. It seeks new equity investmentopportunities in the range of $1–$2million.3

Among the member countries of theOrganization for Economic Coopera-tion and Development (OECD), ven-ture capital—normally reserved forhigh-risk, long-term investments—ismost prominent in the United States.U.S. venture capital firms have begunto make innovative and high-riskinvestments in the environmental sec-tor in developing countries. For exam-ple, the Corporación FinancieraAmbiental, capitalized in part by U.S.investors, invests in small and medium-

ily use their resources and innovativetechnologies and practices to reducegreenhouse gas emissions and promotesustainable development. USIJI alsopromotes projects that test and evaluatemethodologies for measuring and track-ing greenhouse gas reductions and veri-fying the costs and benefits of projects.

USIJI is the largest and most devel-oped worldwide program exploring thepotential of project-based mechanisms.It is administered by an interagencysecretariat co-chaired by DOE andEPA, with significant participation fromUSAID and the U.S. Departments ofAgriculture, Commerce, Interior, State,and Treasury.6

Between 1994 and 2000, the USIJIproject portfolio included 52 projects inthe following 26 countries: Argentina(3), Belize (2), Bolivia (3), Chile (3),Columbia (1), Costa Rica (7), CzechRepublic (1), Djibouti (1), Ecuador (1),El Salvador (1), Equatorial Guinea (1),Guatemala (3), Honduras (3), India (1),Indonesia (1), Mali (1), Mauritius (1),Mexico (4), Nicaragua (1), Panama (1),Peru (1), Philippines (1), the RussianFederation (6), South Africa (1), SriLanka (1) and Uganda (2). On-siteimplementation has begun for 24 ofthese projects. In addition, eight newprojects are currently under develop-ment (USIJI 2000).7 To support USIJI,the U.S. government provided morethan $15.9 million in funding. Sevenprojects leveraged a total of $8.5 mil-lion in financing from private sources.8

USIJI projects involve a range of par-ticipants and are funded through severaldifferent mechanisms. Projects includeparticipants and technical experts fromU.S. and host-government agencies,private-sector companies, industryassociations, NGOs, state and localgovernments, universities, research

3 http://www.globalenvironmentfund.com/funds.htm.4 http://www.cfa-fund.com.5 The concept of “Joint Implementation” (JI) was introduced early in the negotiations leading up to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and was formally adopted into the text

of the UNFCCC. The United States joined more than 150 countries in signing the UNFCCC, which explicitly provides through Article 4(2)(a) for signatories to meet their obli-gation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions “jointly with other Parties.” The term has been used subsequently to describe a wide range of possible arrangements between entities intwo or more countries, leading to the implementation of cooperative development projects that seek to reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions(http://www.gcrio.org/usiji/about/whatisji.html).

6 http://www.gcrio.org/usiji/about/whatisji.html.7 This designation could mean, for example, that although project implementation activities (e.g., construction and planning) have begun, greenhouse gas benefits have not yet nec-

essarily begun to accrue. The remaining projects have not yet initiated on-site activities, and are classified as “mutually agreed.”8 Because information about private-sector investment in such projects is proprietary, the full breadth of leveraged funding under USIJI cannot be ascertained.

sized private enterprises that undertakeenvironmental projects in CentralAmerica.4 Investments range from$100,000 to $800,000 per project.

The United States is the largest pro-ducer of environmental technologiesand services. In 2000, commercial salesof these technologies represented $18billion of U.S. export flows (BusinessRoundtable 2001). Typical U.S. climatechange mitigation and adaptationexports include wastewater treatment,water supply, renewable energy, andheat/energy savings and managementequipment. For mitigation technologiesin the commercial, industrial, residen-tial use, energy supply, and transporta-tion sectors, U.S. developing countrymarket share in 2000 was estimated tobe $5.3 billion, or 18 percent of theentire market for these technologies indeveloping and transition economies(USAID 2000b).

MAJOR U.S. GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES

Three major U.S. government initia-tives are the U.S. Initiative on JointImplementation, the U.S. CountryStudies Program, and the ClimateChange Initiative.

U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation

Launched in 1993 as part of the U.S.Climate Change Action Plan, the U.S.Initiative on Joint Implementation(USIJI)5 supports the development ofvoluntary projects that reduce, avoid,or sequester greenhouse gas emissions.These projects are implementedbetween partners located in the UnitedStates and their counterparts in othercountries. USIJI is a flexible, nonregula-tory pilot program that encouragesU.S. businesses and NGOs to voluntar-


institutes, national laboratories, andfinancing organizations. Project fundingis typically based on the anticipated saleof carbon offsets; revenues generateddirectly by project activities (e.g., thesale of timber, other biomass resources,and energy); investment capital fromprivate-sector companies; loans pro-vided by commercial banks and multilat-eral organizations, such as theInternational Finance Corporation; gov-ernment incentives; endowments; andgrants.9 Past technical assistance underUSIJI generally has consisted of work-shops, guidance documents, issue papers,hotline assistance, and meetings.10

USIJI projects span the land-usechange and forestry, energy, waste, andagricultural sectors, and involve a rangeof activities that achieve greenhousegas benefits. As of 2000, the aggregateUSIJI projects were anticipated to gen-erate greenhouse gas reductions total-ing at least 259.8 teragrams of CO2over a period of approximately 60years, including 5.7 teragrams of CH4,and 4.6 gigagrams of N2O. These ben-efits are equivalent to 350.5 teragramsof CO2, which are expected to accrueover project lifetimes that vary from 10to 60 years if fully funded and imple-mented (U.S. IJI 2000). For example,the Noel Kempff Mercado ClimateAction Project, which conserves forestarea in the Bolivian Amazon coveringover 600,000 hectares (nearly 15 mil-lion acres), is expected to have a netcarbon benefit of 15 teragrams of car-bon over the next 30 years.

U.S. Country Studies ProgramThe UNFCCC requires all signatory

countries to provide to the Secretariatof the Convention a national inventoryof greenhouse gas emissions by sourcesand removals by sinks, and to describethe steps they are taking to implementthe Convention, including mitigationand adaptation measures. The U.S.Country Studies Program (CSP) pro-vided assistance to developing and tran-sition economies to help meet thiscommitment, and to fulfill U.S. obliga-tions under the UNFCCC to provideadditional financial and technical

resources to developing countries. Thefirst round of two-year studies began inOctober 1993 after the United NationsConference on Environment andDevelopment (UNCED, the EarthSummit) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

The CSP has helped 56 countriesbuild the human and institutionalcapacities necessary to assess their vul-nerability to climate change and oppor-tunities to mitigate it. Under the CSP,the United States has helped countriesdevelop inventories of their anthro-pogenic greenhouse gas emissions,evaluate their response options for mit-igating and adapting to climate change,assess their vulnerability to climatechange, perform technology assess-ments,11 develop National Communi-cations, and disseminate analyticalinformation to further national andinternational discussions on globalstrategies for reducing the threat of cli-mate change.12 Technical assistancewas delivered through workshops,research, major country reports, guid-ance documents, technical papers, con-sultations with technical experts,analytic tools, data, equipment, andgrants to support and facilitate climatechange studies around the world.13

In all, the CSP has helped othercountries and international institutionsproduce over 160 major countryreports, 10 guidance documents, 60workshop and conference proceedings,and 16 special journal editions. In 1997,the CSP completed a report entitledGlobal Climate Change Mitigation AssessmentResults for Fourteen Transition and DevelopingCountries (U.S. CSP 1997), and in 1998produced Climate Change Assessments byDeveloping and Transition Countries (U.S.CSP 1998). These and numerous otherreports continue to make importantcontributions to the work of the GEF,the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-

mate Change (IPCC), and the Sub-sidiary Bodies to the Convention.

In response to requests from devel-oping and transition economies, theU.S. government supplemented theCSP activity by helping countriesdevelop their national climate changeaction plans. Building on the experienceof the CSP, the Support for NationalAction Plans (SNAP) program providedfinancial and technical assistance tohelp countries use the results of theirclimate change country studies todevelop action plans and technologyassessments for implementing a portfo-lio of mitigation and adaptation meas-ures. An objective of the SNAP phase isto promote diffusion of mitigation andadaptation technologies by assistingcountries with assessments of opportu-nities for technology exchange and dif-fusion. Countries can use these studies,action plans, and technology assess-ments as a basis for developing theirnational communications, and to meettheir obligations under the UNFCCC.Eighteen countries participated in theSNAP phase of the CSP.14 The CSPactivity has been completed, and theinformation gained from the program isbeing converted to an electronic data-base available for future use.

Oversight for the program was pro-vided by the U.S. Country StudiesManagement Team, which was com-posed of technical experts from EPA,DOE, USAID, USDA, NOAA, theNational Science Foundation, and theDepartments of State, Interior, andHealth and Human Services. Between1997 and 2000, these agencies jointlyprovided a total of $9.4 million in fund-ing for the CSP.

Climate Change InitiativeIn 1998 USAID launched the

Climate Change Initiative (CCI), a

9 http://www.gcrio.org/usiji/about/whatisji.html.10 http://www.gcrio.org/usiji/about/whatben.html.11 http://www.gcrio.org/CSP/ap.html.12 http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/international/countrystudies/index.html.13 http://www.gcrio.org/CSP/ap.html. See also http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/international/countrystud-

ies/index.html.14 http://www.gcrio.org/CSP/ap.html. These countries include Bolivia, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Egypt, Hun-

gary, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Philippines, Russian Federation, Tanzania, Thailand,Ukraine, Uruguay, and Venezuela. See also http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/international/countrystud-ies/index.html.


$1 billion, five-year program to collab-orate with developing nations andcountries with economies in transitionto reduce the threat of climate change.This multi-agency initiative supportsactivities that address climate change inmore than 40 countries and regionsaround the world. Its overarchingobjective is to promote sustainabledevelopment that minimizes the associ-ated growth in greenhouse gas emis-sions and to reduce vulnerability toclimate change.

Through the CCI, USAID hashelped countries to mitigate green-house gas emissions from the energysector, industries, and urban areas; pro-tect forests and farmland that cansequester CO2 from the atmosphere;participate more effectively in theUNFCCC; and reduce their vulnerabil-ity to the impacts of climate change. Animportant aspect of the CCI is contin-ued support for technology transfer andpublic–private partnerships that workto achieve the UNFCCC’s goals. Theinitiative has strengthened the U.S.government’s ability to measure theimpact of its global assistance work toaddress climate change, and has helpedfulfill U.S. obligations to assist and col-laborate with developing countriesunder the UNFCCC.

From 1998 to 2000, USAID commit-ted $478.6 million under the CCI to sup-port climate change objectives. Inaddition, USAID leveraged approxi-mately $2.9 billion to support climatechange activities in developing and tran-sition economies. This funding wasdirectly leveraged from other bilateraland multilateral donors, the private sec-tor, foundations, NGOs, and host-coun-try governments. USAID also indirectlyleveraged $5.3 billion in further invest-ments from outside sources that built onprojects it originally initiated.

In addition to the funding leveragedunder the CCI, USAID used creditinstruments available through theAgency’s Development Credit Authority(DCA) to leverage funding for “climate-friendly” investment in developing andtransition economies. DCA is a creditenhancement mechanism that provides

greater flexibility in choosing the appropriate financing tool, such as loans,guarantees, grants, or a combination ofthese, for climate change and other sus-tainable development projects. Since itsinception in 1999, DCA credit enhance-ments have leveraged $6.3 million in climate-friendly private-sector financedactivities.

PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP ACTIVITIES

An important U.S. objective is toleverage the private sector’s financialand technical capabilities to promotesustainable development and helpaddress climate change in developingand transition economies. The U.S.government and its partners do thisthrough programs designed to facili-tate dialogue, build partnerships, and support direct investment in climate-friendly and other sustainabledevelopment projects. Examples of such projects include the Tech-nology Cooperation Agreement PilotProject, the U.S.–Asia EnvironmentPartnership, EcoLinks, and several ener-gy and forest conservation partnerships.

The U.S. government also makessignificant efforts to engage the privatesector directly in many of its ongoingdevelopment assistance programs, bothas key implementation partners and as asource of supplemental funding for climate-related activities. For example,USAID leveraged over $3 million from outside sources to support itsMaya Biosphere Reserve project inGuatemala, and used a two-to-onematching-fund program with severalorganizations to collect $1.8 million inadditional funding. USAID also helpedthe Mgahinga and Bwindi ImpenetrableForest Conservation Trust in Ugandagrow to approximately $6 million, andleveraged an additional $1 million fromthe Government of Denmark to supportUSAID’s community conservation in 25parishes adjacent to the Bwindi andMgahinga National Parks. In Ukraine,USAID also leveraged $18 million from

the World Bank to support energy effi-ciency in government buildings inKyiv, and helped private sugar mills inIndia obtain $66 million in loans toconstruct new bagasse cogenerationunits.

Technology Cooperation Agreement Pilot Project

The Technology Cooperation Agree-ment Pilot Project (TCAPP) was a bilat-eral program initiated in 1997 as acollaborative effort of USAID, EPA, andDOE.15 TCAPP’s primary goal was toassist developing country partners indefining clean-technology priorities.To encourage the transfer of clean tech-nologies, it focused on helping coun-tries remove market barriers andpromote direct private investment.16

The pilot project was successful inbuilding support for a country-driven,market-oriented, technology transferapproach under the UNFCCC. Build-ing on lessons learned from TCAPP,which ended in 2001, these agenciescontinue to support efforts to accelerateadoption of clean-energy technologiesand practices in partner countries.

Between 1997 and 2000, the U.S.government provided $2.9 million toTCAPP to support technology transferactivities in Brazil, China, Egypt, Kaza-khstan, Mexico, Philippines, and SouthKorea. Through TCAPP, the U.S. gov-ernment has facilitated the develop-ment of more than 20 clean-energybusiness investment projects in partici-pating countries. Overall, TCAPP hasengaged more than 400 U.S. and inter-national business representatives to col-laborate in developing new investmentprojects and to assist with implementa-tion of actions to remove market barri-ers. Examples of TCAPP successesinclude renewable-energy policyreforms in the Philippines, develop-ment of an industrial energy servicescompany (ESCO) pilot program inMexico, financial support for sugar millco-generation projects in Brazil, train-ing for conducting energy audits in

15 http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/international/techcoop/tcapp.html and http://www.nrel.gov/tcapp.16 http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/international/techcoop/tcapp.html and http://www.nrel.gov/tcapp.


17 http://www.climatetech.org/home.shtml.18 http://www.climatetech.org/about/index.shtmla.19 http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/international/techcoop/cti.html. See http://www.climatetech.org/home.

shtml.20 http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/international/techcoop/cti.html. The CTI is intended to implement and

support a number of objectives of the UNFCCC, including, for example, the requirement under Article 4.1.c, whichcalls for Parties to “Promote and cooperate in the development, application and diffusion, including transfer, of technologies, practices and processes.” Similarly, the CTI furthers the goals of Article 4.5, which states that Annex IParties “shall take all practicable steps to promote, facilitate and finance, as appropriate, the transfer of, or access toenvironmentally sound technologies and know-how.” http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/international/tech-coop/cti.html.

21 http://www.usaep.org/about.htm. 22 US–AEP Secretariat.23 http://www.usaep.org/about.htm.

Korea, training to verify the perform-ance of wind turbines manufactured inChina, and development of refineryenergy efficiency pilot projects inEgypt.

Climate Technology InitiativeThe Climate Technology Initiative

(CTI), a voluntary, multilateral coopera-tive program, supports implementationof the UNFCCC by fostering interna-tional cooperation for accelerateddevelopment and diffusion of climate-friendly technologies and practices.17

The United States, the European Com-mission, and 22 other OECD nationsestablished the CTI at the First Meetingof the Conference of Parties to theUNFCCC (COP-1) in Berlin in 1995.18

They agreed to work collaboratively to“accelerate development, applicationand diffusion of climate-friendly tech-nologies in all relevant sectors.”19

The CTI has become an interna-tional model of multilateral support fortechnology transfer and has built devel-oping country support for a market-relevant approach to technology trans-fer implementation. An important com-ponent of the CTI is the reduction ofmarket barriers and other obstacles tothe transfer of climate-friendly tech-nologies consistent with UNFCCCobjectives.20 Committed to focusing onareas where it can make a significantdifference, the CTI works in voluntarypartnership with stakeholders, includ-ing the private sector, NGOs, and otherinternational organizations. While theCTI was designed to address all green-house gases from a variety of sources,its primary focus to date has been onefficient and renewable-energy tech-nologies.

Within the U.S. government, sup-port for the CTI is provided jointly by DOE, EPA, and USAID. Since 1998, these agencies have committedover $2 million to capacity-buildingactivities, such as providing regionaltechnology training courses, conduct-ing technology needs assessments, and developing in-country technologyimplementation plans. These plansdefine opportunities for accelerating

implementation of such technologies asenergy-efficient and photovoltaic light-ing, efficient motors and boilers,energy-efficient housing, solar energy,biomass electricity generation, and nat-ural gas. They also propose actions toimprove technical capacity, increaseaccess to funding, or reduce policy bar-riers to investment. More recently, theCTI has been working with the South-ern Africa Development Community(SADC) to promote investment in cli-mate-friendly technologies throughpublic–private partnerships. This exten-sive effort under the CTI’s CooperativeTechnology Implementation Plan pro-gram was initiated in response to arequest by SADC energy and environ-ment ministers participating in a March1999 CTI/Joint Industry seminar inZimbabwe. Since then, the UnitedStates has provided approximately$320,000 in support of this effort.

U.S.–Asia Environmental Partnership

The United States–Asia Environ-mental Partnership (US–AEP) promotesenvironmentally sustainable develop-ment in Asia by building public–privatepartnerships, developing technical capacity, and promoting policy reformsthat lead to environmentally soundinvestments, including climate-friendlytechnologies. US–AEP is jointly imple-mented by several U.S. governmentagencies, under the leadership ofUSAID.21 Overall, US–AEP has sup-ported climate change activities inBangladesh, Hong Kong, India, Indone-sia, South Korea, Malaysia, Nepal,Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tai-wan, Thailand, and Vietnam.22

US–AEP was created with the recog-

nition of Asia’s growing commitment tosustainable development and growingU.S. interest in sharing its experience,technology, and management practices.With the participation of governments,NGOs, academia, and the private sec-tor, US–AEP has become a flexible,responsive vehicle for delivering timelyanswers to environmental questions.US–AEP’s mission has been to promotea “clean revolution” in Asia, transform-ing how Asia industrializes and protectsits environment through the continuingdevelopment and adoption of less pol-luting and more resource-efficientproducts, processes, and services.23

A significant number of US–AEPactivities address climate change by targeting the efficient use of energyresources, and the conversion of wasteto energy. Other activities includewaste minimization, power-sectorreform, efficient electricity generationand transmission, and renewableenergy. In 1999, for example, US–AEPactivities led to $6.6 million in con-firmed sales of energy-efficiency andrelated climate-friendly technologiesand services. Additionally, US–AEPcontributed $1.5 million to the USAIDmission in Bangladesh to launch a majorenergy program there. Among its technology transfer activities, US–AEPalso directly engaged small- to medium-sized U.S. private-sector firms to provide training and demonstrations of climate-related technologies andpractices in 11 Asian countries, most ofwhich involved converting waste toeither energy or products, and recycling, recovering, and reusingmaterials. Also, 29 climate-related pro-fessional exchanges and study tourswere conducted through US–AEP’s


Environmental Exchange Program. Themajority of these activities addressedthe conversion of waste to energy andproducts, and enhancing the efficientuse of energy and resources.

EcoLinksLaunched in 1998, Eurasian–Ameri-

can Partnerships for EnvironmentallySustainable Economies (EcoLinks) is aUSAID initiative to help solve urbanand industrial environmental problemsthrough improved access to financialresources, trade and investment, andinformation technology. The programpromotes sustainable, market-basedpartnerships among businesses, localgovernments, and associations in Cen-tral and Eastern Europe and in Eurasiawith U.S. businesses to identify envi-ronmental problems and adopt bestmanagement practices and technolo-gies. As these partnerships mature,trade and investment in environmentalgoods and services are expected toincrease.24 EcoLinks provides supportthrough technology transfer and invest-ment activities, partnership grants, andan information technology initiative.Countries participating in EcoLinksinclude Bulgaria, Croatia, the CzechRepublic, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Mace-donia, Poland, Romania, Russia (FarEast), and Ukraine (USAID 2000a and2001a).

While EcoLinks does not specificallytarget climate change, a large percentageof its technology transfer activities pro-vide climate benefits. For example,EcoLinks addresses inadequate waste-water treatment capacity, inefficient andhighly polluting industries and publicutilities, poor waste management prac-tices, and weak environmental manage-ment and regulatory systems. Someexamples of EcoLinks’ trade and invest-ment support and grants activitiesinclude: • In a Bulgarian municipality—Develop-

ing environmental management sys-tems for mitigating greenhouse gasemissions.

• In Bulgaria—Developing landfill gasextraction systems.

• In Romania—Introducing a compre-hensive energy audit methodology.

• In Croatia—Assessing water turbinesin water delivery systems.

• In all participating countries—Facilitat-ing technology demonstrations inenergy efficiency and alternativeenergy.

• In the Czech Republic—Promoting land-fill gas utilization technology.

• In Kazakhstan—Promoting cleanerproduction in the oil and gas indus-try.

• In Hungary—Facilitating a $1.2 mil-lion loan to a joint U.S.–Hungariancompany promoting a new waste-water treatment technology (USAID2000a and 2001a).Funding and implementation for

EcoLinks are jointly provided byUSAID, the U.S. Department of Com-merce, the Environmental Export Coun-cil, the Global Environment andTechnology Foundation, the Institutefor International Education, and theRegional Environment Center for Cen-tral and Eastern Europe. Since EcoLinksbegan, four grant cycles have been com-pleted, 135 grants have been awarded,and currently more than 100 activeprojects are funded (USAID 2001a). In2000 alone, EcoLinks awarded 41 Chal-lenge Grants to participating countryinstitutions totaling nearly $2 million.EcoLinks also provided over $536,000in Quick Response Awards in 2000throughout the region (USAID 2001c).

Energy Partnership ProgramFunded by USAID and implemented

by the United States Energy Associa-tion (USEA), the Energy PartnershipProgram is an important public–privatepartnership activity with climate benefits. This program establishes prac-titioner-to-practitioner, multi-year part-nerships between U.S. and developingcountry utilities and regulatory agen-cies in Asia, Africa, Latin America, Cen-tral and Eastern Europe, and the formerSoviet Union. Its main objective is toprovide a mechanism for the U.S.energy industry (utilities, regulators,

and policymakers) to transfer its experi-ence in market-based energy produc-tion, transmission, and distribution toits international counterparts, whileproviding U.S. participants with theopportunity to learn about the energyindustry in another country. Regionalprogram activities encompass such top-ics as regulation, the environment, sys-tem reliability and efficiency, renewableenergy, customer service, and financialmanagement, with an emphasis on mit-igating greenhouse gas emissions.

Working with USAID, USEA identi-fies and matches utilities or regulatoryagencies in the United States and over-seas according to the compatibility oftheir needs and capabilities, the similar-ity of their energy systems, potentialcommon business interest, and othercriteria. The benefits to the foreignpartners include the opportunity forsenior executives of foreign utilities andregulatory agencies to observe howtheir U.S. counterparts are structured,financed, managed, and regulated underfree-market conditions. The programalso offers U.S. energy executives theopportunity to understand the dynam-ics of non-U.S. energy markets and toforge strategic international alliances.Once selected, the participating organ-izations execute partnership agree-ments and commit to cooperate for atwo-year period, during which the part-ners focus their exchange activities onseveral key issues. Following are someexamples of these efforts.• In India—Corporate restructuring,

increased energy efficiency throughreduction of distribution losses,improved plant operations, develop-ment of India’s National Institute forPower Systems and DistributionManagement, and joint-venture andpilot projects with U.S. partners.

• In Indonesia—Managing a distributioncompany in a privatized environ-ment, utility decision making fromthe private company perspective,regulation and trading mechanisms,and privatization of the gas industry.

• In the Philippines—Management andcorporate restructuring, quality ofservice, and customer service.24 http://www.ecolinks.org/about.html.


• In Senegal—Generating capacitythrough independent power produc-tion, improved efficiency, andimproved system reliability throughenhanced water, fuel, and materialsanalysis.

• In Brazil—Delegation of regulatorypowers to Brazil’s states, staff devel-opment and training, and generationresource portfolio planning.

Forest Conservation Partnerships

Among the leading U.S. innovativeprograms to address climate changethrough forest conservation activitiesare those being implemented throughNGOs, such as The Nature Conser-vancy (TNC) and Conservation Inter-national (CI), often in partnership withthe U.S. government and the privatesector.

International Partnership ProgramTNC’s International Partnership

Program (IPP) aims to strengthen thecapacity of local organizationsthrough collaborative efforts to pre-serve biological diversity and forestresources—efforts with valuable cli-mate benefits. Through the IPP, TNCnow works with more than 70 partnerorganizations in 26 countries through-out the Asia Pacific, Caribbean, andLatin America regions. The programspecifically emphasizes the opportuni-ties for promoting local leadership inbiodiversity conservation, and improv-ing access to technical information andexpertise. As a result of the program,TNC and its partners have protectedmore than 32,375 hectares (over 80million acres) of land in these locationsthat include climate projects to pre-serve forests, protect carbon sinks, andprovide jobs; ecotourism training thatenables fishermen to thrive by protect-ing rivers and coastal areas; and com-munity-led marine conservation thatempowers villagers to manage the fish-eries that support their livelihoods.25

EcoEnterprise FundTNC’s relatively new EcoEnterprise

Fund is a joint initiative with the Inter-American Development Bank that seeksto use venture capital to protect naturalareas in Latin America and theCaribbean. The Fund includes twocomponents: (1) an investment fundthat provides venture capital to prof-itable businesses involved in sustainableagriculture, sustainable forestry, eco-tourism, and other environmentallycompatible businesses; and (2) limitedtechnical assistance funds to providebusiness advisory services to prospec-tive projects. Participating companiesare required to collaborate with a non-profit conservation or community part-ner, by paying fees for monitoringservices, by sharing profits, or by otherfinancial arrangements. The Fundinvests in ventures at all stages of devel-opment with prospective sales revenuesup to $3 million. It gives preference tobusinesses that are unable to securefinancing from conventional sourcesdue to their small size, the innovativenature of their business, and/or thefinancial risks involved.26

Conservation Enterprise FundSimilar to TNC’s EcoEnterprise

Fund, CI’s Conservation EnterpriseFund (CEF) was created in 1999 with a$1 million loan from the InternationalFinance Corporation’s Small andMedium Enterprise Global Environ-mental Facility program. The CEF is adevelopment tool that enables conser-vation enterprises to expand their oper-ations through financial leveraging. CIacts as the financial intermediary toprovide $25,000–$250,000 in debt and equity financing to small andmedium-sized enterprises (possessing$5 million or less in assets) that arestrategically important to conservation.For instance, a CEF loan helped coffeefarmers in Chiapas, Mexico, financepost-harvest expenses in 1999. CEFfunds are also directed to businesses

engaged in agroforestry, ecotourism,and wild-harvest products.27

U.S. GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE ADDRESSINGVULNERABILITY AND ADAPTATION

Assisting countries that are particu-larly vulnerable to the adverse effects ofclimate change is a high priority for theUnited States. The U.S. governmenthas provided extensive financial andtechnical support to such countries formany years, primarily through a num-ber of programs designed to addressdisaster preparedness and relief, foodsecurity and sustainable agriculturalproduction, biodiversity conservation,water resources management, and cli-mate research and weather predictionprograms. These activities involvenumerous government agencies, such asUSAID, NOAA, USDA, DOE, andEPA.

For example, under the U.S. Coun-try Studies Program, the U.S. govern-ment has provided support todeveloping countries to conduct assess-ments of climate change vulnerabilityand adaptation options. Under theUNFCCC and pursuant to guidancefrom the GEF, donor nations are obli-gated to help developing nations partic-ipate in research and systematicobservation of climate change, assesstheir vulnerability, prepare adaptationstrategies, and implement adaptationmeasures. The results of these assess-ments and studies have been highlysuccessful at promoting more meaning-ful participation by developing coun-tries in the UNFCCC process, and atmore accurately gauging potential risksand adaptation measures to addresslong- and short-term climate impacts.More detail on these activities is pro-vided later in this chapter. More spe-cific financial information about U.S.adaptation activities appears in Appen-dix C and in the section of this chapterconcerning financial flows.

25 http://nature.org/international/specialinitiatives/.26 http://nature.org/international/specialinitiatives/ecofund/.27 http://www.conservation.org/WEB/FIELDACT/C-C_PROG/ECON/fund.htm.


U.S. FINANCIAL FLOW INFORMATION, 1997–2000

This chapter presents financialresource information for the years1997–2000. This information is alsopresented in Tables 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3.For the table on financial flows to spe-cific countries and regions (Table 7-3 inAppendix C), this chapter goes beyondthe minimum guidance requirement ofpresenting each flow by year, country,and sector. To provide a more completedescription of these financial flows, fur-ther detail has been included to showboth the type of flow and its source. Toprovide a framework for analysis, thechapter follows the approach of Method-ological and Technological Issues in TechnologyTrends (IPCC 2000).

Financial information provided inthis chapter is derived from the U.S.government, foundations, and othersources of financing to institutionssupporting climate change mitigation,adaptation, and technology transferactivities in developing and transitioneconomies. To a limited extent, thisreport also includes information aboutfinancial flows from the U.S. privatesector, which if fully accounted forwould be expected to far outweigh allother financial flows. Because private-sector financial and investment infor-mation is mostly proprietary and notavailable to the public, only two ofthese flows to climate change mitiga-tion and adaptation activities are evenpartly accounted for in the tables thatfollow.28

Recipients of U.S. financial re-sources include the GEF (reported inTable 7-1), multilateral institutions(reported in Table 7-2), as well asNGOs, universities, research institu-tions, and foreign governments. Whilesome of this funding is provided toU.S.-based institutions, only thoseactivities providing assistance directlyto developing countries and countrieswith economies in transition arereported here.

Due to the difficulty in identifyingexact expenditures under most U.S.government programs, financial infor-mation provided in this report refers

only to those activities for which fund-ing was obligated in the given year,from 1997 to 2000, and in some cases2001. In most cases, U.S. governmentinformation referred to the fiscal yearfor which funding was obligated—i.e.,beginning October 1 in the year priorto and ending September 30 in the cal-endar year in question. For example,Fiscal Year 1997 began October 1,1996, and ended September 30, 1997.In most other cases, including fundingfrom U.S. foundations and other pub-lic and private institutions, informa-tion relates to the calendar year inwhich funding was awarded.

Financial Contributions to theGlobal Environment Facility

The Global Environment Facility(GEF) was established in 1991 to forgeinternational cooperation and financeactions for addressing critical threats tothe global environment resulting fromthe loss of biological diversity, climatechange, degradation of internationalwaters, and ozone depletion. It alsoprovides funding to address the perva-sive problem of land degradation. TheGEF is now the interim financial mech-anism for the Protocol on PersistentOrganic Pollutants and acts as thefinancial mechanism of both the Con-vention on Biological Diversity and theUNFCCC. The GEF leverages itsresources through co-financing andcooperation with other donor groupsand the private sector. In 1998, 36nations pledged a total of $2.75 billionin funding to protect the global envi-ronment and promote sustainabledevelopment. The United States hasbeen a member country and supporterof the GEF since 1994. As of December2000, 167 countries were participatingmembers of the GEF.29

Aggregated U.S. Government Funding

Between 1997 and 2000, the U.S.government has provided $285.8 mil-lion to the GEF. Recently, PresidentBush announced his Administration’sintention to fully fund payment forarrears incurred during the previousAdministration. The President’s budgetrequest for fiscal year 2003 includes $70million for the first installment of thispayment.

U.S. government funding to theGEF, as all donors’ funding, is providedin aggregate and not differentiated bytype of activity. However, a significantportion of GEF activities addresses cli-mate change, both directly through theclimate change focal area and indirectlythrough other focal areas. For instance,programs that address biological diver-sity and coastal zone management alsohelp address vulnerability and adapta-tion of numerous species to changingclimatic conditions. Currently approxi-mately 38 percent of GEF grants sup-port activities specifically related toclimate change. This is only surpassedby GEF support for biodiversity activi-ties, which comprise 42 percent of theoverall portfolio. Table 7-1 providesannual U.S. contributions to the GEFfor the years 1997 through 2000.

Financial Contributions to Multilateral Institutions and Programs

The U.S. government provides directfinancial support to multilateral institu-tions, such as the United Nations anddevelopment banks, in recognition oftheir important role in meeting the goalsof sustainable economic development,poverty alleviation, and protection ofthe global environment (Table 7-2).

28 The information reported here was collected and analyzed from primary sources, including surveys of various U.S.government agencies, foundations, NGOs, private-sector companies, and queries of official U.S. government data-bases. In the case of commercial sales flows, the United States queried the U.S. International Trade Commission’sdatabase for U.S. export values for the energy (renewables and process efficiency) and water supply/wastewater sec-tors based on internationally agreed-upon harmonized tariff system codes (HTS). The United States chose the appro-priate codes (HTS6 and HTS10) at the most detailed level possible to best select and account for onlyclimate-friendly exports. The United States referenced both its own and OECD’s analyses on environmental exportvalues in creating this query (US–AEP 2000, OECD 2000).

29 http://www.gefweb.org/.

The U.S. government provides direct funding to multilateral institutions in support of sus-tainable economic development, poverty alleviation, and protection of the global environ-ment.

Institution or Program 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total

Multilateral InstitutionsWorld Bank 700.0 1,034.0 800.0 771.1 3,305.1International Finance Corporation 6.7 0 0 0 6.7African Development Bank 0 45.0 128.0 131.1 304.1Asian Development Bank 113.2 150.0 223.2 90.7 577.1European Bank for Reconstruction 11.9 35.8 35.8 35.8 119.3

and DevelopmentInter-American Development Bank 25.6 25.6 25.6 25.6 102.4United Nations Development Program 76.0 93.7 97.4 77.9 345.0United Nations Environment Program* 11.0 9.0 12.0 10.0 42.0UN Framework Convention on 2.6 3.9 3.8 4.9 15.2

Climate Change

Multilateral Scientific, Technological, and Training ProgramsWorld Meteorological Organization* 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 7.5Intergovernmental Panel on 0.7 1.0 2.7 1.6 6.0

Climate Change

*U.S. total voluntary contributions only from the International Organizations and Programs account.

Since 1997, the U.S. government has provided $285.8 million to the GEF, which has a num-ber of focal areas, including climate change.

Institution 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total

Global Environment Facility 35 47.5 167.5 35.8 285.8

Note: Information for GEF contributions is based on U.S. annual appropriations by fiscal year (October 1– September 30), which does not directly correspond to the calendar year. For example, for calendar year1997, the figure used is from fiscal year 1997 (October 1, 1996–September 30, 1997).


TABLE 7-1 Financ ia l Cont r ibut ions to the G loba l Env i ronment Fac i l i ty :1997–2000 (Mi l l ions o f U.S. Dol la rs )

TA B L E 7-2 Financ ia l Cont r ibut ions to Mul t i la te ra l Ins t i tu t ions and Programs (Mi l l ions o f U.S. Dol la rs )

Aggregated U.S. GovernmentFunding for Multilateral Institutions

Between 1997 and 2000, the U.S.government provided funds to numer-ous multilateral banks and institutionsthrough block grants. The funding isnot specifically disaggregated by typeof activity because donors meet theircommitments by providing annual con-tributions that do not include earmarksfor specific activities. Therefore, thoseactivities that supported greenhousegas emissions mitigation or addressedvulnerability and adaptation to climateimpacts in developing and transitioneconomies represent a portion of thetotal funding shown.

Between 1997 and 2000, the U.S.government also provided $3.9 millionto the supplementary UNFCCC trustfund to support general participation inthe Convention. These activitiesincluded support for the developmentof National Communications by non-Annex I (developing) countries, as wellas information systems and databases ofnational greenhouse gas emissioninventories.

Other Funding for MultilateralScientific, Technological, andTraining Programs

In 2000, the U.S. government pro-vided grant funding to the World Mete-

orological Organization in support ofclimate forecasting at the DroughtMonitoring Center in Nairobi, Kenya(DMC-N). In collaboration withColumbia University’s InternationalInstitute for Climate Prediction, thisactivity seeks to improve the capabili-ties of the DMC-N to provide reliableforecasts and early warning of extremeclimate events, such as drought andfloods.

Bilateral and Regional Financial Contributions

This section provides information onbilateral and regional financial contri-butions by U.S. foundations, NGOs,universities, the private sector, and theU.S. government related to climatechange mitigation and adaptation activ-ities. U.S. financial flows by year, coun-try, and type of activity are presented inTable 7-3 in Appendix C.

To provide a more accurate repre-sentation of U.S. financial flows, sev-eral categories of activities have beenexpanded from those in the UNFCCCguidance, and two new categories havebeen added. The new category Supportfor FCCC Participation refers to activitieswhere the United States has supporteddeveloping and transition economiesto participate in international meet-ings, discussions, and training events.Crosscutting Activities refers to activitiesand programs that cannot be easilylisted under a single category. Many ofthese “crosscutting” activities, forexample, simultaneously provide bothmitigation and adaptation benefits.

It is important to note that U.S.funding data—collected from hundredsof offices and divisions of over a dozenU.S. government agencies, as well asfrom numerous other public and privateinstitutions—are difficult to categorizeinto the list of climate change topicsrequested in the UNFCCC guidelines.In many instances, U.S.-funded climatechange activities could have beenincluded under more than one topicarea. For example, U.S. governmentagencies often label most activities thatsupport industry, transportation, orwaste management as “energy.” In


F IGURE 7-1 Commerc ia l Sa les and Di rec t Financ ia l F lows:1997–2000

From 1997 to 2000, commercial sales andofficial development assistance/officialassistance (ODA/OA) accounted for thelargest shares of direct support for activ-ities that address mitigation of and adap-tation to climate change.

475

1.4

41.8

7.0

Mill

ions

of U

.S. D

olla

rs

Commercial Sales

ODA/OALoans

Foundation Grants FDI

NGO Funds

3,647.2

3,595.6

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Note: ODA/OA = official development assistance/official assistance; FDI = foreign direct investment; NGO = nongovernmental organizations.

addition, it is difficult in U.S. govern-ment programs to clearly distinguishbetween forest and biodiversity conser-vation programs, or between carbonsequestration programs (that apply for-est and biodiversity conservationapproaches) and adaptation programs(that seek to protect species endangeredby changing climatic conditions). Simi-larly, many agricultural programs simul-taneously support vulnerabilityassessments for climate impacts (i.e.,severe weather), flood risk, desertifica-tion, drought, water supply, and/or foodsecurity.

While new categories have beenincluded, most have been added as sub-categories of the original headings pro-vided in the UNFCCC guidelines. Inthis manner, total figures may be calcu-lated within each main category fordirect comparison with other countries’submissions. In addition, total figuresmay be calculated across regions andsectors. This more detailed representa-tion of U.S.-funded climate changeactivities should promote more transpar-ent and comprehensive understanding ofthe kind of support and attention theUnited States has provided in respond-ing to climate change through technol-ogy transfer and development assistanceprograms.

SUMMARY OF FINANCIALFLOW INFORMATION FOR1997–2000

From 1997 to 2000, the United Statesprovided more than $4.1 billion in directfunding to activities in developing andtransition economies. This fundingincluded greenhouse gas mitigation inthe energy, industrial, and waste man-agement sectors; carbon sequestrationthrough improved forest and biodiver-sity conservation and sustainable agricul-ture; activities that address vulnerabilityand adaptation to climate impactsthrough improved water supply, disasterpreparedness, food security, andresearch; and other global climatechange activities. In the energy andwater supply categories, commercialsales from private industry have enabledthe transfer of technologies valued at

approximately $3.6 billion.As shown in Table 7-3 in Appendix

C, funding levels varied considerablybetween different categories. In addi-tion to variations in U.S. governmentprogramming practices, this occurred inpart because some categories (such asenergy, water supply, and waste man-agement) are very capital-intensive,while others (such as forest manage-ment or vulnerability assessment)require less capital investment.

In addition to direct funding andcommercial sales, the United Statesprovided $954.3 million in indirectfunding between 1997 and 2000. Thisfunding contributed to infrastructureprojects and technologies that sup-ported greenhouse gas mitigation in theenergy sector.

Funding TypesThis chapter reports direct support

in the form of official developmentassistance (ODA) and official assistance(OA), grants from foundations andother philanthropic institutions, U.S.government-backed project financing,NGO funds, foreign direct investment(FDI), and commercial sales from pri-vate industry.30 From 1997 to 2000,commercial sales and ODA/OAaccounted for the largest share of directsupport, followed by loans, foundationgrants, FDI, and NGO funding (Figure7-1). ODA, OA, grants, and to someextent NGO funds were directed to for-eign governments, NGOs, and researchinstitutions, as well as to U.S.-basedinstitutions working in developingcountries and transition economies.

It is estimated that U.S. FDI com-prises the vast majority of funding thatgoes to climate change-related activi-ties in developing and transitioneconomies. However, because mostinformation about the financing andimplementation of private-sector proj-ects is proprietary, very little FDI isreported under Table 7-3. What is

reported generally includes projectdevelopment and implementation ofUSIJI energy and land-use mitigationprojects. For these particular projects,annual financial contributions haveranged from $9,000 to $1.8 million perproject.

U.S. government-based projectfinancing has supported financing forprivate-sector infrastructure develop-ment. Loan amounts typically rangedfrom $60 million to $123 million perproject, often providing a portion of thefull project capitalization in conjunc-tion with other funding sources. U.S.commercial sales of climate-friendly

30 Justification for including commercial sales in thisanalysis of financial flows is derived from guidanceprovided in chapter 2 of IPCC 2000: “commercialsales refer to the sale (and corresponding purchase),on commercial terms, of equipment and knowledge.”


FIGURE 7-3 Regiona l and Globa l D i rec t , Commerc ia l Sa les , and Ind i rec tFinanc ia l F lows: 1997–2000

From 1997 to 2000, the United States provided billions of dollars for mitigation, adaptation,and other climate change activities, specifically: $4.1 billion in direct financing, $3.6 billionfor commercial sales of technologies and services, and $943 million in indirect financing.

Mill

ions

of U

.S. D

olla

rs

0.0

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

134.0

390.9

Commercial Sales

Direct

Indirect

0.0

275.40.0

1,910.6

1,133.7

425.5

1,526.4

2,044.0

276.976.2

61.7

Africa Asia/Near East Europe & Eurasia

Latin America& Caribbean

Global

467.1

F IGURE 7-2 Ind i rec t Financ ia l F lows inthe U.S. Energy Sector :1997–2000

Indirect flows, which includes risk guaran-tees, loan guarantees, and investmentinsurance, has contributed to the develop-ment of large private-sector energy infra-structure projects. Indirect flows representguarantees to financial institutions andcompanies that the United States will coverthe guaranteed amount of the total lossesresulting from loan defaults, or other risks toa creditor or company.

442

344.8

Mill

ions

of U

.S. D

olla

rs

Insurance

Risk Guarantees

Loan Guarantees

167.5

0

100

200

300

400

500

flows typically have ranged from $3.1million to $200 million per project.

Regional TrendsFrom 1997 to 2000, the United

States provided over $1.1 billion to Asiaand the Near East, $2 billion to LatinAmerica and the Caribbean, $390.9million to sub-Saharan Africa, $276.9million to Europe and Eurasia, and$275.4 million to other global programsfor the direct financing of mitigation,adaptation, and other climate changeactivities. With commercial sales oftechnologies and services, the UnitedStates provided $1.9 billion to Asia andthe Near East, $1.5 billion to LatinAmerica and the Caribbean, $134.0million to sub-Saharan Africa, and$76.2 million to Europe and Eurasia.

With respect to indirect financing, theUnited States provided $425.5 millionto Asia and the Near East, $467.1 mil-lion to Latin America and theCaribbean, and $61.7 million to Europeand Eurasia (Figure 7-3).

Funding has varied across regions inpart because of differences betweenregional development priorities andbecause of the types of financialresources that have been mobilized forthat region. A region’s or subregion’sdevelopment needs, geography, andinvestment environment often deter-mine the types of climate change miti-gation and adaptation projects that theUnited States funds. In addition, thedistribution of the three dominantfinancial flow types—ODA, loans, andcommercial sales—explains the huge

environmental goods and services cap-ture much of the “hard” technology orequipment exported to developing andtransition economies. Annual commer-cial sales flows have ranged from $2,505to $75.6 million per transaction.

Indirect financing, which includesrisk guarantees, loan guarantees, andinvestment insurance, has contributedto the development of large private-sec-tor energy infrastructure projects (Fig-ure 7-2). The difference between directand indirect financing is that the indi-rect flows do not represent actual trans-fers of cash, but rather guarantees tofinancial institutions and companiesthat the United States will cover theguaranteed amount of the total lossesresulting from loan defaults, or otherrisks to a creditor or company. Indirect


variances in the magnitude of financialflows across regions and across time. Inparticular, a few loans that supportedenergy-sector activities far exceededthe relative funding levels providedthrough ODA, and actually doubled ortripled the baseline flows to a particularregion. These activities have tended tobe infrequent, one-time loans for singleprojects in a single country.

For example, from 1997 to 2000 inAsia and the Near East, the UnitedStates provided the energy sector$504.5 million in direct financing,$411.2 million in commercial sales, and$425.5 million in indirect financing. Forthe water supply sector, the UnitedStates provided $337.7 million in directfinancing and $1.5 billion in commer-cial sales of relevant equipment andtechnologies. This funding distributionis representative of the region’s experi-ence with water supply constraints andincreasing energy demand. In anotherexample, to support forestry-relatedactivities, the United States provideddirect financing of $144.3 million toLatin America and the Caribbean,$121.2 million to Africa, and $121.2million to Asia and the Near East overthe same period. These regions boastsignificant potential for conservation ofcarbon stocks and other climate-friendly forest and biodiversity conser-vation opportunities (see Appendix C).

Mitigation ActivitiesFrom 1997 to 2000, the United

States spent $2.4 billion overall on climate change mitigation in the formof ODA, U.S. government-backedloans, foundation grants, NGO funds,FDI, and commercial sales. The UnitedStates also indirectly financed climatechange mitigation activities in theamount of $954.3 million. Followingthe UNFCCC guidance for Table 7-3(in Appendix C), the mitigation activi-ties reported here include emission-reduction initiatives in the energy,

transportation, forestry, agriculture,waste management, and industrial sec-tors. To more accurately representU.S.-supported activities, the forestrysector has been divided into two sub-categories: forest conservation and bio-diversity conservation (Figure 7-4).

Energy The majority of U.S. spending on

mitigation of climate change from 1997to 2000 was directed toward energy-

related projects, totaling approximately$1 billion in direct financing and$862.4 million in commercial sales.31 Inindirect financing, the United Statesleveraged $954.3 million for climate-friendly investments, all of which wentto the energy sector (see Appendix C).U.S. support for climate technologytransfer in this sector has varied widelythroughout the world to include complex, large-scale infrastructureinvestment and development; extensive

31 In selecting commercial sales transactions applicable to the energy sector, the U.S. limited its query to equipment for heat and energy management and renewable energy plants, asdetermined by the US–AEP study that examined U.S. environmental exports (US–AEP/USAID 2000). These commodities included (1) photosensitive semiconductor devices/pho-tovoltaic cells and light-emitting diodes; (2) heat-exchange units, nondomestic, nonelectric; (3) electric-generating sets; (4) parts of hydraulic turbines and water wheels, includingregulators; (5) hydraulic turbines and water wheels of a power exceeding 10,000 KW; (6) instantaneous or storage water heater, nonelectric; (7) hydraulic turbines and water wheelsof a power exceeding 1,000 KW but not exceeding 10,000 KW; and (8) hydraulic turbines and water wheels of a power not exceeding 1,000 KW.

From 1997 to 2000, the United States directly financed $2.4 billion and indirectly financed$954.3 million for activities to mitigate the effects of climate change.

F IGURE 7-4 U.S. Financ ia l F lows by Mi t igat ion Sector and Financ ia l F low Type: 1997-2000M

illio

ns o

f U.S

. Dol

lars

0

200

400

6001.

8 F

DI2.

7 F

ound

atio

n Gr

ants

0.5

Fou

ndat

ion

Gran

ts24

.8 O

DA/O

A

Energy

Transportation

Forest Conservation

25.1

Fou

ndat

ion

Gran

ts5.

2 F

DI1.

4 N

GO F

unds

0.5

Fou

ndat

ion

Gran

ts

Biodiversity Conservation

4.1

Fou

ndat

ion

Gran

ts

0.1

Fou

ndat

ion

Gran

ts

Agriculture

Waste ManagementIndustry

25.1

ODA

/OA

337.

4 O

DA/O

A

27.6

ODA

/OA

40.8

ODA

/OA

19.0

ODA

/ OA

Government-Financed Loans

Commercial Sales

ODA/OA

FDI

Foundation Grants

NGO Funds

Com

mer

cial

Sal

es

862

.4OD

A/OA

522

.5

Gove

rnm

ent -

Fina

nced

Loa

ns 4

75.0

Note: ODA/OA = official development assistance/official assistance; FDI = foreign direct investment; NGO = nongovernmental organization.


32 Given the current U.S. congressional restrictions onresource allocation for all efforts aimed at implement-ing Kyoto Protocol provisions, the USDOT/FHWAactivities are focused only on raising the level ofawareness among the potential domestic and interna-tional stakeholders.

capacity building for power-sector policy and regulatory reform; improve-ments in the development and propaga-tion of energy-efficiency, renewable-energy, and clean-energy technologiesand practices; and conservation prac-tices at the municipal and householdlevels. U.S. support for this sector hasoften included overlap with the transportation, industrial, and wastemanagement sectors.

U.S. support for technical assistanceand training has contributed to policyreforms and increased energy-efficientoperations in the power and industrialsectors. For example, USAID supporteda number of significant utility restructur-ing and regulatory reform activities,including adjustments to energy tariffsand fuel pricing in countries in Asia, theNear East, Europe, and Eurasia. Theseefforts have largely resulted in improvedmarket efficiency, cost-effective man-agement, and reduced greenhouse gasemissions through the use of innovativetechnologies, improved managementpractices, and incentives that increasethe efficiency of energy production, dis-tribution, and consumption. Among itsnumerous energy-efficiency activitiesworldwide, USAID has worked with theEgyptian government to provide techni-cal assistance to enhance power stationefficiency, reduce losses in transmission,and introduce time-of-day metering toregulate the flow of electricity. Theseefforts have resulted in considerable sav-ings in annual carbon dioxide (CO2)emissions.

USAID also partnered with theUnited States Energy Association toestablish an International ClimateChange Project Fund that provides sup-port to U.S. investor-owned utilities andother energy companies to implementspecific projects that mitigate emissionsin USAID-assisted countries in Asia,Africa, and Latin America. One of theFund’s projects selected in 2000 is theSENELEC Network Power GenerationEfficiency Project in Senegal which,through partnering with the U.S.-basedElectrotek Concepts, will increase theefficiency, reliability, and power qualityof the primary electricity supply system

operated by this national electric utility.This project is expected to eliminate 315gigagrams of CO2 over its 10-year life-time and reduce fuel imports to Senegalby an estimated 140,000 barrels a year.In Mexico, USAID’s Steam and Com-bustion Efficiency Pilot Project has promoted high-efficiency motors, com-pressors, pumps, and lighting to demon-strate the linkages between reducingemissions and increasing energy effi-ciency. In 1999, this effort resulted in areduction of more than 325 gigagrams ofCO2 emissions.

U.S. support for broader infrastruc-ture financing has also helped advancethe use of renewable energy, energyefficiency, and clean energy in develop-ing and transition economies. Forexample, the Export–Import Bank ofthe United States has financed com-bined-cycle plants in Latin America andthe Caribbean, Asia, the Near East,Europe, and Eurasia. These plantsexhibit high efficiency as they combinethe use of natural gas and a low heatrate, which results in lower CO2 pro-duction per kilowatt-hour of generatedelectricity. Support from U.S. powercompanies and NGOs financed thepilot phase of a rural solar electrifica-tion project in Bolivia, which isexpected to avoid 1.3 gigagrams ofCO2 over its 20-year lifetime. In Bul-garia, USAID’s Development CreditAuthority program provided a partialloan guarantee for United Bank of Bul-garia to enable consumers in Bulgaria tofinance municipal energy-efficiencyimprovements. As a result of this creditenhancement program, USAID lever-aged $6.3 million in private capital at acost of $435,000.

In addition to supporting large proj-ects focused on energy supply, theUnited States has addressed thedemand side of the power sector. Forexample, EPA has collaborated withauthorities in China to reduce energyuse by establishing minimum energy-efficiency levels for fluorescent lampballasts and room air conditioners. EPAhas also worked to increase the energy-efficiency levels of refrigerators. Plansare now underway to strengthen the

Chinese voluntary energy-efficiencylabel through technical cooperationwith the U.S. ENERGY STAR® program—an initiative that promotes energy-efficient solutions for businesses andconsumers that save money as well asthe environment.

TransportationFrom 1997 to 2000, the United

States spent approximately $25.3 million in ODA funding on climate-related activities in the transportationsector (see Appendix C). Note that asignificant number of U.S. governmentprojects supporting climate-relatedactivities in the transportation sectorare counted under “Energy.”

U.S. international programs toaddress climate change through trans-portation have included efforts toimprove engine and fuel efficiency, pro-mote improved transportation manage-ment and planning, support alternativetransportation systems, and introducecleaner fuels and alternative-fuel tech-nologies. For example, several USAIDprograms operating in Egypt, India, thePhilippines, and Mexico seek to reducegreenhouse gas emissions from motorvehicles, while also reducing lead, par-ticulates, and smog-forming emissions.The U.S. Department of Transporta-tion’s Center for Climate Change andEnvironmental Forecasting has sup-ported strategic planning, policyresearch, communication, and out-reach, as well as the preliminary assess-ment of project-specific internationalemission-trading opportunities in India,China, Indonesia, and Brazil.32 DOEand the Ministry of Science and Tech-nology of the People’s Republic ofChina have been collaborating onresearch and development of electricand hybrid electric vehicle technology.

The U.S. Trade and DevelopmentAgency (TDA) has financed numerousfeasibility studies, orientation visits,and other training and technical


assistance activities for railway, masstransit, and transportation system effi-ciency improvements throughout thedeveloping world. For example, TDAprovided $220,000 for a feasibilitystudy of the light rail project on theisland of Cebu—the fastest-growingregion and second-largest metropolitanarea in the Philippines.

ForestryThe United States spent over $439.4

from 1997 to 2000 on climate changeactivities in the forestry sector (seeAppendix C). This funding includedtraditional forest conservation andmanagement activities, biodiversityconservation, and related naturalresource management activities thatimproved the technical capacity ofnational and local governments,NGOs, and local communities to man-age and conserve forests. The UnitedStates has also provided direct invest-ment in protection of natural areas toreduce the rate of loss of, preserve, orincrease carbon stock capacity. Overall,the majority of resources expended inthis area went toward biodiversity con-servation programs.

Forest Conservation. From 1997 to2000, the U.S. government spent $96.7million on forest conservation inCentral and South America, Africa,Asia, and Europe and Eurasia (Figure 7-5). For example, USAID hasaddressed rapid deforestation in theAmazon tropical rain forest by fundingscientific studies that use satelliteimagery to analyze deforestation trendsto better understand specific risks fromdrought, illegal logging, accidentalfires, and agriculture practices.

In Mexico, following the 1997 and1998 wildfire disasters, USAID, theMexican government, and local NGOsjointly developed a wildfire preventionand land restoration program to miti-gate environmental, health, and climateeffects from forest fires. USAID helpedlead several efforts to adopt policiesdiscouraging slash-and-burn agricul-ture, improve collaboration betweenMexico’s federal government and

NGOs, and provide training on fireprevention and wildfire management.As a result, local fire brigades were ableto control and extinguish fires muchmore effectively, and in 1999 Mexicoexperienced a decrease in the area nor-mally affected by fires. Efforts areunderway to assess the amount of car-bon potentially sequestered as a resultof Mexico’s fire restoration efforts.

By working with communities toestablish clear boundaries for commu-nity management, control agriculturalclearing, and implement monitoringplans, USAID facilitated the transfer ofover 625,000 hectares (over 15 millionacres) of forest to local management inthe Philippines. After four years, about5.5 million hectares of forestland—over60 percent of the country’s open-accessforests—are now under community

management. Without such interven-tions, the country’s forest cover wouldhave declined by an estimated 6 per-cent during the same period.

Through the USIJI program, theU.S.-based NatSource InstitutionalEnergy Brokers, the Costa Rican Min-istry of the Environment and Energy,and the Costa Rican National ParksFoundation have begun implementingthe Territorial and Financial Consolida-tion of Costa Rican National Parks andBiological Reserves Project. This “certi-fied tradable offset” project facilitatesthe transfer of primary forest, second-ary forest, and pasture lands that havebeen declared National Parks or Biolog-ical Reserve to the Costa Rican Min-istry of Environment and Energy(MINAE). Over its 25-year life, theproject is expected to avoid an

F IGURE 7-5 Di rec t , Commerc ia l Sa les , and Ind i rec t Financ ia l F lows by Mi t igat ion/Adaptat ion Sector : 1997–2000

From 1997 to 2000, the majority of U.S. spending on climate change mitigation activities wasdirected toward energy-related projects, totaling approximately $1 billion in direct financ-ing, $862.4 million in commercial sales, and $954.3 million in indirect financing for climate-friendly investments.

862.

41,

002.

195

4.3

25.3

96.7

342.

7

31.7

40.8

19.0 51

.8

38.3

13.7

10.2 25.4

298.

4

406.

9

1,71

8.2

2,78

4.0

Energy

Transportation

Forest Conservation

Other Vulnerability Assessments

Biodiversity Conservation

Agriculture

Waste ManagementIndustry

Water Supply

Disaster Preparedness

Droughts & Desertification

Coastal Resources

Coral Reefs

UNFCCC

Indirect

Direct

Commercials Sales

Mill

ions

of U

.S. D

olla

rs

0

500

1,000

1,500

Crosscutting


estimated 57 teragrams of CO2 emis-sions.

Biodiversity Conservation. From 1997to 2000, the U.S. government spent$342.7 on biodiversity conservationactivities, such as establishing and man-aging protected areas, providing train-ing in habitat conservation, andpromoting sustainable resource man-agement (Figure 7-5). Funding for bio-diversity activities has come primarilyfrom USAID, USIJI projects, and pri-vate foundations, usually in partnershipwith international NGOs, researchinstitutions, and host-country govern-ments and organizations.

USAID’s Parks-in-Peril program, apartnership with The Nature Conser-vancy and local NGOs, has becomeLatin America’s largest, most successfulsite-based conservation effort. Workingin 37 protected areas in 15 countries,this program has helped protect over 11million hectares (more than 271 millionacres) of natural forests, of which 6.3million hectares (more than 155 millionacres) contain substantial carbon stocks.

In Bulgaria, USAID’s GEF Biodiver-sity Project has strengthened a networkof protected areas, with a specific focuson the Rila and Central Balkan NationalParks, totaling 179,622 hectares (over 4million acres). The project has providedpolicy development assistance, pro-moted sustainable economic use of bio-logical resources, and built local capacityto manage the parks.

In similar efforts, the MacArthurFoundation’s Ecosytems ConservationPolicy grant program has supported ini-tiatives in Nepal and Tibet totaling$100,000. The March for Conservationprogram has supported coastal zone bio-diversity and conservation education inSri Lanka ($75,000), and Terra CapitalInvestors Limited’s venture capital fund($1 million) invests in Latin Americanbusinesses that involve the sustainableuse of natural resources and foster thepreservation of biological diversity.

In Guatemala, the home of the MayaBiosphere Reserve and one of the largesttracts of intact tropical forests, USAIDhas worked to reduce deforestation rates

and promote carbon sequestration. Bysupporting improved land- andresource-use practices, an improvedpolicy framework, and stronger localinstitutions through technical assis-tance, training, and farmer-to-farmerextension networks, this work had ledto the protection of approximately700,000 hectares (more than 17 millionacres) in 1999.

USAID’s work in Indonesia tooksteps to protect the West Kalimantantropical broadleaf forest, where approx-imately 43,000 hectares (more than 1million acres) are now under effectivemanagement as villagers organize, cre-ate maps of, and impose rules on har-vesting the natural resources. In 2000,USAID also supported resource valua-tion studies for communities in Indone-sia’s Bunaken National Park todemonstrate the relative monetaryvalue per hectare and per family thatbiologically diverse forests have, ascompared with oil palm monocultureforests.

In Madagascar, USAID has soughtto preserve biologically diverse carbonstocks and reduce their rate of loss.Working with the National Associationfor Management of Protected Areas(ANGAP) and the Ministry of Waterand Forest (MEF), USAID supportedthe growth and sound management ofMadagascar’s Protected Area Network,as well as forests and important biolog-ical areas outside of the network. Theseprograms specifically focus on protec-tion and improved management ofexisting areas of biological importance,reducing slash-and-burn agriculture,and increasing agroforestry and treenursery efforts to promote reforestationof multiple-use, high-economic-value,or indigenous tree species.

AgricultureBetween 1997 and 2000, the United

States spent approximately $31.7 mil-lion on climate-related activities in agri-culture (see Appendix C). Thesefinancial resources have promotedagroforestry, reduced tillage, erosioncontrol, introduction of perennial cropsand crop rotation, improved nitrogen

and soil management, use of organicfertilizers, and improved managementof agrochemicals.

In Uganda and Madagascar, forexample, USAID has supported sustain-able farming systems and agroforestry toimprove agricultural output whileenhancing the carbon storage potentialin soils and crops. In Kenya, the FordFoundation has supported WinrockInternational’s Institute for AgriculturalDevelopment to strengthen associationsof women professionals in agricultureand the environment in East Africa. TheInstitute has enhanced food security andenvironmental conservation by prepar-ing women for leadership roles in agricultural and environment-related sci-ences.

In Chiapas, Mexico, a ground-break-ing partnership between Starbucks Cof-fee and Conservation International (CI)begun in 1998 has promoted cultivationthat incorporates biodiversity protectionand environmentally sustainable agricul-tural practices. Under the partnership,CI assists farmers in the El Triúnfo Bios-phere Reserve, in the Sierra Madre deChiapas, to produce coffee under theshade of the forest canopy using prac-tices that avoid the need to clearforested lands.

Waste ManagementThe United States spent over $40.8

million from 1997 to 2000 on activitiessupporting greenhouse gas mitigationin the waste management sector (seeAppendix C).33 These activities prima-rily addressed the development andimplementation of waste-to-energyprograms involving the recovery ofgreenhouse gases, such as methanefrom solid waste disposal facilities. Forexample, US–AEP and Conservation Services Group (CSG) Energy Servicesjointly implemented an energy-efficiency technology and pollutionprevention project in India in partner-ship with several universities and India’s

33 Financial information on some waste management ini-tiatives was not available, especially with regard to pri-vate-sector activities. Note, a considerable number ofindustrial-sector activities have been included under“Energy,” above.


Thane-Belapur Industries Association.The partners will use the CSG grant toassess the potential of selected landfillmethane-recovery sites to mitigategreenhouse gas emissions.

Under USIJI, the regional Argen-tinean government agency, Coordi-nación Ecológica Area MetropolitanaSociedad del Estado (CEAMSE) andU.S.-based Pacific Energy Systems,Inc., have developed a landfill gas man-agement project in Greater BuenosAires, where up to 5 million tons ofwaste are deposited annually. Studiesinitiated under the project estimate thatcapturing and combusting 70 percent ofthe gas generated from the waste in theCEAMSE landfills could result in anannual net emission reduction of 4 tera-grams of CO2 equivalent. Furtherreductions could be achieved as the gasis used to displace combustion of morecarbon-intensive fossil fuels.34

IndustryBetween 1997 and 2000, the United

States spent more than $19 million onclimate-friendly activities in the indus-trial sector (see Appendix C).35 Theseactivities have improved industrialenergy efficiency, environmental man-agement systems, process efficiency, andwaste-to-energy programs, particularlyin energy-intensive industries.

In Mexico, for example, USAID andDOE have collaborated to developgreenhouse gas emission benchmarks forkey industries, as well as energy-efficiency initiatives in the public sector.These efforts have demonstrated thatinvestments in resource managementsystems are both technically and eco-nomically sound, paying for themselvesthrough energy and other savings withina few years. In the Philippines, USAIDsupported the adoption of ISO 14000certification, a voluntary system that

promotes environmental managementimprovements in production practices ata Ford Motor Company plant andthroughout its chain of 38 suppliers. InChennai, India, USAID worked with astarch manufacturing company in theSalem District of Tamil Nadu to recovermethane emissions from its tapioca-pro-cessing effluents. A USAID-commis-sioned study found that the 800manufacturing facilities of Salem pro-duce enough methane to generate about80 MW of power, compelling the localchamber of commerce to implement ademonstration project in 1998 withUSAID assistance to convert the recap-tured methane for fuel use.

Other U.S. government facilitationof climate-friendly industrial develop-ment has involved the transfer of U.S.equipment and technical expertise. In1997, the U.S Trade and DevelopmentAgency provided a $600,000 grant tothe Ukrainian Ministry of Coal to studythe feasibility of the production ofcoalbed methane and utilization ofgases to generate electric power in theDonetsk Basin. The U.S. firm Interna-tional Coal Bed Methane Group (com-posed of Black Warrior Methane andE.L. Lassister) carried out the study.U.S. exports to the project consisted ofdrilling and completion equipment,drilling rigs, service rigs, combustionpower turbines, logging and geophysi-cal equipment, and engineering andlegal services. In 2000, the Departmentof Commerce, through its InternationalClean Energy Initiative, began promot-ing the transfer of U.S.-developedwaste recovery technology to develop-ing countries. A trade mission to Chinainvolved the participation of the AsianAmerican Coal Company, which hasdeveloped technology that capturescoalbed methane for conversion to natural gas.36

Adaptation ActivitiesFrom 1997 to 2000, the United States

spent over $5 billion on climate changevulnerability and adaptation activities.These activities, funded mostly by com-mercial sales and ODA, are presented inAppendix C under the categories pro-vided by the UNFCCC guidance: capac-ity building, coastal zone management,and other vulnerability assessments.However, to more accurately representthe numerous adaptation activities theUnited States has supported that are rel-evant to climate change, the followingsubcategories were created under capac-ity building: water supply, disaster pre-paredness and response, and droughtand desertification. Under coastal zonemanagement, the following two cate-gories were created: coastal resourcesand coral reef protection.

Capacity BuildingFrom 1997 to 2000, the United States

provided $4.9 billion in funding for cli-mate change activities in the broad cate-gory of capacity building. The majorsources of funding for capacity buildingcame from commercial sales for much ofthe technology transferred in the “watersupply” subcategory, while ODA andfoundation grants funded disaster pre-paredness and response programs anddroughts and desertification programs.

Water Supply. Between 1997 and 2000,the United States spent approximately$406.9 million in direct financing forwater supply programs primarily direct-ed at the development and improvementof water supply and wastewater treat-ment infrastructure.37 Hard technologiestransferred through commercial salesamounted to approximately $2.8 bil-lion38 (Figure 7-6). Following are someexamples of this financial and technicalassistance.

34 USIJI Project Descriptions–CD.35 A considerable number of industrial-sector activities have been included under “Energy,” above.36 ITA Web site.37 IPCC Working Group II included water supply as a capacity-building category in IPCC 2001a, based on the integrated water resource management approaches identified for adapt-

ing to climate change impacts in the hydrology and water resources sector .38 In selecting commercial sales relevant to the water supply sector, the United States limited its query to wastewater treatment equipment, an IPCC-determined supply-side option for

adapting to climate change impacts in the hydrology and water resources sector (IPCC 2001a, p. 220). Based on the methodology of a US–AEP study that examined U.S. environ-mental exports (US–AEP/USAID 2000), the United States chose to include sales of the following types of commodities: (1) mats, matting, and screens of vegetable plaiting mate-rials; (2) rotary positive displacement pumps; (3) centrifugal pumps; (4) filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus for water; (5) filtering or purifying machinery and apparatusfor liquids; and (6) machines for mixing, kneading, crushing, grinding, etc.


In mid-1998, USAID provided emer-gency assistance to the Zai WaterTreatment Plant in Jordan, which is thesource of drinking water for 40 percentof Amman’s population. In coordinationwith Japan and Germany, USAID hasfunded efforts to expand and upgradethe plant to reduce the likelihood offuture water crises, and is funding therehabilitation of 27 contaminatedsprings and wells. In Egypt, USAID iscontinuing work on the rehabilitationand expansion of the southern portionof Cairo’s Rod El Farag water treatmentplant, a $97.4-million project. As aresult of this work, four million Cairoresidents now benefit from a more reli-able and safer water supply service.

In 1997, the U.S. Trade and Devel-

opment Agency (TDA) provided$168,500 to FMI International to con-duct a feasibility study for the develop-ment of a wastewater treatment plant innortheastern Estonia. In another exam-ple, at the request of the Royal Thaigovernment, TDA provided $40,000for an orientation visit for 16 Thai offi-cials interested in U.S. flood controltechnology in 1997. That same year,TDA also granted $367,000 for a feasi-bility study on water-loss reduction forthe city of Curitiba in Parana, Brazil.

Disaster Preparedness and Response.Between 1997 and 2000, the UnitedStates spent $1.7 billion on climate-related disaster preparedness, mitiga-tion, and relief (see Appendix C). The

United States recognizes that preven-tion, reduction, and preparedness areimportant factors in reducing the large-scale devastation that disasters can haveon vulnerable populations. As a result,the United States has provided exten-sive assistance for recovery from naturaldisasters around the world.

Severe weather disasters. In May 1999, theU.S. Congress appropriated $621 mil-lion under the Emergency Supple-mental Appropriations Act, primarily tosupport the reconstruction of theDominican Republic and Haiti, whichwere devastated in late 1998 byHurricane Georges. This funding alsoassisted Central America’s recoveryfrom Hurricane Mitch, which struck onthe scale of a storm seen only once in100–200 years. These funds were laterextended for reconstruction in theBahamas and the Caribbean, whichwere struck by Hurricanes Floyd andLenny in 1999.

After surveying the extensive dam-age caused by Hurricane Mitch, theUnited States announced the $11 mil-lion Central American Mitigation Ini-tiative. This project aims to reduce theimpacts of natural disasters by buildingnational capacity in Central Americancountries to forecast, monitor, and pre-vent those disasters. In the wake ofHurricane Mitch, the United States ini-tiated a multi-agency effort tostrengthen worldwide climate-relateddisaster preparedness and mitigation,with particular emphasis on Mexico andCentral America.

In a joint effort, a group of U.S. government agencies39 implemented avariety of disaster preparedness andrelief programs for hurricane-relatedimpacts throughout Latin America.These programs have included, forexample, the development of more

From 1997 to 2000, the United States spent over $5 billion on climate change vulnerability andadaptation activities. These activities were funded primarily by commercial sales and officialdevelopment assistance/official assistance (ODA/OA).

F IGURE 7-6 Financ ia l F lows by Adaptat ion Sector and Financ ia l F low Type: 1997–2000

Commercial Sales

ODA/OA

Foundation Grants

0.53

Fou

ndat

ion

Gran

ts

406.

4

0.27

Fou

ndat

ion

Gran

ts

0.15

Fou

ndat

ion

Gran

ts

1.24

Fou

ndat

ion

Gran

ts

0.02

Fou

ndat

ion

Gran

ts

0.17

Fou

ndat

ion

Gran

ts

Mill

ions

of U

.S. D

olla

rs

2,78

4.8

1,71

8.02

51.7

6

37.0

8

13.5

4

9.96

Other Vulnerability

Assessments

Water SupplyDisaster

Preparedness

Droughts &

Desertification Coastal

ResourcesCoral Reefs

1,000

500

0

250

750

39 USAID, NOAA, USDA, USGS, EPA, Federal Emer-gency Management Agency (FEMA), the Departmentof the Interior (DOI), Department of Health andHuman Services (HHS), Department of Transporta-tion (DOT), Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD), the Peace Corps,Export–Import Bank (Ex–Im Bank), Overseas PrivateInvestment Corporation (OPIC), Department ofState, and the General Accounting Office (GAO).


nets, and cooking utensils to Vietnamafter heavy rains and severe floodingdevastated the country. To minimizefuture flood risks, in 2000, USAIDstarted supporting efforts to map floodplains and determine where peopleshould avoid building their homes inthe future. These efforts included locat-ing emergency shelters and determin-ing evacuation routes to be used duringfuture flooding.

In 1998, floods struck Kinshasa,Democratic Republic of the Congo,affecting an estimated 100,000 people.After the emergency, OFDA designed aproject to reduce the population’s vul-nerability to future floods. With OFDAfunding, Catholic Relief Services built17 small check-dams from locally avail-able materials, cleaned drainage canals,and reseeded degraded watershed areasto improve soil and moisture retention.When torrential rains again struck Kin-shasa in February 1999, there were noinjuries, no displaced residents, and nodamaged homes in the project area.This successful project enabled the res-idents of Kinshasa—where monthlyhousehold incomes are less than $70—to avoid a repeat of the $7.7 million ineconomic losses they suffered in 1998.

Climate forecasting and research. Climate,meteorological, and hydrological fore-casting has played an increasinglyimportant role in warning developingcountry populations of pending severestorm risks, as well as better informingthem of long-term disaster mitigationand response efforts. Under NOAA’sNational Weather Service, the UnitedStates has regularly provided develop-ing countries with meteorological andhydrological forecasts and predictionmodels; floods, droughts, and river flowpredictions; tropical cyclone/hurricaneforecasts for the Western Hemisphere;global aviation hazardous weather fore-casts; high-sea forecasts for the NorthAtlantic and North Pacific; and meteor-ological training programs for countriesthroughout Central America, the

resilient infrastructure, climate forecast-ing and warning systems, and variousforms of humanitarian aid. USAIDhelped establish a training and techni-cal assistance program to develop adap-tation plans for extreme climatic eventsin the region, supported watershedrehabilitation through a transnationalwatershed program, and helped installstream gauges and early-warning sys-tems in Honduras.

To continue addressing connecteddisaster risks in the Caribbean region,USAID recently initiated theCaribbean Disaster Mitigation Project.Implemented by the Organization ofAmerican States’ Unit of SustainableDevelopment and Environment, this$5-million, six-year project promotesthe adoption of natural disaster pre-paredness and loss-reduction practicesby both the public and the private sec-tors through regional, national, andlocal activities. These activities targetsix major themes: (1) community-basedpreparedness, (2) hazard assessmentand mapping, (3) hazard-resistantbuilding practices, (4) vulnerability andrisk audits for lifeline facilities, (5) pro-motion of hazard mitigation within theproperty insurance industry, and (6)incorporation of hazard mitigation intopost-disaster recovery. To date, pilotprojects have been implemented in 11Caribbean countries.

Similarly, the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA) has along history of interaction with foreigngovernments to help them more effec-tively respond to and prevent disasters,including expert exchanges and “train-the-trainer” courses. FEMA recentlyestablished pilot projects for buildingdisaster-resistant communities withArgentina, the Dominican Republic, ElSalvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,and Nicaragua and expanded civilemergency planning work throughNATO partners to include East Euro-pean nations.

Watershed management. In continuedefforts to reduce severe weather risks inCentral America, USAID has under-taken activities in the transboundary

Río Lempa watershed, shared byGuatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.The adaptation strategy for the RíoLempa has focused on three compo-nents: the National Weather ServiceRiver Forecast Center,40 capacity build-ing on the operation and maintenanceof the forecast system, and the develop-ment of a geographic information sys-tem and watershed disaster mitigationplan to mitigate the impacts of extremeevents. The watershed disaster mitiga-tion plan includes identification of vul-nerable populations, flood-prone areas,areas at risk of landslides, the locationof shelters, and road networks for deliv-ery of supplies. The program facilitateda tri-national agreement to mitigate theimpacts of transnational disasters in theLempa Watershed, with the goal ofexporting the lessons learned from theRío Lempa to other transnational water-sheds in the region.

Flood preparedness and response. The UnitedStates has also provided flood pre-paredness and response support todeveloping countries around the world,both in terms of disaster relief and inplanning and mitigating future risks.Among the many catastrophic floodsthat occurred between 1997 and 2000,the United States has helped victimsand communities in over a dozen devel-oping countries around the world.

In 1999, USAID’s Office of ForeignDisaster Assistance (OFDA) announced$3 million in funding to assist reliefefforts related to massive flooding,landslides, and mudslides in Venezuela,which killed an unknown number ofpeople and displaced many more. Thesame year, the U.S. Geological Surveyprovided follow-on disaster planningassistance to produce hazard maps forfuture response to and recovery fromdisastrous flood and landslides inVenezuela. In addition, USAID fundedthe provision of emergency relief sup-plies to flood victims in Mozambique,South Africa, and Zimbabwe inresponse to severe flooding in southernAfrica in 1999.

In 1998, OFDA provided funds foremergency housing, clothing, mosquito

40 The NWSRFS was developed by NOAA and is beingimplemented by NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey,and the System for Central American Integration.


Caribbean, and Africa. NOAA also pro-vides research and response activities to prepare for severe impacts expectedfrom extremes of climate variability, climate forecast research and applica-tions, predictions related to El Niño phe-nomena, support for a scientific network,and capacity building in Africa, LatinAmerica and Caribbean, South-east Asia,and the South Pacific. During the disas-trous flooding in Mozambique in Marchand April of 2000, for example, NOAAprovided real-time weather forecasts tothe affected regions as well as to interna-tional response and relief agencies.

In cooperation with 26 countries,NASA implemented the Pacific Rim IIairborne campaign in the southern andwestern portions of the Pacific Rimregion. The campaign resulted in thedeployment of research aircraft andremote-sensing instrumentation for col-lecting data that will enable scientists tobetter assess local environmental condi-tions and natural hazards to enhance dis-aster management and mitigationpractices in Pacific Rim countries. Simi-larly, NOAA has implemented the PanAmerican Climate Studies SoundingNetwork (PACS SONET) for extendedmonitoring of climate variability overthe Americas. This project enhancesunderstanding of low-level atmosphericcirculation features within monsoonalNorth and South America, provides ameans of validating numerical modelsimulations, and establishes a long-term,upper-air observing system for climateprediction and research.

In another climate-hydrologicalforecasting effort, USAID and NOAA have cooperated to provide snow-monitoring and river-forecasting assis-tance to Central Asian Hydrometeoro-logical Services, known as Glavgidromets.This effort will download imagery overCentral Asia from NOAA’s polar-orbit-ing satellites. The imagery will be usedby the Glavgidromets to monitor theextent of the snowpack in theHimalayan Mountains, which is thesource of most of the water that flowsthrough the Amu Darya and Syr Daryarivers.

Numerous partners, including USAID

and NOAA, created the Radio and Inter-net Technology for Communication ofHydro-Meteorological and ClimateRelated Information (RANET) program.The program consists of informationand applications networks in southernAfrica, the Greater Horn of Africa, andWest Africa. These networks provideregular seasonal climate forecast infor-mation and work directly with users toreduce climate-related vulnerability.RANET will make information, trans-lated into appropriate local languages,directly available to farm-level usersthrough wind-up radio.

Droughts and Desertification. From1997 to 2000, the United States spentapproximately $51.8 million on activi-ties that address droughts and desertifi-cation (see Appendix C). Theseactivities are often implemented in con-nection with the U.S. government’s for-eign disaster response programs,although a number of long-term adapta-tion initiatives have also been supported.They include weather forecasting,drought prediction, hazard mapping,and research, technical assistance, andcapacity building. Through NOAA, forexample, the U.S. government has pro-vided vegetation stress and drought pre-diction information to China, Georgia,Kazakhstan, Morocco, and Poland, andtechnical assistance to China andTajikistan for estimating drought intensi-ty and duration.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture,the U.S. Geological Survey, the GEF,and the government of Kazakhstan havebegun implementing the pilot phase ofthe Kazakhstan Dryland ManagementProject. The project’s objective is to con-serve, rehabilitate, and sustainably usenatural resources in the marginal cereal-growing area of the Shetsky Raion ofnorthern Karaganda Oblast, Kaza-khstan. This project works with commu-nities and the Kazakh government to (1)develop alternative land uses and reha-bilitate ecosystems for conservation ofplant and animal bio-diversity; (2)develop a coherent framework andnational capacity to monitor carbonsequestration; and (3) build public

capacity and develop a replication strategy so that project activities can beadopted in other similar areas of Kazakhstan and other Central Asiancountries.

In the drought-prone Bie province ofAngola, USAID has funded Africare, aprivate voluntary organization, to dis-tribute 339 metric tons of seeds and55,000 farming tools to 27,500 inter-nally displaced people. In 2000 inAfghanistan, USAID/OFDA providedimmediate drought relief measuresthrough Save the Children to engage indrought-related activities, with a focuson maternal and child care.

The United States provides muchsupport for food security through for-eign agriculture programs and climatemonitoring systems. For example, theFamine Early Warning System (FEWS)was started in 1985 and is funded atapproximately $6 million a year to pro-vide decision makers with the informa-tion they need to effectively respond todrought and food insecurity. Working in17 drought-prone countries across Sub-Saharan Africa, FEWS analyzes remote-sensing data and ground-basedmeteorological, crop, and rangelandobservations by field staff to track theprogress of the rainy seasons in semi-aridregions of Africa and to identify earlyindications of potential famine. Otherfactors affecting local food availabilityand access are also carefully evaluated toidentify vulnerable population groupsrequiring assistance. These assessmentsare continuously updated and dissemi-nated to provide host-country govern-ments and other decision makers withthe most timely and accurate informa-tion available. Overall, FEWS activitiesstrengthen the capacities of public andprivate institutions to monitor andrespond to drought, the principal impactof climate variability in Sahelian Africa.By helping to anticipate potential famineconditions and lessen vulnerability,FEWS has helped save lives, while alsopromoting a more efficient use of limitedfinancial resources.

USDA provides a number of addi-tional food security activities aroundthe world, including:


• the West Africa Regional Food Secu-rity Project, which provides informa-tion on vulnerable populations, foodbalances, food needs, food aid, andcommercial import requirements;

• development of agricultural and nat-ural hazard profiles for selectedAfrican countries to assist in mitiga-tion, response, and rehabilitation;

• direct food aid in response todrought-related famine in Ethiopiaand the Horn of Africa;

• disaster management and logisticssupport for African desert locustresponse; and

• collaboration with Central Americancountries to develop strategies toovercome soil erosion, manage waterquality, and resolve food safety prob-lems resulting from HurricanesMitch and Georges.

Coastal Zone ManagementFrom 1997 to 2000, the United

States provided about $52 million inODA and foundation grants for climatechange adaptation activities supportingcoastal zone management. These activ-ities included efforts to address coastalresources, sea level rise, severe weatherand storm surges, risks to ecosystems(such as rising seawater temperatures),and protection of coral reefs.

Coastal Resources. Adaptation activi-ties addressing coastal resources fallunder the broad categories of integratedcoastal management (ICM); coastalzone management and planning; con-servation of critical coastal habitats andecosystems (such as coral reefs, mangrove forests, and sand dunes) tomaintain vital ecosystem functions; pro-tection of coastal areas from stormsurge and sea level rise; reduction ofcoastal erosion to limit future displace-ments of settlements and industries;development of guidelines for bestcoastal development practices andresource use; and the dissemination ofbest practices for coastal planning andcapacity building. The United Statesfinanced $38.3 million in coastalresources activities between 1997 and2000 (Figure 7-5).

The United States has implementeda number of ICM programs in severalcountries around the world. In 1985,USAID initiated the Coastal ResourcesManagement program and againrenewed this program in 2000 as part ofa new $32-million commitment forcoastal zone management programsworldwide. The CRM project is nowfunded at approximately $6 million ayear and has operated in Mexico,Ecuador, Jamaica, the DominicanRepublic, El Salvador, Kenya, Tanzania,Egypt, Thailand, Indonesia, and thePhilippines. CRM projects largely promote improved governance, publicparticipation, and stewardship towardthe management of multi-sectoralactivities within the coastal zone andsurrounding watershed—helping toaddress a variety of climate-relatedthreats to coastal and marine biodiver-sity and resource-dependent communi-ties (USAID 2001b).

In addition to providing extensivetechnical assistance and researchaddressing coastal zone managementneeds, USAID’s Coastal ResourcesManagement program has helped gen-erate a number of significant practicaltools, such as coastal maps, programperformance management guidelines,community coastal zone managementstrategies, national ICM policies, andbest management guidelines in suchareas as aquaculture, mariculture, andtourism development. The program hasalso promoted outreach mechanismsabout best practices through reports,publications, journals, CD-ROMs, e-mail list servers, Web sites, and train-ing and communications publications.

Coral Reefs and Other MarineResources. Between 1997 and 2000,the United States supported the protec-tion of coral reefs and other marineresources through the creation ofmarine sanctuaries, the introduction ofsustainable fishing practices and coastalzone management, and research oncoral reef habitats and climate risks inthe amount of $13.7 million (seeAppendix C). For example, community-based marine sanctuaries in the

Philippines and South Pacific haveproven to be effective in conservingcoral reef ecosystems, as well as increas-ing fish biomass and production. Effortshave been underway to reproduce thesesuccessful conservation areas inIndonesia under USAID’s ICM projectin North Sulawesi. These community-based marine sanctuaries are small areasof subtidal marine environment, primari-ly coral reef habitat, where all extractiveand destructive activities are permanent-ly prohibited. They were developedwith the widespread support and partic-ipation of the local community and gov-ernment, were established by formalvillage ordinance, and are managed bycommunity groups.

USAID has implemented a numberof programs involving site preservationfor marine-protected areas. For instance,it provided support for the implementa-tion of a new Galapagos Special Law toestablish a marine park and has begunfunding a Bering Sea Marine EcoregionConservation program.

In related efforts, the MacArthurFoundation provided $105,000 between1998 and 2000 to establish a coral reefmonitoring program with the HongKong University of Science and Tech-nology. This project will provide impor-tant information to internationalconservation efforts about the health ofcoral reefs and risks to their survival.

Other Vulnerability Assessments U.S. funding between 1997 and 2000

on vulnerability assessments and studiesassociated with adaptation to theimpacts of climate change amounted toapproximately $10.2 million (seeAppendix C). Much of this fundingwent toward the U.S. Country StudiesProgram (CSP) to help developingcountries assess their unique vulnerabili-ties to long- and short-term climateimpacts, their adaptation options foraddressing those risks, and their contri-butions to global greenhouse gas emis-sions. Since its inception, the CSP hashelped 56 countries build the humanand institutional capacities necessary toassess their vulnerability to climatechange.


NOAA has focused on reducing thevulnerability of coastal populations tohazardous weather. Since 1997, it hasdeveloped a community-based vulnera-bility assessment methodology to aidlocal hazard mitigation planning andhas begun working with the Organiza-tion of American States to provide train-ing on vulnerability assessment toCaribbean countries.

Other Global Climate Change Activities

To account for those activities thatdid not easily fit within the mitigationand adaptation categories provided bythe guidance for Appendix C of thischapter, two additional categories werecreated: UNFCCC participation andcrosscutting activities. Both categoriesare relevant to implementation of theUNFCCC. Between 1997 and 2000, theUnited States spent approximately$323.8 million on “other global climatechange activities.”

UNFCCC ParticipationThe United States spent approxi-

mately $25.4 million between 1997 and

2000 to promote meaningful participa-tion in the UNFCCC process by devel-oping and transition economies (seeAppendix C). USAID alone imple-mented over 70 capacity-buildingactivities designed to strengthen partic-ipation in the Convention in 1999. Thisincluded promoting efforts to integrateclimate change into national develop-ment strategies; establishing emissioninventories; developing national cli-mate change action plans; promotingprocedures for receiving, evaluating,and approving joint implementationproposals; and establishing baselinesfor linking greenhouse gas emissions toeconomic growth.

For example, through its ClimateChange Center in Ukraine, establishedin 1999, USAID provided support tothe Ukrainian government to establishnational administrative structures,develop a national climate changeinventory program, and prepare invest-ment projects. USAID assistance inMexico supported the national govern-ment’s establishment of an InteragencyCommission on Global ClimateChange. In connection with those

efforts, the Mexican Congress consid-ered a global climate change bill outlin-ing how Mexico could integrateclimate change considerations intonational strategic, energy, and sustain-able development goals.

Crosscutting ActivitiesThe United States spent over $298.4

million on crosscutting climate changeactivities in developing and transitioneconomies from 1997 to 2000 (Figure7-5). Many of these activities havesimultaneously addressed climatechange mitigation and/or adaptationissues. For example, the RockefellerFoundation awarded the Pacific Envi-ronment and Resources Center a$300,000 grant in 2000 to addressthreats to critical marine and forestecosystems in the Russian Far East.Similarly, many USAID activities con-tributed to mitigation of, and adapta-tion to, climate change.

Chapter 8 Research andSystematicObservation

The United States leads the world inresearch on climate and other globalenvironmental changes, spending

approximately $1.7 billion annually onits focused climate change research pro-grams. This contribution is roughly halfof the world’s focused climate changeresearch expenditures, three times morethan the next largest contributor, andlarger than the combined contributionsof Japan and all 15 nations of the Euro-pean Union (Figure 8-1).

Most of this research is coordinatedthrough the U.S. Global ChangeResearch Program (USGCRP). Defini-tion of the program began in the late1980s, and Congress codified the pro-gram in the Global Change ResearchAct of 1990. The USGCRP was createdas a high-priority, national research pro-gram to: • address key uncertainties about

changes in the Earth’s global envi-ronment, both natural and human-induced;


• monitor, understand, and predictglobal change; and

• provide a sound scientific basis fornational and international decisionmaking. The program builds on research

undertaken over previous decades byindependent researchers and programs.Today the USGCRP facilitates coordi-nation across eleven federal depart-ments and agencies with active globalchange programs. This distributedstructure enables the program to drawon the missions, resources, and expert-ise of both research and mission-oriented agencies as it works to reduceuncertainties and develop useful appli-cations of global change research. Par-ticipants include the Departments of

Agriculture, Commerce (NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion), Defense, Energy, Health andHuman Services (National Institutes ofHealth), Interior (U.S. Geological Sur-vey), and Transportation; the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency; theNational Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration; the National ScienceFoundation; and the Smithsonian Insti-tution. The Office of Science and Tech-nology Policy and the Office ofManagement and Budget provide over-sight on behalf of the Executive Officeof the President.

Despite the intensive U.S. invest-ment in climate change science over thepast decade, numerous gaps remain inour understanding. President Bush

directed a Cabinet-level review of cli-mate policy, including the state of sci-ence. As an input to this review, the U.S.National Academy of Sciences (NAS)prepared a report on Climate Change Sci-ence: An Analysis of Some Key Questions(NRC 2001a). This report was releasedin June 2001 and reached a number offindings regarding uncertainties andgaps in our knowledge that impede policymaking.1 The report states:

Because there is considerable uncertaintyin current understanding of how the cli-mate system varies naturally and reactsto emissions of greenhouse gases andaerosols, current estimates of the magni-tude of future warming should beregarded as tentative and subject to futureadjustments (either upward or down-ward). Reducing the wide range ofuncertainty inherent in current model pre-dictions of global climate change willrequire major advances in understandingand modeling of both (1) the factors thatdetermine atmospheric concentrations ofgreenhouse gases and aerosols, and (2)the so-called “feedbacks” that determinethe sensitivity of the climate system to aprescribed increase in greenhouse gases.There is also a pressing need for a globalsystem designed for monitoring climate.With respect to specific areas of

knowledge, the NAS report concludedthat greenhouse gases are accumulatingin the Earth’s atmosphere as a result ofhuman activities, causing surface airtemperatures and subsurface oceantemperatures to rise (see Appendix D).The changes observed over the last sev-eral decades are likely to result mostlyfrom human activities, but some signif-icant part of these changes is also areflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sealevel rise are expected to continuethrough the 21st century. Computermodel simulations and basic physicalreasoning suggest secondary effects,including potential changes in rainfallrates and in the susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought. The impacts of

1 The National Academy of Science report (NRC 2001a) generally agreed with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the recent IPCC Working Group I sci-entific report (IPCC 2001d), but sought to articulate more clearly the level of confidence that can be ascribed to those assessments and the caveats that need to be attached to them(see Appendix D).

F IGURE 8-1 Research Expendi tu res by Count ry : 1999-2000

The United States is responsible for roughly half of the world’s focused climate changeresearch expenditures—three times more than the next-largest contributor, and larger thanthe contributions of Japan and all 15 nations of the European Union combined.

Note: Contributions by the United Kingdom and Germany to the European Space Agency (ESA) are included in the ESAobservations total. No data are included from Australia, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Italy, Korea, Mexico, the People’sRepublic of China, Poland, Russia, Spain, Taiwan, and the Nordic Council. Inclusion of these could raise the totalsby 10-20 percent.

Source: IGFA 2000.

Mill

ions

of U

.S. D

olla

rs

908

268 255

United States

Germany

United KingdomJapan

France

European Union (EU)

EU/European Space AgencyOthers

797

107

203

81

144

73

427

67

Observations/Data Management

Scientific Studies/Experiments

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1,000

800

900

Research and Systematic Observation ■ 139

these changes will be critically depend-ent on the magnitude of the effect, therate at which it occurs, secular trends intechnology that affect society’s adapt-ability and vulnerability, and specificmeasures taken to adapt to or reducevulnerability to climate change.

Accordingly, the NAS found thatreducing the wide range of uncertaintyinherent in current approaches to pro-jecting global climate change and itseffects on human beings and ecosystemswill require major advances in under-standing and modeling. To ensure thatpolicies are informed by the best sci-ence, the United States is workingaggressively to advance the science ofclimate and global change. In June2001, President Bush announced theU.S. Climate Change Research Initia-tive, which is focused on reducing keyareas of uncertainty in climate changescience.

RESEARCHU.S. research focuses on the full

range of global change issues. The U.S.Congress, in the Global ChangeResearch Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-606), directs the implementation of aprogram aimed at “understanding andresponding to global change, includingcumulative effects of human activitiesand natural processes on the environ-ment.” The Act defines global changeas “changes in the global environment(including alterations in climate, landproductivity, oceans or other waterresources, atmospheric chemistry, andecological systems) that may alter thecapacity of the Earth to sustain life.”This perspective recognizes the pro-found socioeconomic and ecologicalimplications of global environmentalchange.

The USGCRP focuses on sets ofinteracting changes in the coupledhuman–environment system, which isundergoing change at a pace unprece-dented in human history. Thesechanges are occurring on many timeand spatial scales, and many feedbacksand interdependencies link them.These numerous and various forcescomplicate efforts to understand the

interactions of human and natural sys-tems and how they may affect thecapacity of the Earth to sustain life overthe long term. Indeed, the interactionsbetween changes in external (solar)forcing, human activities, and theintrinsic variability of the Earth’s atmos-phere, hydrosphere, and biospheremake understanding and projectingatmospheric and oceanic circulation,global energy and water cycles, andbiogeochemical cycling among themost demanding scientific challenges.

U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative

On June 11, 2001, President Bushannounced the establishment of theU.S. Climate Change Research Initiativeto study areas of uncertainty and identifypriority areas for investment in climatechange science. He directed the Secre-tary of Commerce to work with otheragencies to set priorities for additionalinvestments in climate change researchand to fully fund high-priority researchareas that are underfunded or need to beaccelerated. The definition of this newinitiative is underway. It will improve theintegration of scientific knowledge,including measures of uncertainty, intoeffective decision support systems.

Ongoing Broader Agenda for U.S. Research

The Climate Change Research Ini-tiative will take place in the context ofthe broader global change research program that is ongoing in federalagencies. The USGCRP provides aframework and coordination mecha-nism for the continuing study of all ofthe complex, interrelated global changeaspects in the NAS recommendationsthat are not addressed by the initiative.

The USGCRP is engaged in a con-tinuing process to review its objectivesand structure so that it can help govern-ment, the private sector, and communi-ties to make informed managementdecisions regarding global environmen-tal changes in light of persistent uncer-tainties. This will require the program to continue fundamental research toaddress crucial uncertainties about how

human activities are changing theEarth’s climate and environment. Thisprogram will need to continue develop-ing increasingly detailed projections ofhow natural variability and human-induced environmental change interactand affect conditions on global toregional scales, and how we can man-age natural resources in the future. Sci-entific understanding and data will needto be applied to tools useful for reduc-ing risks and seizing opportunitiesresulting from global change.

The program will build on decadesof scientific progress and will takeadvantage of the development of pow-erful advances in computing, remotesensing, environmental monitoring, anddata and information technologies.Through additional focused investmentin observations, scientific studies, andmodeling, the USGCRP will seek toreduce uncertainties in the understand-ing of some of the most basic questions.The science needed to accomplish thisambitious objective is organized intothe six research elements presented inTable 8-1, each of which focuses ontopics crucial to projecting change andunderstanding its potential importance.

The USGCRP will also work with its partners to transition scientificknowledge to applications in resourcemanagement, disaster preparedness,planning for growth and infrastructure,and environmental and health assess-ment, among other areas. Partnershipsamong research programs, operationalentities, and actors in the private sectorand in federal, state, and local govern-ments will be essential for the success ofthis effort. It will also require significantlevels of cooperation and new manage-ment techniques to permit co-produc-tion of knowledge and deliverablesacross agencies and stakeholders.

National Climate Change Technology Initiative

The United States is further commit-ted to improving climate change tech-nology research and development,enhancing basic research, strengthen-ing applied research through public–private partnerships, developing


To support informed decision making, the U.S. Global Change Research Program is addressing uncertainties about how human activities arechanging the Earth’s climate and environment. The six research elements in this table focus on topics essential to projecting climate changeand understanding its potential importance:

Research Uncertainty USGCRP Research Focus

Atmospheric Composition• How do human activities and natural

phenomena change the composition of the global atmosphere?

• How do these changes influence climate,ozone, ultraviolet radiation, pollutant expo-sure, ecosystems, and human health?

Climate Variability and Change• How do changes in the Earth system that

result from natural processes and humanactivities affect the climate elements thatare important to human and natural sys-tems, especially temperature, precipitation,clouds, winds, and extreme events?

Carbon Cycle• How large and variable are the reservoirs

and transfers of carbon within the Earthsystem?

• How might carbon sources and sinkschange and be managed in the future?

Global Water Cycle• How do human activities and natural process-

es that affect climate variability influence thedistribution and quality of water within theEarth system?

• To what extent are these changes predictable?• How will these changes affect climate, the

cycling of carbon and other nutrients, andother environmental properties?

Terrestrial and Marine Ecosystems• How do natural and human-induced

changes in the environment interact toaffect ecosystems (from natural to intensively managed), their ability to providenatural resources and commodities, andtheir influence on regional and global climate?

Changes in Land Use and Land Cover • What processes determine land cover and

land use at local, regional, and global scales?• How will land use and land cover evolve

over time scales of 10–50 years?

TABLE 8-1 Fundamenta l C l imate Change Research Needs

• Identifying the human drivers of changes in land use and cover.• Monitoring, measuring, and mapping land use and land cover and managing

data systems.• Developing projections of land-cover and land-use changes under various assumptions

about climate, demographic, economic, and technological trends.• Integrating information about land use, land management, and land cover into other

research elements.

• Predictions of seasonal-to-decadal climate variations (e.g., the El Niño–SouthernOscillation).

• Detection and attribution of human-induced change.• Projections of long-term climate change.• Potential for changes in extreme events at regional-to-local scales.• Possibility of abrupt climate change.• How to improve the effectiveness of interactions between producers and users of

climate forecast information.

• Processes affecting the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer. • Properties and distribution of greenhouse gases and aerosols.• Long-range transport of pollutants and implications for air quality.• Integrated assessments of the effects of these changes for the nation and the world.

• North American and ocean carbon sources and sinks.• Impacts of land-use changes and resource management practices on carbon

sources and sinks.• Future atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane concentrations and changes in

land-based and marine carbon sinks.• Periodic reporting (starting in 2010) on the global distribution of carbon sources and

sinks and how they are changing.

• Structure and function of ecosystems, including cycling of nutrients and how theyinteract with the carbon cycle.

• Key processes that link ecosystems with climate.• Vulnerability of ecosystems to global change.• Options for enhancing resilience and sustaining ecosystem goods and services.• Scientific underpinning for improved interactions with resource managers.

• Trends in the intensity of the water cycle and the causes of these changes(including feedback effects of clouds on the water and energy budgets, as well asthe global climate system).

• Predictions of precipitation and evaporation on time scales of months to years andlonger.

• Models of physical and biological processes and human demands and institutionalprocesses, to facilitate efficient management of water resources.

• Research supporting reports on the state of the global water cycle and nationalwater resources.


improved technologies for measuringand monitoring gross and net green-house gas emissions, and supportingdemonstration projects for new tech-nologies.

Enhanced Carbon TechnologiesThe United States has committed to

a number of projects to developenhanced carbon technologies for cap-turing, storing, and sequestering car-bon. Two contracts signed on July 11,2001, solidified partnerships with TheNature Conservancy and with an inter-national team of energy companies.

The Nature Conservancy Project. TheDepartment of Energy will work inpartnership with The Nature Conser-vancy and such companies as GeneralMotors Corporation and AmericanElectric Power to study how carbondioxide can be stored more effectivelyby changing land-use practices and byinvesting in forestry projects. Usingnewly developed aerial and satellite-based technology, researchers will studyforestry projects in Brazil and Belize todetermine their carbon sequestrationpotential. Researchers will also test newsoftware models that predict how carbonis sequestered by soil and vegetation atsites in the United States and abroad.The United States will provide $1.7 mil-lion of the $2 million cost of the three-year project.

International Team of Energy Com-panies. The Department of Energy willalso collaborate with nine energy com-panies from four nations to developbreakthrough technologies to reduce thecost of capturing carbon dioxide fromfossil fuel combustion and safely storingit underground. The nine energy compa-nies are: BP–Amoco, Shell, Chevron,Texaco, Pan Canadian (Canada), SuncorEnergy (Canada), ENI (Italy), StatoilForskningssenter (Norway), and NorskHydro ASA (Norway). The U.S. gov-ernment’s contribution of $5 million willleverage an international commitmentthat will total more than $25 millionover the next three years, includingfunding from the European Union,

Norway’s Klimatek Program, and thenine industry partners.

Human Effects on and Responses to Environmental Changes

In an effort to identify strategies toenhance the resilience of human sys-tems to climate change, the U.S. GlobalChange Research Program continues tosupport research both on human activi-ties that influence environmental changefrom local and regional to global scalesand on how human systems prepare forand respond to environmental changes.An expanding research area will focus onanalyses of the regional impacts of cli-mate change on human systems and howimproved information about climatechange impacts can help decision makersin the public and private sectors.

Recent AccomplishmentsFollowing are some recent USGCRP

accomplishments in human dimensionsand socioeconomic analyses:• The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-tration (NOAA) have establishedongoing regional research and assess-ment projects in six U.S. regions tostudy the effects of climate variabilityand change on natural and human sys-tems. These projects have been highlysuccessful in analyzing the regionalcontext of global change impacts, fos-tering relationships between scientistsand stakeholders in the regions, anddetermining how research can meetstakeholders’ needs for water-resourceplanning, fisheries management,ranching, and other climate-sensitiveresource management issues.

• The U.S. Department of Transporta-tion (DOT) established a center toidentify effective ways to reduce thetransportation sector’s emissions andto help prepare the nation for theimpacts of climate change. As part ofits research efforts, the center willinvestigate how climate change couldaffect transportation infrastructure.

• Interdisciplinary investigations ofhuman responses to seasonal and

yearly swings in climate are high-lighting the effects of market forces,access to resources, institutional flex-ibility, impacts across state bound-aries, and the role of local culture andexperience on the likelihood thatindividuals and institutions will useimproved scientific information.

International Research Cooperation

The Working Group on InternationalResearch and Cooperation providesinternational affairs support for theUSGCRP. The working group has repre-sentatives from interested governmentagencies and departments and acts as aforum to keep them informed on inter-national global change research andfunding issues. It addresses interagencysupport for international global changeresearch programs and coordination, andinfrastructure funding for such organiza-tions as the Asia–Pacific Network forGlobal Change Research, the Inter-American Institute for Global ChangeResearch, the International HumanDimensions Programme, the Interna-tional Geosphere-Biosphere Programme,the World Climate Research Pro-gramme, and the Global Change Systemfor Analysis, Research, and Training.The working group also addresses con-cerns raised by international nongovern-mental global change organizations,such as free and open data exchange.These organizations include the Interna-tional Group of Funding Agencies forGlobal Change Research and the ArcticOcean Sciences Board.

The USGCRP contributes to andbenefits from international researchefforts to improve understanding of cli-mate change on regional and globalscales. USGCRP-supported scientistscoordinate many of their programs withthose of their counterparts in othercountries, providing essential inputs tothe increasingly complex models thatenable scientists to improve analysis andprediction of climate change. Followingare some examples of recent, ongoing,and planned climate change researchand related activities in whichUSGCRP-supported scientists are


ing a new program—Radio and Internetfor the Communication of Hydro-Mete-orological and Climate Information—toprovide training to meteorological serv-ices worldwide on the use and produc-tion of radio and multimedia content inconjunction with digital satellite com-munication. This effort is being led byNOAA and involves a number of inter-national partners, including the U.S.Agency for International Development;the World Bank; the World Meteorolog-ical Organization; the Inter-AmericanInstitute for Global Change Research;the Global Change System for Analysis, Research, and Training; andthe Asia–Pacific Network for GlobalChange Research.

Eastern Pacific Investigation of Climate Processes

The Department of Commerce,through NOAA, and the National Sci-ence Foundation are bringing togethermore than 100 scientists from theUnited States, Mexico, Chile, and Peruto cooperate in the Eastern PacificInvestigation of Climate (EPIC). EPIC’sscientific objectives are to observe and understand: (1) ocean–atmosphereprocesses in the equatorial and north-eastern Pacific portions of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ);and (2) the properties of cloud decks inthe trade wind and cross-equatorialflow regime and their interactions withthe ocean below.

The project will study stratus clouddecks located off the west coast ofSouth America, a region of cool sea-surface temperatures located along theequator in the eastern Pacific Ocean,and a region of intense precipitationlocated in the eastern Pacific north ofthe equator. All three of these phenom-ena interact to control the climate ofthe Southwest United States and Cen-tral and South America.

Studies of Global Ocean Ecosystem(GLOBEC) Dynamics

Scientists and research vessels fromGermany, the United Kingdom, andthe United States are conducting aclosely coordinated major GLOBEC

heavily involved and for which interna-tional cooperation, participation, andsupport are especially important.

U.S.–Japan Cooperation in Global Change Research

During 2000, the United States andJapan co-sponsored a series of scientificworkshops to identify important cli-mate change research problems ofmutual interest and to recommend howscientists from the two countries mightconstructively address them. Con-ducted under the auspices of theU.S.–Japan Agreement on Cooperationin Research and Development in Sci-ence and Technology, these workshopsare managed on the U.S. side by the Working Group on InternationalResearch and Cooperation of the fed-eral interagency Subcommittee onGlobal Change

The workshops developed recom-mendations to study the health impactsof climate change, in particular theimpacts of greater and longer-lastingexposures to higher temperatures inter-acting with different air pollutants. Aworkshop on monsoon systems identi-fied a number of cooperative bilateraland multilateral activities for the twocountries to undertake. In 2001, Japanhosted the ninth workshop in thisseries, entitled Carbon Cycle Manage-ment in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Theworkshops have stimulated cooperationbetween Japanese and U.S. scientistsand have led to numerous follow-upactivities, including more focused plan-ning workshops, data exchanges, andcollaborative projects.

Climate and Societal InteractionsNOAA’s Climate and Societal Inter-

actions Program supports Regional Cli-mate Outlook Fora, pilot applicationprojects, workshops, training sessions,capacity building, and technical assis-tance for better understanding of cli-mate variability and extreme events andfor improving prediction and forecast-ing capability and data management, inAfrica, Latin America, the Caribbean,Southeast Asia, and the Pacific. TheClimate Information Project is develop-

field study on krill near the WestAntarctic Peninsula. Krill are an essen-tial component of the Southern Oceanfood web and a commercially importantspecies. Their predators—including seabirds, seals, and whales—depend onthis food resource for survival. Sea iceplays an essential role as a habitat forkrill (which feed beneath the ice) andtheir predators. Since evidence suggeststhat interannual variation in the extentof sea ice affects the abundance of krill,improving understanding of the role ofclimate factors affecting sea ice willcomprise a critical component of theSouthern Ocean GLOBEC program.

IGBP Open Science ConferenceThe International Geosphere–

Biosphere Programme (IGBP) convenedan open science conference in July2001 in Amsterdam. A major objectiveof this conference was to present thelatest results of climate change researchat a series of levels: research conductedthrough the individual IGBP core proj-ects and research integrated acrossthese projects; research that has beenintegrated between the IGBP and theWorld Climate Research Programme,the International Human DimensionsProgramme, Diversitas, and the GlobalChange System for Analysis, Researchand Training, and other regional pro-grams; and individual research projectson which these integrated efforts arebased. The conference also identifiednew approaches to the study of thecomplex planetary system in whichhuman activities are closely linked tonatural processes.

International Group of Funding Agencies

The International Group of FundingAgencies (IGFA) is a forum throughwhich national agencies that fundresearch on global change identify issuesof mutual interest and ways to addressthem through coordinated national and,when appropriate, international actions.IGFA’s focus is not on the funding of sin-gle projects, which is still a matter ofnational procedures; instead, it coordi-nates the support for the programs


The USGCRP, six federal agencies, and the Electric Power Research Institute sponsored astudy completed in 2001 by the U.S. National Research Council’s Committee on Climate,

Ecosystems, Infectious Disease, and Human Health, entitled Under the Weather: Climate,Ecosystems, and Infectious Disease (NRC 2001b). Following are the Committee’s key findingsrelated to linkages between climate and infectious diseases.

Weather fluctuations and seasonal-to-interannual climate variability influence many infec-tious diseases. The characteristic geographic distributions and seasonal variations of manyinfectious diseases are prima facie evidence of linkages to weather and climate. Studieshave shown that such factors as temperature, precipitation, and humidity affect the lifecycles of many disease pathogens and vectors (both directly, and indirectly through ecolog-ical changes) and thus can affect the timing and intensity of disease outbreaks. However,disease incidence is also affected by such factors as sanitation and public health services,population density and demographics, land-use changes, and travel patterns. The impor-tance of climate relative to these other variables must be evaluated in the context of eachsituation.

Observational and modeling studies must be interpreted cautiously. Although numerousstudies have shown an association between climatic variations and disease incidence, theyare not able to fully account for the complex web of causation that underlies disease dynam-ics. Thus, they may not be reliable indicators of future changes. Likewise, a variety of mod-els have been developed to simulate the effects of climatic changes on the incidence of suchdiseases as malaria, dengue, and cholera. While these models are useful heuristic tools fortesting hypotheses and carrying out sensitivity analyses, they are not necessarily intendedto serve as predictive tools, and often do not include such processes as physical/biologicalfeedbacks and human adaptation. Thus, caution must be exercised in using these models tocreate scenarios of future disease incidence and to provide a basis for early warnings andpolicy decisions.

The potential disease impacts of global climate change remain highly uncertain. Changesin regional climate patterns caused by long-term global warming could affect the potentialgeographic range of many infectious diseases. However, if the climate of some regionsbecomes more suitable for transmission of disease agents, human behavioral adaptationsand public health interventions could serve to mitigate many adverse impacts. Basic publichealth protections, such as adequate housing and sanitation, as well as new vaccines anddrugs, may limit the future distribution and impact of some infectious diseases, regardless ofclimate-associated changes. These protections, however, depend upon maintaining strongpublic health programs and ensuring vaccine and drug access in the poorer countries of theworld.

Climate change may affect the evolution and emergence of infectious diseases. The poten-tial impacts of climate change on the evolution and emergence of infectious disease agentscreate another important but highly uncertain risk. Ecosystem instabilities brought about byclimate change and concurrent stresses, such as land-use changes, species dislocation,and increasing global travel, potentially influence the genetics of pathogenic microbesthrough mutation and horizontal gene transfer, and could give rise to new interactions amonghosts and disease agents.

There are potential pitfalls in extrapolating climate and disease relationships from onespatial/temporal scale to another. The relationships between climate and infectious diseaseare often highly dependent upon local-scale parameters, and it is not always possible toextrapolate these relationships meaningfully to broader spatial scales. Likewise, diseaseimpacts of seasonal-to-interannual climate variability may not always provide a useful ana-log for the impacts of long-term climate change. Ecological responses on the time scale ofan El Niño event, for example, may be significantly different from the ecological responsesand social adaptation expected under long-term climate change. Also, long-term climatechange may influence regional climate variability patterns, hence limiting the predictivepower of current observations.

Recent technological advances will aid efforts to improve modeling of infectious diseaseepidemiology. Rapid advances being made in several disparate scientific disciplines mayspawn radically new techniques for modeling infectious disease epidemiology. Theseinclude advances in sequencing of microbial genes, satellite-based remote sensing ofecological conditions, the development of geographic information system (GIS) analyticaltechniques, and increases in inexpensive computational power. Such techniques willmake it possible to analyze the evolution and distribution of microbes and their relationshipto different ecological niches, and may dramatically improve our abilities to quantify thedisease impacts of climatic and ecological changes.

themselves (Secretariats, InternationalProject Offices, etc.). IGFA facilitatesinternational climate change research bybringing the perspective of nationalfunding agencies to strategic researchplanning and implementation. At itsOctober 2000 meeting, most IGFAmember nations reported increases infunding for climate change research, ini-tiation and deployment of new nationalprograms, and establishment of somenew research centers.

DiversitasDiversitas was established in 1991 as

an umbrella program to coordinate abroad research effort in the biodiversitysciences at the global level. The programhas played an important role at the inter-face between science and policy bybuilding a partnership with the Conven-tion on Biological Diversity. Diversitashas signed a Memorandum of Under-standing with the Secretariat of the Con-vention and has provided input to itsSubsidiary Body on Scientific, Technicaland Technological Advice. Among theissues that IGFA considered at its 2001plenary meeting in Stockholm was thedevelopment of a new implementationstrategy for Diversitas. Countries, viaIGFA, have committed funds to helpstrengthen the international infrastruc-ture for biodiversity research throughDiversitas according to the model of theother partner global change programs.

International Paleoclimate Research

An international team of researchersfrom the United States, Germany, andRussia is investigating El’gygytgyn Lakein northeastern Siberia, just north of theArctic Circle. This crater was formed 3.6million years ago by a meteorite impact.Its sediments hold the promise of reveal-ing the evolution of Arctic climate a fullone million years before the first majorglaciation of the Northern Hemisphere.In addition, through an internationalconsortium of researchers, the NyanzaProject team, involving scientists fromthe United States, Europe, and fourcountries in Africa, is studying climatevariability, as well as environmental and

Cl imate , Ecosystems, and In fect ious D isease: Key Find ings


ecological change, through the entireepisode of human evolution. As part ofthis project, a unique 2,000-year-oldannually resolved record of atmos-pheric circulation and dynamics, reveal-ing El Niño–Southern Oscillation andsolar cycles, has been recovered fromsediments in Lake Tanganyika, the sec-ond deepest lake on the planet.

SYSTEMATIC OBSERVATIONLong-term, high-quality observa-

tions of the global environmental sys-tem are essential for defining thecurrent state of the Earth’s system, andits history and variability. This taskrequires both space- and surface-basedobservation systems. The term “climateobservations” can encompass a broadrange of environmental observations,including:• routine weather observations,

which, collected over a long enoughperiod, can be used to help describea region’s climatology;

• observations collected as part ofresearch investigations to elucidatechemical, dynamic, biological, orradiative processes that contribute tomaintaining climate patterns or totheir variability;

• highly precise, continuous observa-tions of climate system variables col-lected for the express purpose ofdocumenting long-term (decadal-to-centennial) change; and

• observations of climate proxies, col-lected to extend the instrumental cli-mate record to remote regions andback in time to provide informationon climate change for millennial andlonger time scales.The various federal agencies

involved in observing climate throughspace-based and ground-based activi-ties provide many long-term observa-tions. Space-based systems have theunique advantage of obtaining globalspatial coverage, particularly over thevast expanses of the oceans, sparselypopulated land areas (e.g., deserts,mountains, forests, and polar regions),and the mid and upper troposphere andstratosphere. They provide uniquemeasurements of solar output; the

Earth’s radiation budget; vegetationcover; ocean biomass productivity;atmospheric ozone; stratospheric watervapor and aerosols; greenhouse gas dis-tributions; sea level and ocean interior;ocean surface conditions; winds,weather, and tropical precipitation; andother variables.

Satellite observations alone are notsufficient. In-situ observations arerequired for the measurement of param-eters that cannot be estimated fromspace platforms (e.g., biodiversity,ground water, carbon sequestration atthe root zone, and subsurface oceanparameters). In-situ observations alsoprovide long time-series of observationsrequired for the detection and diagnosisof global change, such as surface tem-perature, precipitation and waterresources, weather and other naturalhazards, the emission or discharge ofpollutants, and the impacts of multiplestresses on the environment due tohuman and natural causes. To meet theneed for the documentation of globalchanges on a long-term basis, theUnited States integrates observationsfrom both research and operational sys-tems. The goal of the U.S. observationand monitoring program is to ensure along-term, high-quality record of thestate of the Earth system, its naturalvariability, and changes that occur.

Since 1998, Parties to the UnitedNations Framework Convention on Cli-mate Change (UNFCCC) have notedwith concern the mounting evidence of adecline in the global observing capabil-ity and have urged Parties to undertakeprograms of systematic observations andto strengthen the collection, exchange,and use of environmental data and infor-mation. It has long been recognized thatthe range of global observations neededto understand and monitor Earthprocesses contributing to climate and toassess the impact of human activitiescannot be satisfied by a single program,agency, or country. The United Statessupports the need to improve globalobserving systems for climate and toexchange information on national plansand programs that contribute to theglobal capacity in this area.

Documentation of U.S. Climate Observations

As part of its continuing contribu-tions to systematic observations in sup-port of climate monitoring, the UnitedStates forwarded The U.S. DetailedNational Report on Systematic Observationsfor Climate to the UNFCCC Secretariaton September 6, 2001 (U.S. DOC/NOAA 2001c). Because this was theU.S. government’s first attempt to doc-ument all U.S. contributions to globalclimate observations, a wide net wascast to include information on observa-tions that fell into each of the followingcategories: (1) in-situ atmospheric observations; (2) in-situ oceanographicobservations; (3) in-situ terrestrial obser-vations; (4) satellite-based observations,which by their nature cut across theatmospheric, oceanographic, and ter-restrial domains; and (5) data and infor-mation management related tosystematic observations. The reportattempted to cover all relevant observa-tion systems and is representative of thelarger U.S. effort to collect environ-mental data.

Material for the report was devel-oped by a U.S. interagency Global Cli-mate Observing System (GCOS)coordination group comprised of repre-sentatives from the following federalagencies: (1) the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service and U.S. ForestService; (2) three line offices of the U.S.Department of Commerce’s NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion; (3) the U.S. Department ofEnergy’s Office of Science; (4) the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency; (5) the U.S. Department of the Inte-rior’s U.S. Geological Survey; (6) theNational Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration; (7) the U.S. Depart-ment of Transportation’s Federal Avia-tion Administration; (8) the NationalScience Foundation; (9) the U.S. NavalOceanographic Office; (10) the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers; and (11) theU.S. Air Force. The report was coordi-nated with the U.S. Global ChangeResearch Program.


Ocean Observation The Global Ocean Observing Sys-

tem (GOOS) requirements are the sameas the GCOS requirements. Both arebased on the Ocean Observing SystemDevelopment Panel Report (OOSDP1995). Like GCOS, the GOOS is basedon a number of in-situ and space-basedobserving components. The UnitedStates supports the Integrated GlobalOcean Observing System’s surface andmarine observations through a varietyof components, including fixed and sur-face-drifting buoys, subsurface floats,and volunteer observing ships. It alsosupports the Global Sea Level Observ-ing System through a network of sea-level tidal gauges. The United Statescurrently provides satellite coverage ofthe global oceans for sea-surface tem-peratures, surface elevation, ocean sur-face winds, sea ice, ocean color, andother climate variables. These satelliteactivities are coordinated internation-ally through the Committee on EarthObservation Satellites.

Terrestrial ObservationFor terrestrial observations, the

requirements for climate observationswere developed jointly between GCOSand the Global Terrestrial ObservingSystem (GTOS) through the TerrestrialObservations Panel for Climate (WMO1997). GCOS and GTOS have identi-fied permafrost thermal state and per-mafrost active layer as key variables formonitoring the state of the cryosphere.GCOS approved the development of aglobally comprehensive permafrost-monitoring network to detect temporalchanges in the solid earth componentof the cryosphere. As such, the GlobalTerrestrial Network for Permafrost(GTN-P) is quite new and still verymuch in the developmental stage. TheInternational Permafrost Associationhas the responsibility for managing andimplementing the GTN-P.

U.S. contributions to the GTN-Pnetwork are provided by the Depart-ment of the Interior and the NationalScience Foundation, through grants tovarious universities. All the U.S.

GTN-P stations are located in Alaska.The active layer thickness is currentlybeing monitored at 27 sites. Forty-eight bore holes exist in Alaska wherepermafrost thermal state can be deter-mined. Of these, 4 are classified as sur-face (0–10 m) sites, 1 is shallow (10–25m), 22 are intermediate depth (25–125 m),and 21 are deep bore holes (>125 m). TheU.S. contribution to the GTN-P net-work comes from short-term (three- tofive-year) research projects.

The United States operates a long-term “benchmark” glacier program tointensively monitor climate, glaciermotion, glacier mass balance, glaciergeometry, and stream runoff at a few select sites. The data collected areused to understand glacier-relatedhydrologic processes and improve thequantitative prediction of waterresources, glacier-related hazards, andthe consequences of climate change.

The approach has been to establishlong-term, mass-balance monitoringprograms at three widely spaced U.S.glacier basins that clearly sample differ-ent climate-glacier-runoff regimes. Thethree glacier basins are South CascadeGlacier in Washington State, andGulkana and Wolverine Glaciers inAlaska. Mass-balance data are availablebeginning in 1959 for the South Cas-cade Glacier, and beginning in 1966 forthe Gulkana and Wolverine Glaciers.

The AmeriFLUX network endeavorsto establish an infrastructure for guid-ing, collecting, synthesizing, and dis-seminating long-term measurements ofCO2, water, and energy exchange froma variety of ecosystems. Its objectivesare to collect critical new informationto help define the current global CO2budget, enable improved projections offuture concentrations of atmosphericCO2, and enhance the understanding ofcarbon fluxes, net ecosystem produc-tion, and carbon sequestration in theterrestrial biosphere.

The terrestrial section of the detailedU.S. report examines in-situ climate monitoring and discusses, in addition tothe GTN-P, the Global Terrestrial Net-work for Glaciers (GTN-G), and the

In-situ Climate ObservationThe United States supports a broad

network of global atmospheric, ocean,and terrestrial observation systems.

Atmospheric Observation The United States supports 75 sta-

tions in the GCOS Surface Network(GSN), 20 stations in the GCOS UpperAir Network (GUAN), and 4 stations in the Global Atmospheric Watch(GAW). These stations are distributedgeographically as prescribed in theGCOS and GAW network designs. Thedata (metadata and observations) fromthese stations are shared according toGCOS and GAW protocols. The GSNand GUAN stations are part of a largernetwork, which was developed for pur-poses other than climate monitoring.Nonetheless, the stations fully meet theGCOS requirements.

The United States has no compre-hensive system designed to observe cli-mate change and climate variability.Basically, U.S. sustained observing sys-tems provide data principally for noncli-matic purposes, such as predictingweather, advising the public, and manag-ing resources. In addition, U.S. research-observing systems collect data forclimate purposes, but are often orientedtoward gathering data for climateprocess studies or other research pro-grams, rather than climate monitoring.They are usually limited in their spatialand temporal extent. Because the U.S.climate record is based upon a combina-tion of existing operational and researchprograms, it may not be “ideal” from along-term climate monitoring perspec-tive. Nevertheless, these observing sys-tems collectively provide voluminousand significant information about thespatial and temporal variability of U.S.climate and contribute to the interna-tional climate observing effort as well.The atmospheric section in the mainbody of the detailed national reportexamines in-situ climate monitoringinvolving systems from the surface,upper air, and atmospheric depositiondomains (U.S. DOC/NOAA 2001c).


AmeriFLUX programs, stream-flow and surface-water gauging, ground-watermonitoring, snow and soil monitoring,the U.S. paleoclimatology program,ecological observation networks, fire-weather observation stations, as well asglobal, national, and regional land covercharacterization. The United Statescontributes to all of these activities.

Satellite Observation ProgramsSpace-based, remote-sensing obser-

vations of the atmosphere–ocean–landsystem have evolved substantially sincethe early 1970s, when the first opera-tional weather satellite systems werelaunched. Over the last decade satel-lites have proven their capability toaccurately monitor nearly all aspects ofthe total Earth system on a globalbasis—a capability unmatched byground-based systems, which are limitedto land areas and cover only about 30percent of the planetary surface.

Currently, satellite systems monitorthe evolution and impacts of El Niño,weather phenomena, natural hazards,and extreme events, such as floods anddroughts; vegetation cycles; the ozonehole; solar fluctuations; changes insnow cover, sea ice and ice sheets,ocean surface temperatures, and biolog-ical activity; coastal zones and algalblooms; deforestation and forest fires;urban development; volcanic activity;tectonic plate motions; and other cli-mate-related information. These vari-ous observations are used extensively inreal-time decision making and in thestrategic planning and management ofindustrial, economic, and naturalresources. Examples include weatherand climate forecasting, agriculture,transportation, energy and waterresource management, urban planning,forestry, fisheries, and early warningsystems for natural disasters and humanhealth impacts.

The GCOS planning processaddressed satellite requirements for cli-mate. In so doing, it identified anextensive suite of variables that shouldbe observed and monitored from space(WMO 1995). In addition, GCOSplans specified that instrument calibra-

tion and validation be performed toensure that the resulting space-basedobservations meet climate requirementsfor accuracy, continuity, and low bias.

The current generation of U.S.research satellite instruments exceedsthe GCOS requirements for theabsolute calibration of sensors—some-thing that was lacking in the early satel-lite platforms used for real-timeoperational purposes. Several of thehistorical data series from operationalsatellites have been reprocessed usingsubstantially improved retrieval algo-rithms to provide good-quality globaldata products for use in climate changeresearch and applications.

NPOESS ProgramImproving the on-board capabilities

for calibration on operational satelliteswill be one of the objectives in thedevelopment of the National Polar-orbiting Operational EnvironmentalSatellite System (NPOESS) program.Prior to the launch of NPOESS in2008, an NPOESS Preparatory Project(NPP) satellite will be launched in the2005 time frame as a bridge missionbetween the NASA Earth ObservingSatellites (EOS) program and NPOESS.

The mission of NPP is to demon-strate advanced technology for atmos-pheric sounding, and to provideongoing observations after EOS-Terraand EOS-Aqua. It will supply data onatmospheric and sea-surface tempera-tures, humidity soundings, land andocean biological productivity, and cloudand aerosol properties. NPP will alsoprovide early instrument and system-level testing and early user evaluation ofNPOESS data products, such as algo-rithms, and will identify opportunitiesfor instrument calibration. The informa-tion and lessons learned from NPP willhelp reduce instrument risk and willenable design modifications in time toensure NPOESS launch readiness.

U.S. Environmental Satellite Program

A number of U.S. satellite opera-tional and research missions form thebasis of a robust national remote-

sensing program that fully supports the requirements of GCOS (U.S.DOC/NOAA 2001c). These includeinstruments on the GeostationaryOperational Environmental Satellites(GOES) and Polar Operational Envi-ronmental Satellites (POES), the seriesof Earth Observing Satellites (EOS),the Landsats 5 and 7, the Total OzoneMapping Spectrometer satellite, andthe TOPEX/Poseidon satellite measur-ing sea-surface height, winds, andwaves. Additional satellite missions insupport of GCOS include (1) theActive Cavity Radiometer IrradianceMonitor for measuring solar irradiance;(2) EOS-Terra; (3) QuickSCAT; (4) theSea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor(SeaWiFS) for studying ocean produc-tivity; (5) the Shuttle Radar Topogra-phy Mission; and (6) the TropicalRainfall Measuring Mission for measur-ing rainfall, clouds, sea-surface temper-ature, radiation, and lightning.

Defense Meteorological Satellite Program

The Defense Meteorological SatelliteProgram (DMSP) is a Department ofDefense program run by the Air ForceSpace and Missile Systems Center. Theprogram designs, builds, launches, andmaintains several near-polar-orbiting,sun-synchronous satellites, which moni-tor the meteorological, oceanographic,and solar–terrestrial physics environ-ments. DMSP satellites are in a near-polar, sun-synchronous orbit. Eachsatellite crosses any point on the Earthup to two times a day, thus providingnearly complete global coverage ofclouds approximately every six hours.

Integrated Global Observing Strategy

The United States cooperates on aninternational basis with a number ofcoordinating bodies. The IntegratedGlobal Observing Strategy (IGOS) is astrategic planning process coveringmajor satellite- and surface-based sys-tems for global environmental observa-tions of the atmosphere, oceans, andland, that provides a framework fordecisions and resource allocations by


individual funding agencies. IGOSassesses Earth-observing requirements,evaluates capabilities of current andplanned observing systems, and hasbegun (at least among the space agen-cies) to obtain commitments to addressthese gaps.

An IGOS Ocean Theme is in theimplementation phase under leadershipfrom GOOS. An analysis of require-ments, gaps, and recommendations forpriority observations is underway forintegrated global carbon observations as well as integrated global atmosphericchemistry observations. Similar analy-ses, recommendations, and commit-ments are also being explored forgeological and geophysical hazards,coasts and coral reefs, and the globalwater cycle.

Operational Weather SatellitesOperational weather satellites are

internationally coordinated through theCoordination Group for MeteorologicalSatellites, of which the World Meteoro-logical Organization is a member andmajor beneficiary, along with five othersatellite agency members. The primarybody for policy and technical issues ofcommon interest related to the wholespectrum of Earth observation satellitemissions is the Committee on EarthObservation Satellites (CEOS). CEOShas 22 space agency members, includingboth research and operational satelliteagencies, with funding and programresponsibilities for a satellite Earth obser-vation program currently operating or inthe later stages of system development.CEOS encourages compatibility amongspace-borne Earth-observing systemsthrough coordination in mission plan-ning; promotion of full and nondiscrimi-natory data access; setting of data

product standards; and development ofdata products, services, applications, andpolicies.

Global Change Data and Information System

Global environmental concerns arean overriding justification for the unre-stricted international exchange ofGCOS data and products for peaceful,noncommercial, global scientific, andapplications purposes. As such, GCOSdeveloped an overarching data policythat endorses the full and open sharingand exchange of GCOS-relevant dataand products for all GCOS users at thelowest possible cost. The United Statesrecognizes and subscribes to this datapolicy.

Achieving the goals of the U.S. cli-mate observing program requires multi-disciplinary analysis of data andinformation to an extent never beforeattempted. This includes the analysis ofinterlinked environmental changes thatoccur on multiple temporal and spatialscales, which is very challenging bothtechnically and intellectually. For exam-ple, many types of satellite and in-situobservations at multiple scales need tobe integrated with models, and theresults need to be presented in under-standable ways to all levels of theresearch community, decision makers,and the public. Additionally, very largevolumes of data from a wide variety ofsources and results from many differentinvestigations need to be readily acces-sible to scientists and other stakehold-ers in usable forms that can beintegrated.

Various U.S. agencies have engagedin extensive development of inter-agency data and information processesto foster better integration and accessi-

bility of data- and discipline-specificinformation. The Global Change Dataand Information System (GCDIS) hasbeen developed to facilitate this goal.GCDIS currently provides a gateway foraccess to more than 70 federally fundedsources of data, both governmental andacademic. During the last decade, signif-icant strides have been made in creatingseamless connections between diversedata sets and sources, as well as enhanc-ing its ability to search across the fullcomplement of data sources. While theInternet has facilitated this effort, theprovision of data and information informs needed for cross-disciplinaryanalyses remains a challenge.

The U.S. government’s position (asevidenced by its support of the “10Principles of Climate Observations” andof the U.S. climate research community[NRC 1999]) is that high standardsmust be met for a particular set of obser-vations to serve the purpose of monitor-ing the climate system to detectlong-term change. In general, theobserving programs and resulting datasets described here have not yet fullymet these principles. This shortfallstems from two main factors: (1) theprinciples were articulated only withinthe past decade (Karl et al. 1995), longafter the initiation of most of our long-term observing systems; and (2) morerecent observing programs typically donot have climate monitoring as theirprime function.

The U.S. systematic climate observ-ing effort will continue to improve andenhance understanding of the climatesystem. A full copy of the The U.S.Detailed National Report on Systematic Obser-vations for Climate (U.S. DOC/NOAA2001c) can be found at http://www.eis.noaa.gov/gcos/soc_long.pdf.

Chapter 9 Education,Training, andOutreach

Over the last three years, U.S. climatechange outreach and educationefforts have evolved significantly.

Early outreach efforts, which focusedprimarily on the research and academiccommunity, have helped to expand cli-mate change research activity and haveresulted in a robust research agenda thathas resolved many scientific uncertain-ties about global warming. Scientistsand decision makers worldwide haveused the findings of U.S. research proj-ects. More recent outreach efforts havemoved beyond the research commu-nity, focusing on public constituencieswho may be adversely affected by theimpacts of climate change. These con-stituencies will have the ultimateresponsibility to help solve the climatechange problem by supporting innova-tive, cost-effective solutions at thegrassroots level.

Federal efforts to increase publiceducation and training on global cli-mate change issues are designed to

Education, Training, and Outreach ■ 149

increase understanding of the Earth’scomplex climate system. This improvedunderstanding will enable decision mak-ers and people potentially at risk fromthe impacts of climate change to moreaccurately interpret complex scientificinformation and make better decisionsabout how to reduce their risks.

Federal outreach and educationalactivities are performed under severalU.S. mandates, including the GlobalChange Research Act of 1990, theNational Climate Program Act, theClean Air Act Amendments of 1990, andthe Environmental and Education Act of1990. Federal programs often rely onnoneducational programs to simultane-ously meet legislative mandates on climate education and U.S. science, pol-icy, and outreach goals.

In addition to outreach conducted atthe federal level, a growing movement ofnongovernmental outreach efforts hasproven to be very effective in engagingthe U.S. public and industry on the cli-mate change issue. Most outside groupswork independently of governmentfunding in their climate change researchand outreach efforts, although somenongovernmental programs are fundedin part by the federal government. Manynongovernmental organizations (NGOs)enjoy tax-exempt status, which permitsthem to receive private support andreduce costs to donors. An extensive listof NGOs conducting climate changeoutreach and education initiatives maybe found at http://www.epa.gov/global-warming/ links/org_links.html.

Industry is also playing an increasingrole in climate change outreach and edu-cation. Many corporations have workedextensively with federal governmentpartnership programs to resolve climatechange issues. These companies spendmillions of dollars to promote their cli-mate change investments and viewpointsto consumers and other industries, andmost disseminate information about cli-mate change to their customers and thepublic.

More recent outreach and educationefforts, both within government and byNGOs and industry, have encouragedmany activities that adapt to a changing

climate or that reduce greenhouse gasemissions. Because of these efforts, morecitizens understand the issue with ahigher level of sophistication. And aspeople are becoming more familiar withthe problem, they are also beginning toappreciate the impacts of society’sactions on the climate system.

This chapter presents a sample of cur-rent U.S. education and outreach effortsthat are building the foundation forbroad action to reduce risks from climatechange. Because a comprehensive treat-ment of NGO efforts is beyond thescope of this chapter, it focuses on newand updated governmental activitiessince the previous National Communi-cation.

U.S. GLOBAL CLIMATE RESEARCH PROGRAMEDUCATION AND OUTREACH

Sponsored by the U.S. GlobalChange Research Program (USGCRP),the U.S. national assessment of thepotential consequences of climate vari-ability and change (NAST 2000 and2001) has provided an important oppor-tunity to reach out to the many inter-ested parties, or stakeholders, about thepotential significance for them of futurechanges in climate.

Regional OutreachThe National Assessment began in

1997 and 1998 with 20 regional work-shops across the country. Each initiateda discussion among the stakeholders,scientific community, and other inter-ested parties about the potential impor-tance of climate change and the typesof potential consequences and responseoptions, all in the context of otherstresses and trends influencing theregion. On average, about 150 peopleparticipated in each workshop. Therewas extensive outreach to local media,drawn in part by the frequent participa-tion of high-level government officials.Halfway through this effort, a NationalForum convened in Washington, D.C.,attracted about 400 participants, fromCabinet officials to some ranchers whohad never traveled outside of the cen-tral U.S.

Moving from the workshop phase toan assessment phase, the USGCRPorganized a range of activities thatinvolved assessment teams drawn fromthe research and stakeholder communi-ties. While sponsored by and workingwith government agencies, these teamswere based largely in the academic com-munity to broaden participation andenhance their independence and credi-bility. To focus analysis on the issuesidentified in the regional workshops, 16of these assessment teams had a regionalfocus. Each team established an advisoryand outreach framework that was usedfor the preparation of each assessmentreport. The reports are being distributedwidely within each region, and outreachactivities include workshops, presenta-tions, and the media. USGCRP agenciesare continuing to sponsor many of theseregional activities as a way of strength-ening the dialogue with the public aboutthe potential consequences and signifi-cance of climate change, and the antici-patory actions that will be needed.

National OutreachThe USGCRP also sponsored five

national sectoral studies covering climatechange’s potential consequences for agri-culture, forests, human health, waterresources, and coastal areas and marineresources (NAAG 2001, NFAG 2001,NHAG 2000 and 2001, NWAG 2000,NCAG 2000). The five broadly basedteams organized outreach activities rang-ing from presentations at scientific andspecial-interest meetings to full work-shops and special issues of journals. Eachteam is now issuing its report, distribut-ing information widely to the public.

The National Assessment SynthesisTeam (NAST) was created as an inde-pendent federal advisory committee tointegrate the findings and significance ofthe five sectoral studies. The NAST wascomposed of representatives from acade-mia, government, industry, and NGOs.Through a series of open meetings, fol-lowed by a very extensive open reviewprocess, the NAST prepared both anoverview report that summarizes thefindings (NAST 2001a) and a founda-tion report that provides more complete


documentation (NAST 2001b). Bothreports are being widely circulated.They are available on the Internet, andcopies are being sent to every state andto major U.S. libraries.

The USGCRP is also using otheroutreach tools to increase public under-standing of the potential consequencesof climate change. USGCRP’s Web site(http://www.usgcrp.gov) helps connectscientists, students and their teachers,government officials, and the generalpublic to accurate and useful informa-tion on global change. Also, thenewsletter Acclimations provides regularinformation to a broad audience aboutthe national assessment (USGCRP1998–2000).

The USGCRP is sponsoring the pre-paration of curriculum materials based onthe national assessment. These materialswill be made widely available to teachersover the Web, updating the various typesof materials made available during themid-1990s by a number of federal agen-cies. Through these mechanisms, thenational assessment has directly involvedseveral thousand individuals, while reach-ing out to many thousands more throughthe reports and the media.

FEDERAL AGENCY EDUCATION INITIATIVES

Climate change education at the pri-mary and secondary (K–12) and univer-sity levels has grown considerably overthe past three years. The growth of theInternet has allowed educators through-out the country to use on-line educa-tional global change resources. Federalgovernment programs have supportednumerous initiatives, ranging from on-line educational programs to researchsupport. This section and Table 9-1present a sampling of these initiatives.

Department of EnergyThe Department of Energy (DOE)

sponsors several programs that supportadvanced global change research.

Global Change Education ProgramDOE’s Global Change Education

Program continues to support threecoordinated components aimed at pro-

viding research and educational supportto postdoctoral scientists, graduate stu-dents, faculty, and undergraduates atminority colleges and universities: theSummer Undergraduate Research Expe-rience, the Graduate Research Environ-mental Fellowships, and the SignificantOpportunities in Atmospheric Researchand Science program.

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education

The Science/Engineering EducationDivision at the Oak Ridge Institute forScience and Education continues todevelop and administer collaborativeresearch appointments, graduate andpostgraduate fellowships, scholarships,and other programs that capitalize onthe resources of federal facilities acrossthe nation and the national academiccommunity. The aim is to enhance thequality of scientific and technical edu-cation and literacy, thereby increasingthe number of graduates in science andengineering fields, particularly thoserelated to energy and the environment.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

From helping design K–12 curriculato teacher training, NASA is heavilyinvolved in education initiatives relatedto Earth science.

Earth System Science Education Program

Sponsored by NASA through theUniversities Space Research Associa-tion, this program supports the devel-opment of curricula in Earth SystemScience and Global Change at 44 par-ticipating colleges and universities. Theprogram’s Web site provides educa-tional resources for undergraduates.

Earth Science EnterpriseEvery year tens of thousands of stu-

dents and teachers participate inNASA’s Earth Science Enterprise pro-gram. The program attempts toimprove people’s understanding of thenatural processes that govern the globalenvironment and to assess the effects ofhuman activities on these processes. It is

expected to yield better weather fore-casts, tools for managing agriculture andforests, and information for commercialfishers and coastal planners. Ultimately,the program will improve our ability topredict how climate will change.

While the program’s ostensible goalis scientific understanding, its ultimateproduct is education in its broadestform. The Earth Science Enterprise hasformulated education programs thatfocus on teacher preparation, curricu-lum and student support, support forinformal education and public commu-nication, and professional training. ItsEarth System Science Fellowship pro-gram encourages student research,modeling, and analysis in support of theUSGCRP. More than 500 Ph.D. andM.S. fellowships have been awardedsince the program’s inception in 1990.

PartnershipsPartnerships allow agencies with

similar goals to combine resources andexpertise to serve the interests of edu-cators and students.

Climate Change PartnershipEducation Program

The Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), NASA, and NOAA ini-tiated a partnership outreach programfor broadcast meteorologists on climatechange impacts and science. Theyformed the partnership in response tobroadcasters’ requests for educationalmaterials that they could use in theircommunity outreach and educationactivities, particularly during schoolvisits. The resulting Climate Change Pre-sentation Kit CD-ROM includes factsheets that can be downloaded, printed,and distributed to audiences who havevarying levels of scientific literacy, acomplete PowerPoint slide presentationthat can be shown from a computer orprinted as overhead transparencies, sci-ence experiments and games for class-room use, contact names and phonenumbers for additional scientific infor-mation, and links to informative Websites (U.S. EPA, NASA, and NOAA1999).


Resource Description Web Site

Department of EnergyEnergy Efficiency and A wealth of information on types of http://www.eren.doe.gov/kids/Renewable Energy Kids’ Site renewable energy.Energy Information Interactive Web page with energy http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/Administration Kids’ Page information, activities, and resources.Fossil Energy—Education An introduction to fossil fuels for students. http://www.fe.doe.gov/education/main.htmlMain Page

Environmental Protection AgencyGlobal Warming Site Information for general audiences about the http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming

science of climate change, its impacts, green-house gas emissions, and mitigation actions.

Global Warming Kids’ Site Overview of global warming and climate http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/kids/index.html science; includes interactive games.

GLOBE ProgramGLOBE Program Home Page Interactive science and education site for http://www.globe.gov

participants in the GLOBE program, grades K–12.

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationEducational Links List of Earth science educational links. http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/eos_

homepage/education.htmlTeaching Earth Science Site Resources and information for Earth science http://www.earth.nasa.gov/education/index.html

educators for elementary through university levels.For Kids Only Site From NASA’s Earth science Enterprise, http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/

contains a wealth of Earth science information, teacher resources, and interactive games.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationCLIMGRAPH Educational graphics on global http://www.fsl.noaa.gov/~osborn/

climate change and the greenhouse effect. CLIMGRAPH2.htmlSpecially for Students— List of NOAA’s climate change-related http://www.education.noaa.gov/sclimate.html Climate Change and Our Planet sites tailored for kids.Specially for Teachers List of NOAA’s climate change-related http://www.education.noaa.gov/tclimate.html

sites tailored for educators.A Paleo Perspective For general audiences, a site to help teach the http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ on Global Warming importance of paleoclimate research and its globalwarming/home.html

relation to global warming.U.S. Global Change Research Information OfficeGlobal Change and Environmental List of global change and environmental education http://gcrio.org/edu/educ.htmlEducation Resources on-line resources.GCRIO Home Page Data and information on climate change research, http://gcrio.org

adaptation/mitigation strategies and technologies.Common Questions About Intended for general audiences. http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/cover.htmlClimate ChangeGlobal Warming and Climate Brochure explaining the issue for general audiences. http://gcrio.org/gwcc/toc.htmlChange

U.S. Global Change Research Program

USGCRP Home Page Global change information for students and http://www.usgcrp.gov/educators.

U.S. Geological Survey

Global Change Teacher Packet An introduction and five activities for classroom use. http://mac.usgs.gov/mac/isb/pubs/teachers-packets/globalchange/globalhtml/guide.html

Global Change Educational Information about global change for grades 4–6. http://www.usgs.gov/education/learnweb/GC.htmlActivities

TABLE 9-1 U.S. Government On- l ine C l imate Change Educat iona l Resources


GLOBE ProgramAdministered by NOAA, NASA,

NSF, and EPA, the Global Learningand Observations to Benefit the Envi-ronment (GLOBE) program continuesto bring together students, educators,and scientists throughout the world tomonitor the global environment. Theprogram aims to increase environmen-tal awareness and to improve studentachievement in science and mathemat-ics. GLOBE’s worldwide network hasexpanded to represent more than10,000 K–12 schools in over 95 coun-tries. These students make scientificobservations at or near their schools inthe areas of atmosphere, hydrology,biology, and soils, and report theirfindings to the network.

FEDERAL AGENCY OUTREACHFederal agencies provide the public,

state and local governments, industry,and private groups with informationabout national and global climatechange research and risk assessments,U.S. mitigation activities, and policydevelopments. Agencies work on out-reach efforts independently and inpartnership with other federal agen-cies, NGOs, and industry. Althoughoutreach activities may vary fromagency to agency, most of them sharethe common goal of increasing aware-ness about the potential risks climatechange poses to the environment andsociety. Current outreach encouragesconstituencies to participate in existingfederal voluntary programs that pro-mote climate change mitigation andadaptation activities.

Department of EnergyDOE supports numerous initiatives

focused on increasing energy effi-ciency and reducing greenhouse gasemissions.

Carbon Dioxide InformationAnalysis Center

The Carbon Dioxide InformationAnalysis Center (CDIAC), whichincludes the World Data Center forAtmospheric Trace Gases, is DOE’sprimary center for global change data

and information analysis. CDIACresponds to data and informationrequests from users from all over theworld who are concerned about thegreenhouse effect and global climatechange. CDIAC’s data holdingsinclude historical records of the con-centrations of carbon dioxide andother radiatively active gases in theatmosphere; the role of the terrestrialbiosphere and the oceans in the bio-geochemical cycles of greenhousegases; emissions of carbon dioxide tothe atmosphere; long-term climatetrends; the effects of elevated carbondioxide on vegetation; and the vulner-ability of coastal areas to rising sealevel.

National Institute for GlobalEnvironmental Change

The National Institute for GlobalEnvironmental Change conductsresearch on global climate change insix U.S. regions: Great Plains, Mid-west, Northeast, South Central,Southeast, and West. The Instituteintegrates and synthesizes informationto help decision makers and communi-ties better respond to the effects of cli-mate change.

Each region has a “host institution,”a prominent university that appoints aRegional Director who acts in anadministrative capacity. Regional cen-ters develop their own research pro-grams by soliciting proposals fromscholars throughout the nation. Theseprograms must focus on areas impor-tant to global environmental changeand must meet DOE’s research priori-ties and the following criteria:• Improve scientific understanding of

global environmental and climatechange issues.

• Reduce uncertainties surroundingkey environmental and climatechange science.

• Create experimental or observationprograms to enhance the under-standing of regional- or ecosystem-scale processes contributing toglobal change.

• Improve decision-making tools forresolving global environmental andclimate change issues.

• Build education and training oppor-tunities and develop new curricu-lum materials to increase the flowof talented scholars into globalenvironmental change researchareas.

• Focus contributions to public edu-cation on the subject of global climate change and other energy-related environmental risks.

Regional RoundtablesDOE held roundtable meetings

with various segments of the energyindustry to discuss implementing itsplanned energy partnership programsfor energy efficiency. Workshop par-ticipants were asked to advise DOE’sOffice of Energy Efficiency andRenewable Energy about how toimprove the quality of the individualprogram implementation plans, as wellas the overall package of initiatives.Attendees represented manufacturers,builders, utility executives, engineers,and others who offered a variety ofperspectives on the programs. Thesemeetings were instrumental in shapingthe final energy partnership programs,and many of the participants’ sugges-tions were incorporated into therevised implementation plans.

Environmental Protection Agency

Following are some examples ofEPA’s numerous climate change out-reach and education initiatives.

Business/Industry OutreachEPA has taken various steps to

engage business and industry on cli-mate change-related issues. For exam-ple, EPA, the Risk and InsuranceManagement Society, Inc., the FederalEmergency Management Agency,NOAA, DOE, and the NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory co-sponsored a climate change and insur-ance roundtable in March 2000 toshare information and ideas about therisks that climate change poses to theinsurance industry and society. Theroundtable provided insurance andfinancial executives with information


Sea Level Rise OutreachTo meet U.S. obligations under the

Framework Convention on ClimateChange for taking measures to adapt toclimate change, EPA supports a numberof activities that encourage timelymeasures in anticipation of sea levelrise. For example, EPA’s continual rec-ommendations to state and local gov-ernments to consider sea level risewithin their ongoing initiatives hasresulted in four states’ passing regula-tions that ensure the inland migrationof wetlands as sea level rises. A planningscenario mapping project is workingwith coastal planners to developcounty-scale maps that illustrate wherepeople are likely to hold back the seaand which areas are likely to flood. Tostimulate dialogue within communitiesabout how to prepare for sea level rise,EPA is developing brochures thatexplain the risks of sea level rise andalso include the county-scale maps.Additionally, an outreach program tosand and gravel companies—who sup-ply the fill material needed to elevateareas as the sea rises—is getting under-way in one coastal state.

State and Local Climate Change Program

States and localities can play a sig-nificant role in promoting the reductionof greenhouse gases if they have thetools they need for assessing climatechange issues in their daily decisionmaking. By providing them with guid-ance and technical information aboutclimate change, local air quality, andthe health and economic benefits ofreducing greenhouse gas emissions,EPA’s State and Local Climate ChangeProgram is enhancing the ability ofstate and local decision makers to com-prehensively address their environmen-tal and economic goals.

The program provides a variety oftechnical and outreach or educationservices and products related to cleanair and climate change issues, including: • assistance for states to analyze the

co-benefits of mitigating greenhousegases, developing and updatingemission inventories, and assessing

about climate science and policy infor-mation. It also explored alternative riskmanagement tools as a way to mitigateand adapt to the impacts of climatechange. EPA also partnered with DOEto produce the publication U.S. Insur-ance Industry Perspectives on Global ClimateChange (Mills et al. 2001).

Global Warming SiteProvided as a public service in sup-

port of EPA’s mission to protect humanhealth and the natural environment, theGlobal Warming Site strives to presentaccurate information on climate changeand global warming in a way that isaccessible and meaningful to all parts ofsociety. The site is broken down intofour main sections: climate (science),emissions, impacts, and actions.Updated daily to reflect the latest peer-reviewed science and policy informa-tion, the site contains over 2,000content pages, as well as hundreds ofofficial documents and publications.During 2001 the site averaged severalhundred thousand page hits per month.

Outdoor/Wildlife OutreachSince 1997 EPA has conducted cli-

mate change outreach activities for theoutdoor recreation and wildlife enthusi-ast community. EPA staff have attendedconferences and conventions of suchdiverse groups as Ducks Unlimited, theIzaak Walton League, the WildlifeManagement Institute, the Federationof Fly Fishers, the National Associationof Interpretation, and America Out-doors, distributing information aboutclimate change science and impacts asthey relate to the interests of each com-munity. EPA has given presentationsand conducted workshops at conven-tions and has contributed articles to thevarious groups’ newsletters and maga-zines. To convey the vulnerabilities ofspecific recreational activities to theimpacts of climate change, EPA has alsodeveloped targeted brochures and edu-cational kits for use with the outdoorenthusiast audience. In 2002 EPA plansto release a toolkit for leaders of hunt-ing and angling organizations to usewith their constituencies.

the impacts of climate change poli-cies on state economies;

• new tools and models that buildunderstanding of the broader bene-fits of climate protection and betterintegrate multi-emission reductions,as well as multi-goal (e.g., energyefficiency and renewable energy)strategies in state implementationplans submitted to EPA;

• capacity-building outreach throughEPA’s Web site, an electronic “list-serv,” and case studies;

• a best-practices clearinghouse topromote multi-emission reductionstrategies, energy efficiency, sustain-ability, clean energy, and othergreenhouse gas mitigation measures;

• information on state and local leg-islative activities related to green-house gases;

• state forest carbon data; and• additional enhanced opportunities to

promote state and local efforts,including creating success stories forwide dissemination and replication.In 2000 the program distributed over

4,200 CD-ROM outreach kits to stateand local leaders, providing informationon voluntary strategies for reducinggreenhouse gases. The kits are helpingstates and communities save money,improve air quality, lower risks tohuman health, and reduce traffic con-gestion, among other benefits. Theirslide show on climate change is suitablefor presentations to community groups,business organizations, and others.They also include more than 100 infor-mation sheets on climate change sci-ence, its potential impacts on eachstate, and technologies and policies thatlower greenhouse gas emissions.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA’s well-established outreachactivities are designed to draw publicand press attention to its work in theclimate change arena.

Workshops for Journalists NASA’s co-sponsored workshops on

global climate change provide sciencereporters with basic tutorials, information


on major scientific advances, access tointernational science leaders, and oppor-tunities to visit major scientific facilities.In 1999 NASA hosted its first GlobalChange Workshop for journalists in con-cert with the American GeophysicalUnion.

Media Directory for Global Change Experts

Published biennially, NASA’s EarthObserving System Global Change Media Direc-tory provides journalists with a readysource of international expertise onglobal climate change science and policy(NASA 2001). The directory containscontact information for more than 300science experts available to the media inclimate change, natural hazards, ozone,water resources, global warming, andmany other areas. It is available on-lineand is searchable by topic, name, affilia-tion, or location.

Earth Observatory On-Line Newsroom

NASA’s on-line newsroom for journal-ists features the latest news on Earth sci-ence research released from all NASAcenters and more than 80 universitiesparticipating in NASA’s Earth programsthrough sponsored research. Resourcesupdated weekly include mediaannouncements, summaries of headlinenews, listings of newly publishedresearch, a searchable directory ofexperts, and selected writers’ guides.

National Park ServiceAs the guardian of the world’s finest

system of national parks, the NationalPark Service applies innovative tech-niques to reach out to and activelyinvolve diverse audiences in preservingand restoring our nation’s parks. Follow-ing are some examples of the Park Ser-vice’s increased support of education onglobal warming and environmental stew-ardship.

Environmental Leadership ProgramAs part of its Environmental Leader-

ship Program, the Park Service hasturned Utah’s Zion National Park visitorcenter into a model environmentally sus-

tainable facility. The new center incor-porates passive solar design to reduceoverall energy consumption and usesonly 80 percent of the energy requiredfor other national park visitor centers.The center also receives 30 percent of itstotal electricity needs from solar power.Through an innovative transportationagreement with the nearby town of Bon-neville, visitors can reduce fuel consump-tion by parking in town and ridingalternative-fueled buses to the park.

Green Energy ParksGreen Energy Parks focuses on con-

serving energy and incorporating renew-able-energy resources into the nationalpark system to save money in park oper-ations, as well as to promote more envi-ronmentally friendly facilities. The ParkService educates its visitors about its sus-tainable environment efforts through acombination of sign- age, brochures, andfact sheets. For example, at Lake Meade,Nevada, the Park Service has turned thepark entrance tollbooth into a state-of-the-art, renewable-energy facility that ispowered solely by the building’s photo-voltaic roof panels. Road signs describethe facility to drivers and explain thetechnology’s environmental benefits.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Several NOAA offices are signifi-cantly contributing to climate changeand weather-related research educationand public outreach efforts.

National Climatic Data CenterNOAA’s National Climatic Data Cen-

ter maintains a vast database of weather-related information used by specialists inmeteorology, insurance, and agricultureand by various business sectors. The cen-ter provides information through specialreports and its Web site.

The National Climatic Prediction Center

NOAA’s National Climatic Predic-tion Center recently developed climateoutlook products to help farmers, businesses, and the public better planfor extreme weather events related

to variations in climate. The new products are available on the center’sExpert Assessment Web page athttp://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/prod-ucts/expert_assessment/. They includedrought, hurricane, and winter out-looks, along with an El Niño–SouthernOscillation advisories and threat assess-ments. The center also maintains a cli-mate educational Web site.

National Geophysical Data CenterNOAA’s National Geophysical Data

Center’s primary mission is data manage-ment. The center plays a leading role inthe nation’s research into the environ-ment, while providing public domaindata to a wide group of users. It featuresa Web site on paleoclimate at http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/global warm-ing/home.html, which was developedboth to help educate, inform, and high-light the importance of paleoclimateresearch and to illustrate how paleocli-mate research relates to global warmingand other important issues of climatevariability and change.

Office of Global ProgramsNOAA’s Office of Global Programs

(OGP) released the fourth of its Reports tothe Nation series in 1997. The reportsoffer educators and the public a clearunderstanding of complex atmosphericphenomena, such as El Niño, the ozonelayer, and climate change. Through agrant to the Lamont–Doherty EarthObservatory, OGP produced a publicfact sheet on the North Atlantic Oscilla-tion. OGP also created a special climateWeb page to make NOAA’s climateinformation more accessible to the gen-eral public.

During the 1997–98 El Niño and1998–99 La Niña, OGP and theNational Climatic Prediction Centerworked closely with the Federal Emer-gency Management Agency, state agen-cies, and the press to educate the publicabout seasonal climate variability, theimportance of advisories of El Niño–Southern Oscillations and other seasonaland decadal oscillations to our dailylives, and the need to prepare for relatedextreme weather events.


Smithsonian InstitutionEvery year the Smithsonian Institu-

tion’s exhibits educate millions of U.S.and foreign visitors about many areas ofscience, including global warming.

Understanding the Forecast: Global Warming

Originally shown at New York’sAmerican Museum of Natural History,this exhibit was updated by the Smith-sonian in the summer of 1997 at theNational Museum of Natural History inWashington, D.C. Nearly 443,000 visi-tors passed through the exhibit thatsummer, and many more viewed it on itsnationwide tour. The exhibit’s interac-tive displays provided information onclimate change science and explainedthe connections between our daily useof electricity, gasoline, and consumerproducts and greenhouse gas emissions.The displays also demonstrated how wecan reduce our individual contributionsto greenhouse gas emissions.

Under the Sun: An OutdoorExhibition of Light

Tens of thousands of visitors viewedthe Cooper Hewitt’s outdoor solarenergy exhibit in the gardens of themuseum’s Andrew Carnegie mansion inNew York City. The Smithsonian latersent the exhibit on tour to other cities,including a summer stay in the gardensbehind the Smithsonian’s castle on theMall in Washington, D.C. The exhibitdemonstrated how solar energy systemscan meet architectural and design pref-erences, while providing energy thatreduces pollution and greenhouse gasemissions. The exhibit script paid spe-cial attention to helping visitors under-stand how energy consumption islinked to global warming. Both federalagencies and private industry partnershelped fund the exhibit.

Forces of ChangeThe Smithsonian is working on an

exhibit that examines the geological,environmental, and cultural processesthat have shaped and continue tochange our world. It consists of a per-

manent exhibit hall at the Smithsonian’sNational Museum of Natural History,traveling exhibitions, publications,interactive computer products, andpublic programs, including a lectureseries and electronic classroom courses.Opened in the summer of 2001, theexhibit is expected to be seen by sixmillion museum visitors annually. Itsoutreach programs and materials willreach additional millions throughoutthe nation. The exhibit’s supportersinclude NASA, the W.K. Kellogg Foun-dation, USDA, the Mobil Foundation,Inc., the American Farmland Trust, EPA,and the U.S. Global Change ResearchProgram.

Global Links As part of its Forces of Change pro-

gram, the Smithsonian is developingthe Global Links exhibit, designed totell a series of global climate changestories. The first story will explore ElNiño and its possible links to globalwarming. The second story will exam-ine greenhouse gases and the ozonehole. An EPA grant has supported pre-liminary planning of the Global Linksexhibit.

Antarctica Exhibit The National Museum of Natural

History is seeking funding for anexhibit that explores how research inAntarctica allows us to learn more aboutglobal climate change in the past and toimprove predictions for future change.The exhibit is scheduled to open in June2003.

PartnershipsGovernment organizations with

joint interests in climate change haveformed partnerships to educate the pub-lic about climate change and to offersuggestions for how individuals andcommunities can help reduce its risks.Following are some examples.

It All Adds Up to Cleaner AirThis collaborative effort of the U.S.

Department of Transportation and EPAis informing the public about the con-

nections between their transportationchoices, traffic congestion, and air pol-lution. The program emphasizes simple,convenient actions people can take thatcan improve air quality when practicedon a wide scale.

Outdoor Interpreter’s Tool Kit EPA led a partnership effort with the

National Park Service, the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, and NOAA to developa climate change educational toolkitCD-ROM for park wildlife interpreters(U.S. EPA and NPS 2001). The kit pro-vides interpreters with fact sheets andpresentation materials that investigatethe links between climate change andchanges to habitat, ecosystems,wildlife, and our national parks. Thepartnership also produced a climatechange video that will inform park visi-tors about climate change and itsimpacts on national parks. Releasedearly in 2002, the kit includes other out-reach materials, such as Park Service cli-mate change bookmarks.

Reporter’s Guide on Climate Change

Supported by NOAA and DOE, thenonprofit National Safety Council’sEnvironmental Health Center produceda second-edition guide for journalistson climate change in 2000 (NSC 2000).Reporting on Climate Change: Understandingthe Science is part of a series of reporters’guides designed to enhance publicunderstanding of the significant envi-ronmental health risks and challengesfacing modern society. Based on thefindings of the 1995 IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change assessmentreport, the guide explains major globalwarming issues in detail, as well asbroader strategies for successful sciencereporting, interaction with the scientificcommunity, and understanding scien-tific reporting methods. The guide alsocontains a glossary and list of publicand private information sources andWeb links.

Appendix A Emission Trends

Appendix A ■ 157


Appendix A ■ 159


Appendix A ■ 161


Appendix B Policies andMeasures

Energy: Commercial and ResidentialEnergy: IndustrialEnergy: SupplyTransportationIndustry (Non-CO2)AgricultureForestryWaste ManagementCross-sectoral Policies and Measures


Energy: Commercial and Residential

ENERGY STAR® for the Commercial Market1

Description: Commercial buildings account for more than 15 percent of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Many commercialbuildings could effectively operate with 30 percent less energy if owners invested in energy-efficient products, technologies, andbest management practices. ENERGY STAR® in the commercial sector is a partnership program that promotes the improvement ofthe energy performance of entire buildings.

Objectives: ENERGY STAR® provides information and motivation to decision makers to help them improve the energy perform-ance of their buildings and facilities. The program also provides performance benchmarks, strategies, technical assistance, andrecognition.

Greenhouse gas affected: Carbon dioxide.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary agreement.

Status of implementation: ENERGY STAR® has been underway since 1991 with the introduction of Green Lights. The programdeveloped a strong partnership with large and small businesses and public organizations, such as state and local governments andschool systems. The program’s strategy has evolved substantially since the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report, with the major programfocus now on promoting high-performing (high-efficiency) buildings and providing decision makers throughout an organizationwith the information they need to undertake effective building improvement projects.

An innovative tool introduced in 1999 allows the benchmarking of building energy performance against the national stock ofbuildings. This tool is being expanded to represent the major U.S. building types, such as office, school (K–12), retail, and hos-pitality buildings. This national building energy performance rating system also allows for recognizing the highest-performingbuildings, which can earn the ENERGY STAR® label. By the end of 2001, the program expects to be working with more than 11billion square feet of building space across the country and to show over 7,000 rated buildings and more than 1,750 buildingslabeled for excellence. EPA estimates that the program avoided 23 teragrams of CO2 in 2000 and projects reductions of 62 ter-agrams of CO2 in 2010.

Implementing entities: The partnership is a national program, managed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).Implementing entities include a wide range of building owners and users, such as retailers, healthcare organizations, real estateinvestors, state and local governments, schools and universities, and small businesses.

Costs of policy or measure: Costs are defined as those monetary expenses necessary for participants’ implementation of theprogram. Participants evaluate the cost-effective opportunities for improved energy performance and upgrade their facilities andoperations accordingly. While energy-efficiency improvements require an initial investment, these costs are recovered over aperiod of time.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: By reducing energy demand and use, ENERGY STAR® also reduces emis-sions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.

Interaction with other policies or measures: By developing established energy performance benchmarks for commercialbuildings, ENERGY STAR® in the commercial sector complements other measures at the national level, such as the Department ofEnergy’s (DOE’s) Rebuild America.

Contact: Angela Coyle, EPA, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, (202) 564-9719, [email protected].

1 Actions 1 and 2 in the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report; continuing.

Appendix B ■ 165

Commercial Buildings Integration: Updating State Building Codes

Description: This program provides the technical assistance for implementing the energy-efficiency provisions of building codesand applicable standards that affect residential and commercial construction. These efforts involve partnerships with federalagencies, state and local governments, the building industry, financial institutions, utilities, public interest groups, and buildingowners and users. This measure is supported by Residential Building Codes, which is part of the Residential Buildings Integrationprogram; Commercial Buildings Codes, which is part of the Commercial Buildings Integration Program; and Training andAssistance for Codes, which is part of the Community Energy Program.

Objectives: This program aims to improve the energy efficiency of the nation’s new residential and commercial buildings, as wellas additions and alterations to existing commercial buildings. Within applicable residential building codes, it incorporates themost technologically feasible, economically justified energy conservation measures. It also provides state and local governmentswith the technical tools and information they need for adopting, using, and enforcing efficient building codes for residential con-struction.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon monoxide.

Type of policy or measure: Regulatory.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: DOE and state legislatures.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program increases energy efficiency; builds cooperation amongstakeholders; shares information between federal and state entities; and educates builders, consumers, and homeowners.

Interaction with other policies or measures: The program complements DOE’s efforts to develop and introduce advanced,highly efficient building technologies.


Commercial Buildings Integration: Partnerships for Commercial Buildings and Facilities

Description: This program develops and demonstrates advanced technologies, controls, and equipment in collaboration withthe design and construction community; advances integrated technologies and practices to optimize whole-building energy per-formance; and helps reduce energy use in commercial multifamily buildings by promoting construction of efficient buildings andtheir operation near an optimum level of performance. It also performs research on energy-efficient, sustainable, and low-costbuilding envelope materials and structures. This program is supported by a number of DOE programs: Commercial BuildingsR&D, which is part of the Commercial Buildings Integration program, and Analysis Tools and Design Strategies and BuildingEnvelope R&D, which are parts of the Equipment, Materials, and Tools program.

Objectives: This program aims to develop high-performance building design, construction, and operation processes; provide thetools needed for replicating the processes and design strategies for creating high-performance buildings; research new technolo-gies for high-performance buildings; define the criteria and methods for measuring building performance; measure and documentbuilding performance in high-profile examples; and develop a fundamental understanding of heat, air, and moisture transferthrough building envelopes and insulation materials, and apply the results to develop construction technologies to increase build-ing energy efficiency.


Type of policy or measure: Research.


Implementing entities: Federal government R&D in partnership with the private sector.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program increases energy efficiency, shares information with andeducates stakeholders, builds criteria for industry use, and collects useful data. It also has environmental benefits not related togreenhouse gases.

Appendix B ■ 167

ENERGY STAR® for the Residential Market2

Description: Residential buildings account for over 18 percent of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Many homes could use30 percent less energy if owners purchased efficient technologies, incorporated efficiency into home improvement projects, ordemanded an efficient home when buying a new home. EPA’s ENERGY STAR® -labeled new homes, and EPA’s Home ImprovementToolkit featuring ENERGY STAR®, deliver the information consumers need beyond labels on efficient products and equipment tomake these decisions.

Objective: ENERGY STAR® provides information to consumers and homeowners so that they can make sound investments whenbuying a new home or when undertaking a home improvement project. This includes information on which products to pur-chase, how to achieve a high-performing home, the current energy performance of a home, and the improved performance thatresults from improvement projects.


Type of policy or measure: Voluntary agreements and outreach.

Status of implementation: The ENERGY STAR® label for new homes has been available since 1995, building upon the success ofthe ENERGY STAR® label in a variety of product areas. The ENERGY STAR® program has been underway since 1992, with the intro-duction of the ENERGY STAR®-labeled computer. The ENERGY STAR® label is now on more than 25,000 U.S. homes that are aver-aging energy savings of about 35 percent higher than the model energy code. Since the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report, thisresidential effort has expanded significantly to home improvement projects in the existing homes market. The program now pro-vides guidance for homeowners on designing efficiency into kitchens, additions, and whole-home improvement projects. It offersa Web-based audit tool and a home energy benchmark tool to help homeowners get underway and monitor progress. The pro-gram is also working with energy efficiency program partners around the country so that they can use this unbiased informationat consumer transaction points to promote energy efficiency. EPA projects the program will avoid 20 teragrams of CO2 annual-ly by 2010.

Implementing entities: ENERGY STAR® is a national program. EPA implements this effort with partners around the country.

Costs of policy or measure: All costs are recovered over a period of time.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: By reducing energy demand and use, ENERGY STAR® also reduces nitro-gen oxides and sulfur dioxide.

Interaction with other policies or measures: ENERGY STAR® for new homes works closely with DOE’s Rebuild America program.

Contact: David Lee, EPA, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, (202) 564-9131, [email protected].

2 Part of Action 6 in the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report; continuing.


Community Energy Program: Rebuild America

Description: Rebuild America connects people, resources, proven ideas, and innovative practices through collaborative partner-ships with states, small towns, large metropolitan areas, and Native American tribes, creating a large network of peer communi-ties. The program provides one-stop shopping for information and assistance on how to plan, finance, implement, and manageretrofit projects to improve energy efficiency. Rebuild America supports communities with access to DOE regional offices, stateenergy offices, national laboratories, utilities, colleges and universities, and nonprofit agencies.

Objective: Rebuild America aims to assist states and communities in developing and implementing environmentally and eco-nomically sound activities through smarter energy use.


Type of policy or measure: Voluntary, information, and education.

Status of implementation: As of May 2001, Rebuild America had formed 340 partnerships with approximately 550 millionsquare feet of buildings complete or underway in all 50 states and two U.S. territories.

Implementing entities: State and local community partnerships with the federal government.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: Rebuild America expands knowledge and technology base through edu-cation, improves energy efficiency, promotes private–public cooperation and information sharing, creates peer networks, pre-serves historic buildings, builds new facilities, retrofits existing buildings, stimulates economic development, promotescommunity development, and avoids urban sprawl.

Interaction with other policy or measure: Rebuild America helps to promote many of the resources made available by otherDOE programs, such as Updating State Building Codes and ENERGY STAR®.

Appendix B ■ 169

Residential Building Integration: Energy Partnerships for Affordable Housing (Building America)

Description: The Residential Buildings Integration program operates Energy Partnerships for Affordable Housing. This new pro-gram consolidates the formerly separate systems-engineering programs of Building America, Industrialized Housing, PassiveSolar Buildings, Indoor Air Quality, and existing building research into a comprehensive program. Systems-integration researchand development activities analyze building components and systems and integrate them so that the overall building perform-ance is greater than the sum of its parts. Building America is a private–public partnership that provides energy solutions for pro-duction housing and combines the knowledge and resources of industry leaders with DOE’s technical capabilities to act as acatalyst for change in the home building industry.

Objective: This program aims to accelerate the introduction of highly efficient building technologies and practices throughresearch and development of advanced systems for production builders.


Type of policy or measure: Voluntary, research, and education.


Implementing entities: DOE and private industry partners.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program increases energy efficiency, and software and informationsharing; incorporates renewable resources and distributed generation; improves builder productivity; reduces construction time;provides new product opportunities to manufacturers and suppliers; and promotes teamwork within the segmented buildingindustry.


ENERGY STAR®-Labeled Products3

Description: Many homeowners and businesses could use 30 percent less energy, without sacrificing services or comfort, byinvesting in energy efficiency. Introduced by EPA in 1992 for computers, the ENERGY STAR® label has been expanded to morethan 30 product categories. Since the mid-1990s, EPA has collaborated with DOE, which now has responsibility for certain prod-uct categories. The ENERGY STAR® label is now recognized by more than 40 percent of U.S. consumers, who have purchased over600 million ENERGY STAR® products. The program has developed a strong partnership with business, representing over 1,600manufacturers with more than 11,000 ENERGY STAR®-labeled products.

Objective: The ENERGY STAR® label is used to distinguish energy-efficient products in the marketplace so that businesses andconsumers can easily purchase these products, save money on energy bills, and avoid air pollution.


Type of policy or measure: Voluntary agreement.

Status of implementation: The program’s strategy has evolved substantially since the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report, not onlywith its addition of new products to the ENERGY STAR® family, but also with its expanded outreach to consumers in partnershipwith their local utility or similar organization. ENERGY STAR® works in partnership with utilities, representing about 50 percentof U.S. energy customers. To date, more than 600 million ENERGY STAR®-labeled products have been purchased. EPA estimatesthat the program avoided 33 teragrams of CO2 in 2000 and projects it will reduce 75 teragrams of CO2 in 2010.

Implementing entities: ENERGY STAR® is a national program. EPA and DOE implement the ENERGY STAR® label on products withpartners across the country.

Costs of policy or measure: All costs are recovered over a period of time.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: By reducing energy demand and use, ENERGY STAR® also reduces nitro-gen oxides and sulfur dioxide.

Interaction with other policies or measures: ENERGY STAR® is implemented in concert with the minimum efficiency standardsdeveloped by DOE, where those standards exist, such as with household appliances and heating and cooling equipment.

Contact: Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, (202) 564-9124, [email protected]

3 Part of Action 6 in the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report; continuing.

Appendix B ■ 171

Building Equipment, Materials, and Tools: Superwindow Collaborative

Description: The Superwindow Collaborative develops commercially viable, advanced electrochromic windows andSuperwindows for competing producers. These programs intend to reward industry through market mechanisms for their invest-ments in the research, development, and deployment of energy-efficient windows. In an area that is less suited to national stan-dards and that has a growing international market, significant investments are required to establish a technical basis forperformance standards recognized for their scientific excellence. The Superwindow Collaborative is supported by two DOE pro-grams—Building Envelope: Electrochromic Windows and Building Envelope: Superwindows—both of which are part of DOE’sEquipment, Materials, and Tools program.

Objectives: The Superwindow Collaborative aims to change windows from net energy loss centers to net energy savers acrossthe United States; to strengthen the market position of U.S. industry in global markets; and to provide building owners cost-effective savings, a more comfortable building climate, and possible productivity improvements.




Implementing entities: Federal government R&D in partnership with the private sector. The electrochromic participants includetwo national laboratories and four industrial partners. Supporting research on materials, durability, and energy performance isperformed at DOE’s national laboratories.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The Superwindow Collaborative increases economic competitiveness,energy efficiency, and building climate comfort, and provides possible productivity improvements for buildings.


Building Equipment, Materials, and Tools:Lighting Partnerships

Description: Lighting Partnerships supports research and development in three areas: • Advanced light sources, consisting of research that is heavily cost-shared with industry to advance lighting technology,

with the goal of developing replacements for the inefficient incandescent lamp. The program supports improvements incompact fluorescent lamps and in new lamps using improved incandescent, fluorescent, high-intensity-discharge, and elec-trode-less technologies.

• Lighting fixtures, controls, and distribution systems consisting of cost-shared research on lighting controls in commercialbuildings and light fixtures for advanced light sources, primarily compact fluorescent lamps.

• The impact of lighting on vision, consisting of industry cost-shared research on outdoor lighting.

Objectives: The program aims to develop and accelerate the introduction of advanced lighting technologies and to make solid-state lighting more efficient than conventional sources and more easily integrated into building systems. Additional goals are todevelop lighting technologies that last for 20,000 to 100,000 hours and to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions fromcoal-fired power plants.




Implementing entities: Lighting Partnerships is a federal research and development program that collaborates with manufac-turers, utilities, user groups, and trade and professional organizations.

Appendix B ■ 173

Building Equipment, Materials, and Tools: Partnerships for Commercial Buildings and Facilities

Description: This program develops and demonstrates advanced technologies, controls, and equipment in collaboration withthe design and construction community; advances integrated technologies and practices to optimize whole-building energy per-formance; and helps reduce energy use in commercial multifamily buildings by promoting the construction of efficient buildingsand their operation near an optimum level of performance. It also performs research on energy-efficient, sustainable, and low-cost building-envelope materials and structures. The program is supported by a number of DOE programs, including CommercialBuildings R&D, which is part of the Commercial Buildings Integration program; and Analysis Tools and Design Strategies andBuilding Envelope R&D, which are parts of the Equipment, Materials, and Tools program.

Objectives: This program aims to develop high-performance building design, construction, and operation processes; provide thetools needed for replicating the processes and design strategies for creating high-performance buildings; research new technolo-gies for high-performance buildings; define the criteria and methods for measuring building performance; measure and documentbuilding performance in high-profile examples; and develop a fundamental understanding of heat, air, and moisture transferthrough building envelopes and insulation materials, and apply the results to develop construction technologies to increase build-ing energy efficiency.




Implementing entities: Federal government R&D in partnership with the private sector.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program increases energy efficiency, shares information with andeducates stakeholders, builds criteria for industry use, and collects useful data. It also has environmental benefits not related togreenhouse gases.


Building Equipment, Materials, and Tools: Collaborative Research and Development

Description: This program researches, develops, and commercializes food display and storage technologies that use less energyand less refrigerant; new, super-efficient electric dryers; low-cost, high-reliability heat pump water heaters; and energy-efficientheating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems. It also brings new products to market and provides an independent third-partyevaluation of highly efficient products. The Space Conditioning and Refrigeration program and the Appliances and EmergingTechnologies program are part of the Equipment, Materials, and Tools program.

Objectives: This program aims to develop and promote the use of low-cost, energy-efficient equipment, materials, and tools.




Implementing entities: State and local partnerships with the federal government.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program promotes energy efficiency, evaluates energy-efficientproducts and accelerates their commercialization, and improves economic competitiveness and data collection.

Appendix B ■ 175

Residential Appliance Standards

Description: Administered by DOE’s Office of Codes and Standards, the Residential Appliance Standards program periodical-ly reviews and updates efficiency standards for most major household appliances.

Objective: The program’s standards aim to ensure that American consumers receive a minimum practical energy efficiency forevery appliance they buy.




Implementing entities: DOE and other federal entities. DOE promulgates revised or new regulations, while the Federal TradeCommission prescribes the labeling rules for residential appliances.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The program enhances energy security, increases competitiveness andreliability, and improves energy efficiency.


State and Community Assistance: State Energy Program;Weatherization Assistance Program; Community EnergyGrants; Information Outreach

Description: Several programs and initiatives support DOE’s State and Community Assistance efforts:• The State Energy Program provides a supportive framework with sufficient flexibility to enable the states to address their

energy priorities in concert with national priorities, and supports the federal–state partnerships that are crucial to energypolicy development and energy technology deployment.

• The Weatherization Assistance Program provides cost-effective, energy-efficiency services to low-income constituencies whootherwise could not afford these services and who stand to benefit greatly from the cost savings of energy-efficient tech-nologies.

• The Community Energy Grants program provides funding to competitively selected communities to support community-wideenergy projects that improve energy efficiency and implement sustainable building design and operation concepts.

• The Information Outreach program helps to conceptualize, plan, and implement a systematic approach to marketing andcommunication objectives and evaluation.

Objectives: The objectives of DOE’s State and Community Assistance efforts are based on the combined objectives of its majorprograms and initiatives:

• State Energy: To maximize energy, environmental, and economic benefits through increased collaboration at the federal,state, and community levels; to increase market acceptance of energy-efficient and renewable-energy technologies, prac-tices, and products; and to use innovative approaches to reach market segments and meet policy goals not typicallyaddressed by market-based solutions.

• Weatherization: To develop new weatherization technologies, further application of best methods and practices throughoutthe national weatherization network, leverage and integrate weatherization with other energy efficiency resources, anddemonstrate program effectiveness.

• Community Energy Grants: To save energy, create jobs, promote growth, and protect the environment.• Information Outreach: To provide technical assistance needed to conduct the various planned activities that will educate tar-

get audiences; to follow strategic plan goals and support long-term success in developing energy-efficient systems andprocesses; to improve technology-transfer and information-exchange processes; and to emphasize partnering with strate-gic allies, communications, education and training, and information support.


Type of policy or measure: Economic, information.


Implementing entities: States and local communities through partnerships with the federal government. For example, DOEmakes grants to states through its Weatherization Assistance Program, which in turn awards grants to local agencies—usuallycommunity action agencies or other nonprofit or government organizations—to perform the actual weatherization services.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: These programs enhance energy efficiency; create jobs and boost eco-nomic development; have non-greenhouse gas environmental benefits; increase collaboration at federal, state, and local levels;provide health benefits; educate consumers; promote technology transfer to industry; and provide training.

Appendix B ■ 177

Heat Island Reduction Initiative4

Description: This initiative is a multi-agency effort to work with communities and state and local officials to reduce the impactsof urban heat islands. It promotes common-sense measures, such as planting shade trees, installing reflective roofs, and usinglight-colored pavements to reduce ambient temperature, ozone pollution, cooling energy demand, and greenhouse gas emissions.This initiative also supports research to quantify the air quality, health, and energy-saving benefits of measures for reducing theimpacts of urban heat islands.

Objective: The program’s objective is to work with state and local governments to reverse the effects of urban heat islands byencouraging the widespread use of mitigation strategies.


Type of policy or measure: Voluntary, information exchange, and research.

Status of implementation: The program was redesigned in 1997 and is currently ongoing. EPA performs research on the up-front costs, potential savings, and options for reflective surfaces, to assist with implementing measures for reducing the demandsof heat islands. In addition, information on the air quality benefits may allow states to incorporate these measures into their airquality plans. Pilot projects have been established in five cities that have agreed to assist with research and work to implementthe measures. For example, several cities in Utah have implemented ordinances with measures for reducing the impacts of urbanheat islands. And California’s state legislature and governor have authorized using over $24 million for measures to reduce peaksummer heat island demand for electricity.

Implementing entities: EPA, in partnership with state and local governments.

Costs of policy or measure: Reflective surfaces are generally implemented during new construction or when replacing oldmaterials. While initial costs are comparable between nonreflective and reflective surfaces, cost savings can be expected whenevaluating life-cycle costs (as energy savings and reduced maintenance are considered).

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The program’s measures can reduce emissions of volatile organic com-pounds and nitrogen oxides due to reduced energy use and ambient temperatures. Lower temperatures may also help reduceozone concentrations due to the heat-dependent reaction that forms this pollutant. In addition, energy savings can be expectedfrom implementing heat-island reduction measures.

Interaction with other policies or measures: The program interacts with the ENERGY STAR® Roofs Program and state imple-mentation plans.

Contact: Niko Dietsch, EPA, Global Programs Division, (202) 564-3479, [email protected].

4 Action 9 in the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report; continuing.



Description: Current law provides a 10 percent business energy investment tax credit for qualifying equipment that uses solarenergy to generate electricity, to heat or cool, to provide hot water for use in a structure, or to provide solar process heat. Nocredit is available for nonbusiness purchases of solar energy equipment. The Administration is proposing a new tax credit forindividuals of photovoltaic equipment and solar water-heating systems for use in a dwelling that the individual uses as a resi-dence. Equipment would qualify for the credit only if used exclusively for purposes other than heating swimming pools. An indi-vidual would be allowed a cumulative maximum credit of $2,000 per residence for photovoltaic equipment and $2,000 perresidence for solar water-heating systems. The credit for solar water-heating equipment would apply only if placed in serviceafter December 31, 2001, and before January 1, 2006, and to photovoltaic systems placed in service after December 31, 2001,and before January 1, 2008.

Objective: This proposed tax credit aims to expand the future market of residential solar energy systems.


Type of policy or measure: Economic.

Status of implementation: This measure is in the proposal stage.

Appendix B ■ 179

Energy: Industrial

Industries of the Future

Description: Industries of the Future creates partnerships among industry, government, and supporting laboratories and institu-tions to accelerate technology research, development, and deployment. Led by DOE’s Office of Industrial Technologies, thisstrategy is being implemented in nine energy- and waste-intensive industries. Two key elements of the strategy include an indus-try-driven document outlining each industry’s vision for the future, and a technology roadmap to identify the technologies thatwill be needed to reach that industry’s goals.

Objective: This strategy aims to help nine key energy-intensive industries reduce their energy consumption while remainingcompetitive and economically strong.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary, research, and information.


Implementing entities: Partnerships among industry, government, and supporting laboratories and institutions.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This strategy enhances economic security and energy efficiency, allowsfor competitive restructuring, has non-GHG environmental benefits, forms cooperative alliances, increases productivity, and dis-seminates information.


Best Practices Program

Description: This initiative of DOE’s Office of Industrial Technologies offers industry the tools to improve plant energy effi-ciency, enhance environmental performance, and increase productivity. Selected best-of-class large demonstration plants areshowcased across the country, while other program activities encourage the replication of these best practices in still larger num-bers of large plants.

Objective: Best Practices is designed to change the ways industrial plant managers make decisions affecting energy use by motorsand drives, compressed air, steam, combustion systems, and other plant utilities.


Type of policy or measure: Voluntary, information.


Implementing entities: DOE and industrial partners.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: Best Practices enhances economic security and energy efficiency, hasnon-greenhouse gas environmental benefits, increases productivity and industry cooperation, and disseminates knowledge.

Appendix B ■ 181

ENERGY STAR® for Industry (Climate Wise)5

Description: Nearly one-third of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions result from industrial activities. The primary source of theseemissions is the burning of carbon-based fuels, either on site in manufacturing plants or through the purchase of generated elec-tricity. Recently, ENERGY STAR® and Climate Wise were integrated under ENERGY STAR® to compose a more comprehensive part-nership for industrial companies. Through established energy performance benchmarks, strategies for improving energyperformance, technical assistance, and recognition for accomplishing reductions in energy, the partnership contributes to areduction in energy use for the U.S. industrial sector.

Objectives: ENERGY STAR® enables industrial companies to evaluate and cost-effectively reduce their energy use. This reduction,in turn, results in decreased carbon dioxide emissions when carbon-based fuels are the source of that energy.


Types of policy or measure: Voluntary agreement.

Status of implementation: This program has been underway since 1994 with the launch of Climate Wise. In 2000, ENERGY

STAR®and the Climate Wise Partnership were integrated to provide the industrial sector with a more comprehensive set of indus-trial benchmarking and technical assistance tools. The partnership currently has more than 500 industrial partners representinga large share of energy use in the industrial sector. EPA estimates that the program avoided 11 teragrams of CO2 in emissions in2000 and projects reductions of 16 teragrams of CO2 in 2010.

Implementing entities: The partnership is primarily a national program, managed by EPA. State and local governments volun-tarily participate by promoting the program to industries within their jurisdictions.

Costs of policy or measure: Costs are defined as the monetary expenses necessary for an industrial participant to implementthe program. Participants evaluate the cost-effective opportunities for energy performance and complete adjustments to theiroperation. While an initial outlay of funds is possible, these costs are recovered over a period of time.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The burning of fossil fuels creates airborne pollutants, including nitro-gen oxides and sulfur dioxide. By reducing energy demand and use, ENERGY STAR® helps to decrease emissions of these pollu-tants.

Interaction with other policies or measures: ENERGY STAR® is the only national program that offers industrial companies theability to evaluate and minimize energy use through established energy performance benchmarks, strategies, and technical assis-tance. ENERGY STAR® complements programs managed by DOE. DOE oversees partnerships with nine energy-intensive indus-trial sectors to accelerate technology research, development, and deployment, with a goal of reducing energy use and theenvironmental impacts of these industries. DOE also manages a program to improve a plant’s technical systems, or componentsof a plant, including the motors, steam, compressed air, combined heat and power, and process heat. ENERGY STAR® complementsthese programs with a system for evaluating plant-wide energy performance.

Contact: Elizabeth Dutrow, EPA, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, (202) 564-9061, [email protected].

5 Foundation action 9 in the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report; continuing.


Industrial Assessment Centers

Description: Teams of engineering faculty and students from 26 universities around the country conduct free comprehensiveenergy audits or industrial assessments and provide recommendations to eligible small and medium-sized manufacturers to helpthem identify opportunities to improve productivity, reduce waste, and save energy.

Objectives: The assessments aim to improve energy efficiency and productivity, minimize waste, and prevent pollution.


Type of policy or measure: Voluntary, information, and education.


Implementing entities: DOE and universities.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The program has non-greenhouse gas environmental benefits, improvesenergy efficiency, economic productivity, and competitiveness; encourages public–private-sector interaction and cooperationand information sharing within industry; provides student educational experience; and collects industry data for industry progressassessments, thereby enabling the quantification of the state of energy, waste, and productivity management in small and medi-um-sized industries.

Appendix B ■ 183

Enabling Technologies: Industrial Materials for the Future

Description: DOE’s Industrial Materials for the Future program is the combination of the Advanced Industrial Materials andContinuous Fiber Ceramic Composite programs. The new program focuses on areas that offer major improvements in energyefficiency and emission reductions across all industries.

Objective: Consistent with the mission of DOE’s Office of Industrial Technologies, this program’s mission is to lead a nationaleffort to research, design, develop, engineer, and test new and improved materials for the Industries of the Future.


Types of policy or measure: Research.


Implementing entities: DOE and industry partners.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program reduces emissions of non-greenhouse gas pollutants;improves energy efficiency, economic productivity, and competitiveness; encourages public–private-sector interaction and coop-eration; and facilitates information sharing within industry.


Financial Assistance: NICE3

(National Industrial Competitiveness through Energy, Environment, & Economics)

Description: Sponsored by DOE’s Office of Industrial Technologies, NICE3 is an innovative, cost-sharing grant program thatprovides funding to state and industry partnerships (large and small businesses) for projects that develop and demonstrateadvances in energy efficiency and clean production technologies.

Objectives: The NICE3 program was authorized to improve the energy efficiency and cost-effectiveness of pollution preventiontechnologies and processes, including source-reduction and waste-minimization technologies and processes. It also aims toadvance the global competitiveness of U.S. industry.


Type of policy or measure: Voluntary, research.


Implementing entities: State agencies, industry, and universities.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The NICE3 program increases economic production, energy efficiency,industry competitiveness, and cooperation between the public and private sectors. It also has non-greenhouse gas environmen-tal benefits.

Appendix B ■ 185

Energy: SupplyRenewable Energy Commercialization: Wind; Solar; Geothermal; BiopowerDescription: DOE’s Office of Power Technologies maintains several programs on individual renewable energy technologies,including wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. Renewable technologies use naturally occurring energy sources to produce elec-tricity, heat, fuel, or a combination of these energy types.

Objectives: The program aims to develop clean, competitive power technologies; to diversify the nation’s energy supply port-folio; to use abundant domestic resources; to help the nation meet its commitments to curb greenhouse gas emissions; and toachieve tax incentives for renewable energy production and use.


Type of policy or measure: Research, regulatory.


Implementing entities: DOE and industry partners.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The program enhances the nation’s energy and economic security; hasnon-greenhouse gas environmental benefits; builds energy infrastructure; creates jobs; increases industrial competitiveness andenergy reliability; and diversifies the nation’s energy portfolio.


Climate Challenge

Description: The Climate Challenge program is a joint, voluntary effort of DOE and the electric utility industry to reduce,avoid, or sequester greenhouse gases. Utilities, in partnership with DOE, developed individual agreements to identify andimplement cost-effective activities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Electric utility trade associations are active in pro-moting the program and in developing industry-wide initiatives. Details on the program are available athttp://www.eren.doe.gov/climatechallenge/.

Objective: Established as a Foundation Action under the 1993 Climate Change Action Plan, Climate Challenge persuaded electric utilities to develop Participation Accords with DOE. These individual agreements identified cost-effective activities for the utility to implement, with the goal of reducing emissions in 2000. Each utility must annually report its results to DOE’s Energy Information Administration Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program(http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/frntvrgg.html), consistent with the voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas emission guidelinesdeveloped under Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Reductions will continue to be reported beyond 2000.

Greenhouse gases affected: Primarily carbon dioxide, but also other greenhouse gases, such as methane and sulfur hexafluo-ride. Carbon dioxide activities include both reductions in emissions and increases in carbon sequestration.

Type of policy or measure: DOE and the individual utilities sign Voluntary Participation Accords (or Letters of Participationfor smaller utilities), describing the utilities’ commitments in the form of specific projects, entity-wide actions, and/or industry-wide initiatives.


Implementing entities: The program is a joint, voluntary effort between the electric utility industry and the DOE. Parametersof the Climate Challenge program were defined in a 1994 Memorandum of Understanding between DOE and all the nationalutility trade associations.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from Climate Challenge proj-ects often results in a concurrent reduction in sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and other emissions associated with fossil fuelcombustion. Other projects have reduced landfill requirements by recycling and reusing coal combustion by-products and othermaterials. Participating utilities have indicated that corporate learning about climate change and mitigation opportunities hasbeen a significant benefit of the program. Climate Challenge has helped shift the thinking of electric utility management andstrategic planners to include the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions into their corporate culture and philosophy.

Interaction with other policies or measures: As a Foundation Action under the 1993 Climate Change Action Plan, ClimateChallenge was designed as a platform from which participating utilities could undertake a broad range of activities (individually,through industry-wide initiatives, and through other federal voluntary programs. In addition, Climate Challenge utilities agreeto report their results annually to DOE’s Energy Information Administration, consistent with the voluntary reporting of green-house gas emission guidelines developed under Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

Appendix B ■ 187

Distributed Energy Resources

Description: This program directs and coordinates a diverse portfolio of research and development, consolidating programs andstaff from across DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy related to the development and deployment of dis-tributed energy resources (DER). It focuses on technology development and the elimination of regulatory and institutional bar-riers to the use of DER, including interconnection to the utility grid and environmental siting and permitting. DER partners withindustry to apply a wide array of technologies and integration strategies for on-site use, as well as for grid-enhancing systems.Successful deployment of DER technologies affects the industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential sectors of our econ-omy—in effect, all aspects of the energy value chain.

Objectives: This program aims to develop a cleaner, more reliable, and affordable U.S. energy resource portfolio to reduce pol-lution and greenhouse gas emissions; enhance electric grid operations; boost local economic development; and increase energyand economic efficiency.


Type of policy or measure: Research, information, education, and regulatory.


Implementing entities: DOE, industry.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program has non-greenhouse gas environmental benefits, improvesenergy reliability, reduces the strain on the electric grid infrastructure, allows energy choices among consumers (creating a moredynamic energy market), and hedges against peak power prices.


High-Temperature Superconductivity

Description: This program investigates the properties of crystalline materials that become free of electrical resistance at the tem-perature of liquid nitrogen. The lack of resistance makes possible electrical power systems with super-efficient generators, trans-formers, and transmission cables that reduce energy losses associated with electricity transmission.

Objectives: The next few years may see the beginning of the widespread utilization of superconductivity technologies. This pro-gram leads the DOE research and development effort geared toward making this happen. It supports aggressive projects to designadvanced electrical applications. The industry-led Second-Generation Wire Development exploits breakthroughs at national lab-oratories that promise unprecedented current-carrying capacity.


Types of policy or measure: Research.


Implementing entities: DOE, industry.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program has non-greenhouse gas environmental benefits, such asreducing SOx emissions; improves energy reliability; reduces strain on the electric grid infrastructure; cuts transmission losses byhalf; and allows electrical equipment to be reduced in size dramatically (which opens more potential site applications).

Appendix B ■ 189

Hydrogen Program

Description: This program has four strategies to carry out its objective: (1) expand the use of hydrogen in the near term by work-ing with industry, including hydrogen producers, to improve efficiency, lower emissions, and lower the cost of technologies thatproduce hydrogen from natural gas for distributed filling stations; (2) work with fuel cell manufacturers to develop hydrogen-based electricity storage and generation systems that will enhance the introduction and penetration of distributed, renewable-energy-based utility systems; (3) coordinate with the Department of Defense and DOE’s Office of Transportation Technologiesto demonstrate safe and cost-effective fueling systems for hydrogen vehicles in urban nonattainment areas and to provideonboard hydrogen storage systems; and (4) work with the national laboratories to lower the cost of technologies that producehydrogen directly from sunlight and water.

Objective: The program’s mission is to enhance and support the development of cost-competitive hydrogen technologies andsystems that will reduce the environmental impacts of energy use and enable the penetration of renewable energy into the U.S.energy mix.


Type of policy or measure: Research, education.


Implementing entities: DOE, industry, and national laboratories.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program has non-greenhouse gas environmental benefits, developsnew infrastructure, creates jobs, enhances the nation’s energy and economic security, diversifies the nation’s energy portfolio, andexpands our technology base.


Clean Energy Initiative: Green Power Partnership; Combined Heat and Power Partnership

Description: Increased economic growth has been fueled in large part by energy produced from fossil fuels, with the unintend-ed consequence of increased air pollution and an increased threat of climate change. EPA’s Clean Energy Initiative is designed toreduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the energy supply sector by promoting available technologies. EPA’s strategyincludes: (1) increasing corporate and institutional demand for renewable energy, (2) facilitating combined heat and power(CHP) and other clean “distributed generation” technologies in targeted markets, and (3) working with state and local govern-ments to develop policies that favor clean energy.

EPA’s Green Power Partnership works with businesses and other institutions to facilitate bulk purchases of renewable energy. Thisinvolves setting green power standards, providing recognition, and quantifying the environmental benefits. EPA’s CHP Partner-ship targets candidate sites in key state markets, and provides these facilities with information about the benefits of CHP, as wellas technical assistance. The Policy Team produces a database that quantifies the environmental impacts of power generation,along with other policy tools to help reduce the environmental impacts of electricity generation.

Objective: The Clean Energy Initiative will focus on the energy supply sector, as well as industrial, commercial, and residentialenergy customers. The approach will aim to remove market barriers to the increased penetration of cleaner, more efficient ener-gy supply through education, technical assistance, demonstration, and partnerships.


Type of policy or measure: Voluntary agreement, education, and technical assistance.

Status of implementation: This effort is currently being implemented. EPA will conduct annual reviews of the program’s per-formance at the end of each calendar year. EPA projects the program will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 30 teragramsof CO2 in 2010.

Implementing entity: EPA.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This initiative will reduce criteria air pollutants, which contribute to localand regional air quality problems, and will reduce land and water impacts due to the decrease in fossil fuel use.

Interaction with other policies or measures: This initiative requires interaction with ongoing initiatives at DOE, particular-ly efforts to commercialize renewable energy and CHP technologies. DOE will continue to play the lead role in research anddevelopment and performance benchmarking, while EPA will primarily be involved with market transformation activities forthese technologies.

Contact: Tom Kerr, EPA, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, (202) 564-0047, [email protected].

Appendix B ■ 191

Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization

Description: The Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program conducts scientific and engineering research to devel-op advanced technologies to manage the aging of nuclear plants. The cost-shared program is part of a comprehensive approachto ensure that the United States has the technological capability to produce adequate supplies of baseload electricity while min-imizing greenhouse gas emissions and other harmful environmental impacts. Details on the NEPO program are available athttp://nuclear.gov.

Objective: The program aims to ensure that current U.S. nuclear power plants can continue to deliver adequate and affordableenergy supplies up to and beyond their initial license period by resolving critical issues related to long-term plant aging and bydeveloping advanced technologies for improving plant reliability, availability, and productivity.


Type of policy or measure: Research, information.

Status of implementation: DOE began the NEPO program in fiscal year 2000 and continues to initiate cooperative R&D proj-ects, which are identified through input from electric utilities, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and other stakeholders.

Implementing entities: The program is a cost-shared partnership between the nuclear industry and the federal government.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The NEPO program and other nuclear energy R&D programs conduct-ed by DOE support the goal in the President’s National Energy Policy of increasing the development and use of nuclear power asnon-greenhouse gas-emitting source of electricity for the nation.

Interaction with other policies or measures: Operation of existing nuclear power plants annually avoids emissions of over150 teragrams of carbon dioxide, five million tons of sulfur dioxide, and 2.4 million tons of nitrogen oxides. Continued opera-tion of existing nuclear plants through their original license term and a 20-year renewed license term would partly mitigate theneed to build more baseload power plants.


Development of Next-Generation Nuclear Energy Systems:Nuclear Energy Research Initiative; Generation IV Initiative

Description: DOE’s support for next-generation nuclear energy systems comes primarily from two programs: the Nuclear EnergyResearch Initiative (NERI) and the Generation IV Initiative (Gen-IV). Complete details on the Gen-IV and NERI programs areavailable at http://nuclear.gov.

Objectives: NERI is funding small-scale research efforts on promising advanced nuclear energy system concepts, in areas thatwill promote novel next-generation, proliferation-resistant reactor designs, advanced nuclear fuel development, and fundamen-tal nuclear science. In the future, there is likely to be NERI research in the use of nuclear energy to produce hydrogen fuel forfuel cells.

The present focus of Gen-IV is on the preparation of a technology roadmap that will set forth a plan for research, development,and demonstration of the most promising next-generation advanced reactor concepts. These reactor designs hold high potentialfor meeting the needs for economic, emission-free, sustainable power generation. R&D will be conducted to increase fuel life-time, recycle used nuclear fuel, establish or improve material compatibility, improve safety performance, reduce system cost,effectively incorporate passive safety features, enhance system reliability, and achieve a high degree of proliferation resistance.



Status of implementation: As ongoing programs, both the NERI and Gen-IV initiatives are under implementation.

Implementing entities: NERI features a cooperative, peer-reviewed selection process to fund researcher-initiated R&D propos-als from universities, national laboratories, and industry. The Gen-IV program is an international effort, in which the UnitedStates and other member countries of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) are jointly developing nuclear energy sys-tems that offer advantages in the areas of economics, safety, reliability, and sustainability and that could be deployed commer-cially by 2030. A major advantage of this arrangement is that funding for the projects is leveraged among the GIF membercountries.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: With the NERI and Gen-IV programs, DOE is addressing issues that willenable the expanded use of nuclear energy. For the longer term, the DOE believes that Gen-IV nuclear energy and fuel cycletechnologies can play a vital role in fulfilling the nation’s long-term energy needs. Growing concerns for the environment willfavor energy sources that can satisfy the need for electricity and other energy-intensive products on a sustainable basis with min-imal environmental impact.

Interaction with other policies or measures: The Gen-IV and NERI programs, and other nuclear energy R&D programs con-ducted by DOE, support the goal stated in the President’s National Energy Policy of increasing the development and use of nuclearpower as a non-greenhouse gas-emitting source of electricity for the nation.

Appendix B ■ 193

Support Deployment of New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States

Description: To cope with U.S. near-term needs for nuclear energy, DOE organized a Near-Term Deployment Group (NTDG).The group was tasked with developing a Near-Term Deployment Roadmap (“NTD Roadmap”) that would provide conclusionsand recommendations to facilitate deployment of new nuclear plants in the United States by 2010. Implementation of these rec-ommendations will be realized through DOE’s Nuclear Energy Technologies Program—Nuclear Power 2010.

Objectives: The NTD Roadmap provides DOE and the nuclear industry with the basis for a plan to ensure the availability ofnear-term nuclear energy options that can be in operation in the United States by 2010. It focuses on making available by 2010a range of competitive, NRC-certified and/or ready to construct nuclear energy generation options of a range of sizes to meetvariations in market need.

The NTD Roadmap identifies the technological, regulatory, and institutional gaps and issues that need to be addressed for newnuclear plants to be deployed in the United States in this time frame. It also identifies specific designs that could be deployedby 2010, along with the actions and resources needed to ensure their availability.


Type of policy or measure: Information.

Status of implementation: The NTDG submitted the NTD Roadmap to DOE on October 31, 2001. The Nuclear EnergyResearch Advisory Committee unanimously endorsed the NTD Roadmap recommendations on November 6, 2001.

Implementing entities: As part of the Nuclear Energy Technologies Program, DOE NE-20 has been in working in collabora-tion with industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to implement near-term needs identified by the NTDG during fiscalyear 2001. Fiscal year 2002 activities include continued DOE/industry cost-shared projects to demonstrate the Early SitePermitting process, support advanced gas-cooled reactor fuel qualification and testing, and conduct preliminary advanced reac-tor technology R&D recommended in the NTD Roadmap.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The deployment of new nuclear power plants could substantially resolvethe growing U.S. energy supply deficit. It would also provide for an appropriate and secure energy mix that could help achieveClean Air Act requirements without harming the U.S. economy.

Interaction with other policies or measures: The NTD Roadmap supports the goal stated in the President’s National EnergyPolicy of increasing the development and use of nuclear power as a non-greenhouse gas-emitting source of electricity for thenation.


Carbon Sequestration

Description: This program develops strategies for the removal of carbon dioxide from man-made emissions or the atmosphere;the safe, essentially permanent storage of carbon dioxide or other carbon compounds; and the reuse of carbon dioxide throughchemical or biological conversion to value-added products. The program has five major components: separation and capture,ocean storage, storage in terrestrial ecosystems, storage in geological formations, and conversion and utilization.

Objectives: The primary objectives of the carbon sequestration program are to lower the cost of capturing carbon dioxide, toensure that the storage of carbon dioxide in geological formations is safe and environmentally secure, and to enhance the pro-ductivity and storage of carbon in terrestrial systems.



Status of implementation: Terrestrial sequestration is underway, and field experiments in geological sequestration are imminent.

Implementing entities: Federal government R&D in partnership with private sector.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program increases the production of oil and natural gas (geologicalsequestration), reclaims poorly managed lands, and prevents soil erosion and stream sedimentation (terrestrial sequestration).

Appendix B ■ 195

Hydropower Program

Description: DOE’s Hydropower Program develops, conducts, and coordinates hydropower research and development withindustry and other federal agencies. Hydropower is a mature technology and has long provided a significant contribution to thenational energy supply. Hydropower research today centers on boosting the efficiency of existing hydropower facilities, includ-ing incremental hydropower gains. In addition, the program works on developing advanced turbines that reduce fish mortality,use improved sensor technology to understand conditions inside operating turbines, improve compliance with federal water qual-ity standards, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Objective: This program aims to improve the technical, societal, and environmental benefits of hydropower.




Implementing entities: DOE, other federal agencies, and industry partners. DOE’s Office of Biopower and HydropowerTechnologies administers the program through the DOE Idaho Operations Office.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program has non-greenhouse gas environmental benefits, improvespower reliability, and increases the nation’s energy security.


International Programs

Description: DOE’s International Programs fall under the Office of Technology Access, which promotes exports of renewableenergy and energy-efficient products and services and facilitates private-sector infrastructure development to support the deliv-ery and maintenance of these technologies worldwide. The office also provides these same information and technical assistanceservices to Native Americans on a government-to-government basis.

Objectives: The International Programs aim to service DOE’s many Memoranda of Understanding on international energyissues, provide diplomatic and technical assistance to the White House and State Department, and establish a framework to assistNative American governments.


Type of policy or measure: Outreach, education.


Implementing entities: DOE, industry, other government agencies, and international government and nongovernment agen-cies.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program has non-greenhouse gas environmental benefits, such asreducing SOx emissions; improves energy reliability; and educates the public internationally on the benefits of energy efficiencyand renewable energy and all the benefits associated with overall energy efficiency and renewable energies.

Appendix B ■ 197


Description: Current law provides taxpayers a 1.5 cent-per-kilowatt-hour (adjusted for inflation after 1992) tax credit for elec-tricity produced from wind, “closed-loop” biomass, and poultry waste. Biomass refers to trees, crops, and agricultural wastes usedto produce power, fuels, or chemicals. The electricity must be sold to an unrelated third party, and the credit applies to the first10 years of production. The current tax credit covers facilities placed in service before January 1, 2002, after which it expires.The new proposal would:

• Extend for three years the 1.5 cent-per-kilowatt-hour biomass credit for facilities placed in service before July 1, 2005. • Expand the definition of eligible biomass to include certain forest-related resources and agricultural and other sources for

facilities placed in service before January 1, 2002. Electricity produced at such facilities from newly eligible sources wouldbe eligible for the credit only from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2004. The credit for electricity from newly eli-gible sources would be computed at a rate equal to 60 percent of the generally applicable rate. And the credit for electric-ity produced from newly eligible biomass co-fired in coal plants would be computed at a rate equal to 30 percent of thegenerally applicable rate.

• In the case of a wind or biomass facility operated by a lessee, the proposal would permit the lessee, rather than the owner,to claim the credit. This rule would apply to production under the leases entered into after the date on which the proposalis enacted.

Objective: These tax credits aim to accelerate the market penetration of wind- and biomass-based electric generators.



Status of implementation: These tax credits are in the proposal stage.


Transportation

FreedomCAR Research Partnership

Description: This partnership seeks to substantially improve vehicle fuel efficiency and reduce carbon emissions associated withcars, light trucks, and sport-utility vehicles. FreedomCAR focuses on the long-term, high-risk research needed to achieve a visionof emission- and petroleum-free passenger vehicles, without sacrificing freedom of mobility and freedom of vehicle choice.

Objective: FreedomCAR’s mission is to develop a technology and fuel that will reduce consumption of petroleum-based fuel andreduce carbon emissions.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide and other vehicle-related criteria pollutants.

Type of policy or measure: Research and development.

Status of implementation: Adopted.

Implementing entities: This partnership is between DOE and the U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR). Other U.S.government agencies, including EPA and the Department of Transportation (DOT), will participate through related advances intheir own programs. The government will seek a cooperative relationship with suppliers and other companies conducting sub-stantial automotive research and development activities in the United States.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The maturation of fuel cell technologies for transportation is a majorfocus of FreedomCAR. Fuel cell vehicles will be free of petroleum, criteria pollutants, and carbon dioxide emissions.

Interaction with other policies or measures: The new partnership supersedes and builds upon the successes of the Partnershipfor a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), which began in 1993. However, FreedomCAR is different in scope and breadth. Itshifts government research to more fundamental, higher-risk activities, with applicability to multiple-passenger vehicle modelsand special emphasis on development of transportation fuel cells and related hydrogen fuel infrastructure.

The transition to a hydrogen fuel cell-powered energy system requires significant investment in order to successfully overcomecritical remaining barriers. Since considerable time will be required before fuel cells in transportation become a reality, Free-domCAR also continues support for other technologies that have the potential in the interim to dramatically reduce oil con-sumption and environmental impacts, and/or are applicable to both fuel cell and hybrid approaches—e.g., batteries, electronics,and motors.

Appendix B ■ 199

Vehicle Systems R&D

Description: DOE’s Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies works with its industry partners and their suppliers to research anddevelop technologies that make heavy vehicles more energy efficient and able to use alternative fuels, while reducing vehicleemissions.

Objective: This program aims to encourage optimum performance and efficiency in trucks and other heavy vehicles.




Implementing entities: DOE and national laboratories.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program increases energy and national security, boosts energy effi-ciency, reduces reliance on foreign energy sources, supports the economy through more efficient transportation of goods, andimproves safety through advanced truck materials.


Clean Cities

Description: DOE’s Clean Cities program supports public–private partnerships that deploy alternative-fuel vehicles (AFVs) andbuild supporting infrastructure, including community networks. Clean Cities works directly with local businesses and govern-ments, guiding them through each step in the process of building the foundation for a vibrant local organization, including goal-setting, coalition-building, and securing commitments. Current and potential members of the Clean Cities network also helpeach other by sharing local innovations, addressing and relaying obstacles they encounter in pursuing alternative-fuel programs,and exchanging “do’s” and “don’ts,” based on experiences in these programs. Clean Cities continually pioneers innovations andaspires to make strides nationally as well as locally.

Objective: By encouraging AFV use, Clean Cities aims to help cities enhance their energy security and air quality.




Implementing entities: DOE, local stakeholders, and local governments.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: Clean Cities increases energy efficiency, promotes private–public coop-eration and information sharing, provides answers to complex issues, builds a network of contacts, and educates the public.

Appendix B ■ 201

Biofuels Program

Description: Sponsored by DOE’s Office of Fuels Development, the Biofuels Program researches, develops, demonstrates, andfacilitates the commercialization of biomass-based, environmentally sound, cost-competitive U.S. technologies to develop cleanfuels for transportation, leading to the establishment of a major biofuels industry. The program is currently pursuing the devel-opment of conversion technologies for bioethanol and biodiesel fuels. It encourages the use of biomass sources, such as wastepa-per and wood residues, to serve near-term niche markets as a bridging strategy to position the biofuels industry for the long-termbulk fuel markets. To meet these ends, the program focuses on researching and developing integrated biofuels systems; creatingstrategic partnerships with U.S. industry and other stakeholders; and improving the program’s operations through well-definedmetrics, communication, and coordination with stakeholders and customers.

Objective: The Biofuels Program aims to encourage the large-scale use of environmentally sound, cost-competitive, biomass-based transportation fuels.




Implementing entities: DOE, national laboratories and private-sector partners (industry, individuals, and research organiza-tions).

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The Biofuels Program increases energy efficiency; reduces reliance onforeign energy sources; promotes the industry internationally, the commercialization of bio-based products, and renewableresources; creates jobs; and provides a larger market for agricultural goods.


Commuter Options Programs: Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative; Parking Cash-Out; Transit Check;Telecommute Initiative; Others6

Descriptions:7 EPA sponsors a number of voluntary commuter initiatives to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and criteriapollutants from the transportation sector:

• The Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative is a voluntary employer-adopted program that helps to increase commuter flexibilityby expanding mode options, arranging flexible scheduling, and offering work location choices. EPA provides a variety oftechnical support measures and recognition. Commuter Choice has also been implemented for workers at all federal agen-cies.

• Parking Cash-Out is a benefit in which employers offer employees the option to receive taxable income in lieu of a free orsubsidized parking space at work. A similar set of tax law changes allows employers to offer nontaxable transit/vanpool ben-efits, currently up to $100 monthly.

• The National Environmental Policy Institute (NEPI) initiated an incentive-based pilot Telecommuting Initiative that providesemployers with tradable criteria pollutant emission credits for reducing vehicle miles traveled from telecommuting work-ers and is working to include greenhouse gases. Given rapid technological advances, telecommuting offers substantialopportunity to reduce the need for some employees to travel to work.

Objective: These programs help to reduce growth in single-occupant-vehicle commuting by providing incentives and alterna-tive modes, timing, and locations for work.

Greenhouse gases affected: The principal greenhouse gas affected in the transportation sector is carbon dioxide. However,transportation actions also contribute to reductions of nitrous oxide and methane.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary and negotiated agreements, tax incentives to employers and employees, information,education, and outreach.

Status of implementation: Launched in 2000, EPA’s Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative intends to sign up 550 employersby end of 2002. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 put Parking Cash Out and Transit Check into effective practice. A number ofstates, notably California, have implemented measures to encourage Parking Cash Out. NEPI is launching the TelecommutingInitiative effort in 2001 in five major metropolitan areas. EPA estimates greenhouse gas emission reductions of 3.5 teragrams ofCO2 in 2000, and projects reductions of more than 14 teragrams of CO2 in 2010.

Implementing entities: Commuter Choice—EPA and DOT, in partnership with employers; Parking Cash Out and TransitCheck—individual employers, through the revision in the Internal Revenue Service Code; Telecommuting Initiative—NEPI incollaboration with EPA, DOT, and DOE.

Costs of policy or measure: These programs impose modest, voluntarily borne costs on businesses, which are largely offset byother savings. Commuter option programs generate benefits through increased employee productivity, satisfaction, and lowertaxes. Participants in the telecommuting initiative can sell emission credits on the open market or to states for use in state imple-mentation plans. Educational and outreach programs pose no direct costs on businesses.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: These programs will reduce energy use, traffic congestion, and criteriapollutant emissions, including nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (which are ozone precursors considered to haveindirect global warming potential).

Interaction with other policies or measures: These programs are synergistic with one another, with “smart growth” and tran-sit programs, and with state implementation plans and other required measures under the Clean Air Act.

6 Part of Action 20 in the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report.7 These commuter options replace EPA’s Transportation Partners Program.

Appendix B ■ 203

Smart Growth and Brownfields Policies

Description: EPA began the Air-Brownfields Pilot Program in response to concerns that air regulations were preventing the rede-velopment of brownfields, which are abandoned industrial properties that may be moderately contaminated. The programdemonstrated that brownfield redevelopment and local land-use policies, such as infill and transit-oriented development, couldhelp reduce vehicle miles traveled.

EPA issued Improving Air Quality Through Land Use Activities in 2001 on how to take credit in a state implementation plan (SIP) forlocal land-use policies that reduce emissions. Many cities have launched initiatives to encourage such development and plan toincrease development beyond what was anticipated in their Clean Air Act SIP submissions.

Other brownfield initiatives include three types of grants: Assessment Demonstration Pilots, to assess brownfield sites and test cleanup andredevelopment models; Job Training Pilots, to train residents of affected communities to facilitate cleanup and work in the envi-ronmental field; and Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Pilots, which capitalize loan funds for cleaning up brownfields.

The Smart Growth Network funds and facilitates a variety of smart growth-supportive activities and forums. The American Plan-ning Association’s Growing Smarter Program plans to target state government officials with a National Planning Statute Clear-inghouse and Database, and the Growing Smartsm Legislative Guidebook, which will include model statutes for transportation demandmanagement. Additionally, a consensus has emerged that shifting funding to transit, nonmotorized modes, and other alternativesmore compatible with Smart Growth can increase demand for these alternatives, facilitate infill development, and decrease vehi-cle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. Federal research and outreach have increased the inclusion of these induceddemand/land-use issues into transportation models and planning processes.

Objective: These initiatives help to reduce the length and number of motorized trips.

Greenhouse gases affected: Primarily carbon dioxide, but also nitrous oxide and methane.

Type of policy or measure: Technical assistance, outreach, and voluntary acceptance of airquality credits based on meetingguidance standards.

Status of implementation: The Air-Brownfields Pilot Program is complete, the land-use SIP guidance based on it has been pilot-tested in four cities, and credit issuance begins in 2001. Technical assistance underway includes over 350 AssessmentDemonstration pilot programs, over 100 Loan Fund pilot programs, and nearly 50 Job Training and Development pilot programs.EPA estimates reductions of 2.7 teragrams of CO2 in 2000, and projects 11 teragrams of CO2 by 2010.

Implementing entity or entities: EPA, states, municipalities, and planning agencies.

Costs of policy or measure: Federal guidance for voluntary credits imposes no cost. Private infill and brownfields developmentremain voluntary market-based decisions, and so impose no private costs.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: These initiatives reduce energy use, congestion, infrastructure costs, cri-teria air pollutants, and health threats from contaminated land; increase the tax base; and return contaminated land to produc-tive use.

Interaction with other policies or measures: These initiatives interact with SIPs.


Ground Freight Transportation Initiative

Description: This initiative is a voluntary program aimed at reducing emissions from the freight sector through the implemen-tation of advanced management practices and efficient technologies. It will focus on four areas: (1) assessing the most promisingtechnology and management practices and identifying their savings potential; (2) inviting stakeholder participation (associations,independent truckers, fleet managers, state and local governments, manufacturers, etc.) to determine the feasibility of theseopportunities and set program performance goals; (3) designing an emissions calculation tool that helps companies determinetheir environmental impact and identify cost-effective options for reaching the program’s performance goals; and (4) developing,implementing, and publicizing a partnership initiative with these stakeholders.

Objective: This program facilitates reductions in the growth of emissions associated with ground freight (truck and rail) throughthe increased use of efficient management practices, such as speed management, intermodal use and load matching, and advancedtechnologies, such as idle control systems and aerodynamics.

Greenhouse gases affected: The principal greenhouse gas affected in the transportation sector is carbon dioxide. However,transportation actions also contribute to reductions of nitrous oxide.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary and negotiated agreements, shipper policy changes, information, education, and out-reach.

Status of implementation: The program was kicked off in December 2001; a full program launch will occur in the summer of2002. EPA projects greenhouse gas emission reductions of 66 teragrams of CO2 in 2010.

Implementing entities: EPA and possibly DOT. Other organizations, such as the American Trucking Association and theAmerican Association of Railroads, will prove to be valuable allies in encouraging their members to join the initiative as membercompanies.

Costs of policy or measure: Similar programs impose modest, voluntarily borne costs on businesses, which are largely offsetby other savings. Some options may have substantial financial investments, such as truck stop electrification. Three differentstakeholder groups, including shippers, carriers, and manufacturers, will decide which strategies are most effective in their imple-mentation and return on investments. Educational and outreach programs pose no direct costs on businesses.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The program will reduce energy use, traffic congestion, and criteria pol-lutant emissions, including nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds—ozone precursors considered to have indirect glob-al warming potential.

Interaction with other policies or measures: This program is synergistic with state implementation plans and other requiredmeasures under the Clean Air Act.

Appendix B ■ 205

Clean Automotive Technology

Description: EPA’s Clean Automotive Technology (CAT) program is a research and partnership program with the automotiveindustry to develop advanced clean and fuel-efficient automotive technology.

Objectives: The program’s objectives are to develop break-through engine and powertrain technologies to provide dramatic fueleconomy improvement in cars and trucks––without sacrificing affordability, performance, or safety while meeting emissions stan-dards.

Greenhouse gases affected: Primarily carbon dioxide, but also nitrous oxide and methane.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary, research.

Status of implementation: EPA has demonstrated the CAT program’s potential to meet its objectives. EPA is collaborating withits partners to transfer the unique EPA-patented highly efficient hybrid engine and powertrain components, originally developedfor passenger car applications, to meet the more demanding size, performance, durability, and towing requirements of sport util-ity vehicles and urban delivery vehicle applications, while being practical and affordable with ultra-low emissions and ultra-highfuel efficiency. In 2001, the program signed a historic Cooperative Research and Development Agreement and LicenseAgreement with the Ford Corporation to invest further develop hydraulic hybrid and high-efficiency engine technology with anaim toward putting a pilot fleet of vehicles on the road by the end of the decade.

Implementing entities: EPA and the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory working in collaboration with the Fordand Eaton Corporations.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This partnership increases energy efficiency, economic productivity, andcompetitiveness; reduces energy dependence; expands the nation’s energy portfolio; has non-GHG environmental benefits;strengthens public–private cooperation and interaction; and creates jobs.

Interaction with other policies or measures: CAT could interact with state implementation plans and other Clean Air Actrequirements.


DOT Emission-Reducing Initiatives

DOT provides funding for and oversees transportation projects and programs that are implemented by the states and metropol-itan areas across the country. Funding is provided under numerous programs that have specific purposes broadly encompassed byDOT’s five main goals in the areas of: safety, mobility, economic growth and trade, national security, and human and natural envi-ronment.

Flexibility exists under the law to use program funds for a variety of different project types that are consistent with the overallpurposes of those funds. As such, highway funds may be used for transit, pedestrian improvements, bikeways, ride-sharing pro-grams, and other transportation-demand-management projects, a well as system improvements on the road network. Theapproach is decentralized in that, based on their own needs assessments, state and local governments determine what projectsshould be implemented and use DOT funds in ways consistent with the purpose of the funding program.

From 1998 and through 2003, approximately $218 billion is available to the states and metropolitan areas under DOT’s surfacetransportation programs. While none of these programs specifically targets greenhouse gas reduction, many of them reducegreenhouse gases as an ancillary benefit. Estimating the amount of greenhouse gases reduced is very difficult, since project selec-tion is left to the individual states and metropolitan areas, and this benefit will vary among projects. Following is a sampling ofsome of the more significant DOT programs that are likely to have ancillary greenhouse gas-reduction benefits.

• Transit Programs: Under the current authorization, transit programs will receive $41 billion between fiscal years 1998 and2003. Programs that allow funding for new starts of transit systems, fixed guideway modernization, bus system improve-ments and expansions, and high-speed rail development can have greenhouse gas reduction benefits. However, not all ofthe transit funding will have these benefits, since projects that help to operate or maintain the current system will proba-bly not attract new riders.

• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement: This program is targeted at reducing ozone, carbon monoxide, and particu-late matter generated by transportation sources. As the most flexible program under the current law, it funds new transitservices, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, alternative fuel projects, traffic flow improvements, and other emission-reducing projects. As such, several projects funded under the program will likely reduce greenhouse gases as well. This pro-gram provides about $1.35 billion a year to the states.

• Transportation Enhancements: Historically, about half of all Enhancement funding has been for bicycle and pedestrian improve-ments, which certainly have some greenhouse gas reduction benefits. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Centuryhas authorized about $560 million a year is for Enhancement activities over a six-year period.

• Transportation and Community System Preservation Pilot Program: This unique pilot program helps develop more livable communi-ties by addressing environmental, economic, and equity needs. States, local governments, and metropolitan planning organ-izations are eligible for discretionary grants to plan and implement strategies that improve the efficiency of thetransportation system, reduce environmental impacts and the need for costly future public infrastructure investments, andensure efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade. A total of $120 million is authorized for this program from fis-cal years 1999 through 2003.

• Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards: U.S. fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks were adoptedprimarily to save energy. Compliance is based on average performance, and additional credit toward compliance is avail-able to alternatively fueled vehicles. New vehicles offered for sale are also required to display labels that give consumers aclear indication of fuel economy. DOT is currently examining other market-based approaches to increase the average fueleconomy of new vehicles, and will review and provide recommendations on future CAFE standards.

Appendix B ■ 207

Industry (Non-CO2)

Natural Gas STAR8

Description: This a voluntary partnership between EPA and the U.S. natural gas industry is designed to overcome barriers to theadoption of cost-effective technologies and practices that reduce methane emissions.

Objective: The program’s primary objective is to reduce methane emissions from U.S. natural gas systems.

Greenhouse gas affected: Methane.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary/negotiated agreement.

Status of implementation: Launched in 1993 with the transmission and distribution sectors, Natural Gas STAR has sinceexpanded twice––to the production sector in 1995 and the processing sector in 2000. The program includes 88 corporate part-ners representing 40 percent of U.S. natural gas production, 72 percent of transmission company pipeline miles, 49 percent ofdistribution company service connections, and 23 percent of processing throughput.

Natural Gas STAR has developed a range of tools designed to help corporate partners implement best management practices toreduce leakage. These include an implementation guide, streamlined electronic reporting, a series of “lessons learned” studies,focused workshops, and partner-to-partner information exchanges. Extensive partner support for and continued expansion of theprogram, combined with ongoing feedback from partners, demonstrate the effectiveness of these tools in promoting methanereduction activities.

EPA estimates that the program reduced 15 teragrams of CO2 equivalent (38 Bcf methane) in 2000. Because of the expanded pro-gram’s tremendous success, EPA projects the program will reduce 22 teragrams of CO2 equivalent by 2010.

Implementing entities: EPA, in partnership with the U.S. natural gas industry.

Costs of policy or measure: Through Natural Gas STAR, partner companies implement only cost-effective methane reductionpractices. Practices implemented since the program’s launch have saved U.S. natural gas companies billions of dollars worth ofgas that would otherwise have leaked to the atmosphere.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: Many of the practices that partner companies undertake to reduce methaneemissions also reduce emissions of air pollutants and improve safety.

Interaction with other policies or measures: None.

Contact: Paul Gunning, EPA, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, (202) 564-9736, [email protected].

8 Action 32 in the 1997 U.S.Climate Action Report; continuing.


Coalbed Methane Outreach Program9

Description: This program reduces methane emissions associated with coal mining operations by (1) working with the coalindustry and other stakeholders to identify and remove obstacles to increased investment in coalbed methane recovery projects,and (2) raising awareness of opportunities for profitable investments.

Objective: The program aims to cost-effectively reduce methane emissions from U.S. coal mining operations.


Type of policy or measure: Information, education, and outreach.

Status of implementation: EPA began working with the coal mining industry in1990 and officially launched the CoalbedMethane Outreach Program (CMOP) in 1994. In 1990, coal mines captured and utilized only 25 percent of the methane pro-duced from their degasification systems. By 1999, the recovery fraction had grown to over 85 percent. To eliminate the remain-ing methane emitted from degasification systems, CMOP is working with industry to demonstrate the use of flare technology,which has never been employed at a U.S. mine.

With the program’s tremendous success in reducing methane emissions from degasification systems, CMOP has expanded itsfocus to the methane emitted from coal mine ventilation systems. Ventilation air from coal mines typically contains methane atconcentrations of just a few percent, yet accounts for 94 percent of the remaining methane emissions from underground coalmines—over 90 billion cubic feet of methane (about 36.6 teragrams of CO2 equivalent) annually. CMOP is working with indus-try to demonstrate and deploy newly developed technologies that can reduce these emissions substantially over the next fewyears.

CMOP has developed a range of tools designed to overcome barriers to recovery and combustion of coal mine methane. Theseinclude numerous technical and economic analyses of technologies and potential projects; mine-specific project feasibility assess-ments; state-specific analyses of project potential; guides to state, local, and federal assistance programs; and market evaluations.CMOP has worked with operators of virtually every U.S. underground coal mine to apply these tools and nurture each project.

In 2000, EPA estimates that CMOP reduced methane emissions by more than 7 teragrams of CO2 equivalent (19 Bcf methane).Because of unanticipated mine closures, EPA projections of reductions for the CMOP program have been reduced slightly sincethe 1997 submission, from 11 to 10 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in 2010. However, CMOP’s expected success in reducing ven-tilation air methane over the next few years may lead to an upward revision in the projected reductions for 2010 and beyond.

Implementing entities: EPA, in partnership with the U.S. coal industry.

Costs of policy or measure: Coal mines implement only cost-effective methane recovery and utilization projects. Projectsimplemented since the program’s launch have earned U.S. coal companies million of dollars in energy sales.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: CMOP improves both the efficiency of methane recovery from coalmines and mine safety.


Contact: Karl Schultz, EPA, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, (202) 564-9468, [email protected].


Appendix B ■ 209

Significant New Alternatives Program10

Description: Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorized EPA to develop a program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-deplet-ing chemicals.

Objective: The Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP) facilitates the smooth transition away from ozone-depletingchemicals in major industrial and consumer sectors, while minimizing risks to human health and the environment. Sectors thatthe program focuses on include air conditioning, refrigeration, aerosols, solvent cleaning, foams, fire suppression and explosionprotection, adhesives, coatings and inks, and sterilants.

Greenhouse gases affected: Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs).

Type of policy or measure: While SNAP actions are regulatory, the program also serves as an information clearinghouse onalternative chemicals and technologies, and collaborates extensively with industry and other government partners on variousresearch activities.

Status of implementation: Hundreds of alternatives determined to reduce overall risks to human health and the environmenthave been listed as acceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals. EPA has also used the authority under Section 612 tofind unacceptable uses or narrow the scope of uses allowed for HFCs and PFCs with high global warming potentials for specificapplications where better alternatives exist. EPA estimates that the program has reduced emissions by 50 teragrams of CO2 equiv-alent in 2000 and projects reductions of 156 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in 2010.

Implementing entity: SNAP regulations are promulgated by EPA and enforced when needed at the national level.

Costs of policy or measure: Costs are considered to be neutral in aggregate. SNAP either expands lists of available alternativesto ozone-depleting chemicals that have been, or are being, phased out under the Montreal Protocol, or restricts the use of poten-tial substitutes. In the first case, potential users are not required to use any one particular alternative listed as acceptable. WhereSNAP finds the use of alternatives (e.g., PFCs) unacceptable, the decision is based on the fact that other viable (i.e., effective andaffordable) alternatives are available that pose less risk to human health or the environment.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: In addition to encouraging responsible use of greenhouse gases as sub-stitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals, SNAP has increased worker and consumer safety by restricting the use of flammable ortoxic chemicals, has encouraged the overall reduction in chemicals used in various applications (e.g., solvent cleaning), and, insome cases, has restricted the use of volatile organic chemicals that generate ground-level ozone.

Interaction with other policies or measures: SNAP compliments the phase-out of ozone-depleting chemicals mandatedunder the Montreal Protocol and Clean Air Act. The program has worked to maintain balance between the need to find safe andeffective alternatives to ozone-depleting chemicals, while mitigating the potential effects of those alternatives on climate. HFCs,and in some cases, PFCs, have been listed as acceptable substitutes for specific end uses where safer or effective alternatives arenot available. Depending on the end use, efficacy has been defined as effectiveness in suppressing or preventing fires and explo-sions, thermal insulation value, or heat transfer efficiency.

Contact: Jeff Cohen, EPA, Global Programs Division, (202) 564-0135, [email protected].

10 Action 40 in the 1997 U.S.Climate Action Report.


HFC-23 Partnership11

Description: This partnership works to cost-effectively reduce emissions of the potent greenhouse gas HFC-23, which is a by-product in the manufacture of HCFC-22.

Objective: Through this program, EPA encourages companies to develop and implement technically feasible, cost-effective pro-cessing practices or technologies to reduce HFC-23 emissions.

Greenhouse gas affected: HFC-23.


Status of implementation: This is an ongoing program with all the U.S. producers of HCFC- 22. The program partners haveeffectively reduced emissions of HFC-23 through process optimization, reaching the total reductions that can likely be achievedthrough this technique. In addition, some companies have used thermal destruction to reduce or eliminate their emissions. Thepartnership has encouraged the industry to reduce the intensity of HFC-23 emissions (the amount of HFC-23 emitted per kilo-gram of HCFC-22 manufactured) by 35 percent. Thus, despite an estimated 35 percent increase in production since 1990, totalemissions have declined by 15 percent. EPA estimates reductions of 17 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in 2000 and projects reduc-tions of 27 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in 2010.

Implementing entity: EPA is the sole government entity implementing this program. The program is open to all producers ofHCFC-22 operating in the United States.

Costs of policy or measure: Emission reductions achieved through process optimization are cost-effective.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: None.


Contact: Sally Rand, EPA, Global Programs Division, (202) 564-9739, [email protected].


Appendix B ■ 211

Partnership with Aluminum Producers12

Description: This partnership program with the primary aluminum smelting industry is designed to reduce perfluorocarbonsemitted as a by-product of the smelting process.

Objective: EPA is partnering with primary aluminum producers to reduce perfluoromethane and perfluoroethane where techni-cally feasible and cost-effective. The overall goal of the partnership is to reduce emissions by 30–60 percent from 1990 levels by2000. Future reduction goals are being set.

Greenhouse gas affected: Perfluoromethane and perfluoroethane.


Status of implementation: Since the partnership was formed in 1996, it has had great success in further characterizing the emis-sions from smelter operations and reducing overall emissions. As of 2000, a new agreement has been negotiated to continue toexplore and implement emission reduction options through 2005. The overall goal for the program in 2000 has been met, withemissions reduced by about 50 percent relative to 1990 levels, on an emissions per unit of product basis. Absolute emissions havebeen reduced by an even greater percentage because some facilities have closed due to high energy costs in the Northwest. EPAestimates reductions of 7 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in 2000 and projects reductions of 10 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in2010.

Implementing entity: EPA is the sole government entity implementing this program. The program is open to all U.S. primaryaluminum producers.

Costs of policy or measure: Factors that cause these emissions are a sign of efficiency loss. Emission reductions result in processenhancements.






Environmental Stewardship Initiative13

Description: Environmental Stewardship Initiative was a new action proposed as part of the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report, basedon new opportunities to reduce emissions gases with high global warming potentials.

Objective: The objective initially was to limit emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, perfluororcarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride(which are potent greenhouse gases) in three industrial applications: semiconductor production, electric power systems, and mag-nesium production. Additional sectors are being assessed for the availability of cost-effective emission reduction opportunitiesand are being added to this initiative.

Greenhouse gases affected: Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluororcarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.


Status of implementation: EPA launched the semiconductor partnership in 1996 and launched the electric power system and mag-nesium partnerships in 1999. Implementation of the magnesium and electric power system partnerships is ongoing, with no sunsetdate. The semiconductor partnership will be ongoing through 2010. EPA currently projects that the programs will reduce emissionsby 93 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in 2010. Because resource constraints delayed implementation of the electric power system andmagnesium partnerships, EPA’s estimate of the reduction in 2000, 3 teragrams of CO2 equivalent, is less than expected.

Implementing entity: EPA is the sole government entity implementing this initiative. Partnerships are open to manufacturersoperating in the United States and to electric power systems with equipment containing greater than 15 pounds of sulfur hexa-fluoride and all primary and die-casting magnesium operations.

Costs of policy or measure: Emission reductions are believed to be possible through inexpensive and cost-effective means.




13 New in the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report.

Appendix B ■ 213

AgricultureAgriculture Outreach Programs: AgSTAR; Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program14

Description: Specific practices aimed at directly reducing greenhouse gas emissions are developed, tested, and promotedthrough such outreach programs as AgSTAR and the Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program (RLEP).

Objectives: Through outreach to the agricultural community, these programs aim to demonstrate the technical feasibility of thepractices they promote.

Greenhouse gases affected: All greenhouse gases, but the focus has been on methane.


Status of implementation: These programs have been implemented. Their assessed impacts have changed since the 1997 sub-mission. While their impact on greenhouse gas emissions has been small on a national scale, program stakeholders in the agri-cultural community have demonstrated that the practices promoted by the programs can be effective in reducing greenhouse gasemissions and increasing productivity.

Twelve digesters have been installed on AgSTAR charter farms, resulting in a 37,000 teragrams of CO2 equivalent per year reduc-tion of emissions. An additional 13 facilities are in various stages of planning, pending additional funding. Installations at char-ter farms have demonstrated the technical and economic feasibility of biogas production and utilization on livestock productionfacilities with a wide range of manure-handling systems. Workshops related to the program have been held around the countryto further promote biogas production and utilization technology. In all, 31 systems are operating in the United States, resultingin a total annual reduction of approximately 110,000 teragrams of CO2 equivalent.

The RLEP has funded the establishment of 50 demonstration farms throughout the Southeast. Production efficiency improve-ments have been recorded at these farms, and numerous field days have been held to transfer this knowledge to others. The RLEPhas also supported the development of a cow/calf management course aimed at improving animal performance measures directlyrelated to greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, with the support of state-level nongovernment organizations, such as the Vir-ginia Forage and Grassland Council, the RLEP has helped to improve forage and pasture management by encouraging the effec-tive use of rotational grazing practices.

EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will continue to evaluate these and other barriers and identify appropriateactions to address them.

Implementing entities: EPA and USDA.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: Technologies used at certain confined animal feeding operations toreduce methane concentrations are achieving other environmental benefits, including odor control and nutrient managementopportunities. In addition, many of the practices recommended by the RLEP for improving forage production remove carbondioxide from the atmosphere by storing carbon in the soil as organic matter.

14 Actions 38 and 39 in the 1997 U.S.Climate Action Report.


Nutrient Management Tools15

Description: The Nitrogen Leaching and Economic Assessment Package (NLEAP) was enhanced to include the ability to quan-tify nitrous oxide losses to the atmosphere. USDA began collaborating with partners on the development of two nutrient man-agement tools that could be used to improve overall nitrogen fertilizer use efficiency at the farm level.

Objectives: This effort aims to build and make available to producers a database that documents nitrous oxide emissions fromdifferent types of nitrogen fertilizer management. These efforts are intended to improve the overall efficiency of nitrogen fertil-izer use at the farm level and to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from the application of nitrogen fertilizer.

Greenhouse gas affected: Nitrous oxide.


Status of implementation: The NLEAP model has been implemented. USDA is working with Purdue University to develop andimplement the Manure Management Planner (MMP), a nutrient budgeting tool. MMP enables producers, and others who pro-vide producers nutrient management assistance, to allocate nutrients based on a crop-specific nutrient budget that matches actu-al nutrient application rates with recommended application rates or crop removal rates. The combination of MMP and NLEAPwill enable producers to both develop a detailed crop nutrient budget as well as assess its impact on nitrous oxide emissions.Proper use and crediting of the nitrogen contributed by legume crops, and the availability and use of both NLEAP and MMP,will assist in reducing nitrous oxide emissions. In the 1997 submission, projected reductions from this action were 18.3 teragramsof CO2 equivalent. At this time, more analysis is needed to develop estimates and projections of emissions from this action.

Implementing entities: USDA, working with partners in 20 states.

15 Part of Action 17 in the 1997 U.S.Climate Action Report.

Appendix B ■ 215

USDA Commodity Credit Corporation Bioenergy Program

Description: USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Bioenergy Program pays U.S. commercial bioenergy producers toincrease their bioenergy production from eligible commodities. Payments are based on the increase in bioenergy productioncompared to the previous year’s production fiscal year to date. To receive payments, producers must provide CCC evidence ofincreased purchase of agricultural commodities and increased production of bioenergy. The program provides up to $150 millionfor fiscal years 2001 and 2002, which is paid out on a quarterly fiscal year-to-date basis. A payment limitation restricts the amountof funds any single producer may obtain annually under the program to 5 percent, or $7.5 million.

Objective: The program’s goal is to expand industrial consumption of agricultural commodities by promoting their use in theproduction of bioenergy.



Status of implementation: The program was implemented at $15 million in fiscal year 2001 and will receive $150 million infiscal year 2002.

Implementing entities: The program is administered by USDA’s Farm Service Agency and funded by CCC.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The program provides incentives for agriculture to be part of the nation’senergy solutions by promoting the industrial consumption of agricultural commodities for bioenergy production; expandsdemand for corn and other grains used in ethanol production and creates new markets for oilseed crops; and increases net returnsfor ethanol and biodiesel processors, which will encourage expanded production capacity for these fuels and enhance rural devel-opment.


Conservation Reserve Program: Biomass Project

Description: USDA has implemented Section 769 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration andRelated Agencies Appropriations Act of 2000. This act authorizes Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land for pilot biomass proj-ects for the harvesting of biomass to be used for energy production. The program restricts all land subject to CRP contracts that par-ticipates in a biomass pilot project from being harvested for biomass more than once every other year. No more than 25 percent ofthe total acreage enrolled in any crop-reporting district may be harvested in any year. And participants in a project must agree to a25 percent reduction in their normal CRP annual rental payment for each year in which the acreage is harvested.

Objective: The project’s objective is to provide biomass for energy production.



Status of implementation: The program has been implemented. The Secretary of Agriculture has approved four projects thatwill produce electricity using grasses in Iowa, hybrid poplar trees in Minnesota, willows in New York, and switchgrass in NewYork and Pennsylvania.

Implementing entity: USDA.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This project enhances rural development.

Appendix B ■ 217

Forestry

Forest Stewardship16

Description: USDA’s Forest Stewardship and Forest Stewardship Incentive Programs provide technical and financial assistanceto nonindustrial, private forest owners. The Forest Stewardship Program helps such owners prepare integrated managementplans, and the Stewardship Incentives Program cost-shares up to 75 percent of approved management practices, such as afforesta-tion and reforestation. USDA’s Forest Service manages both programs, in cooperation with state forestry agencies. A recent sur-vey of landowners with Forest Stewardship Plans found that they were three times as likely to implement these plans if theyreceived financial and technical assistance.

Objective: The programs’ intent is to improve conservation of our lands through enhanced planning and management. An orig-inal goal of the Stewardship Incentive Program was to increase tree planting in the United States by over 94,000 hectares(232,180 acres) a year within five years and to maintain this expanded level of planting for another five years.



Status of implementation: The programs have been implemented. During fiscal years 1991–99, 150,964 hectares (372,881acres) of trees were planted.

Implementing entities: USDA Forest Service in cooperation with state forestry agencies.

Costs of policy or measure: The cost of the program during this same period was about $23.5 million. The program was notfunded for fiscal years 1999 through 2001.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: About 147 million hectares of U.S. forests are nonindustrial, privateforestlands. Private forests provide many ecological and economic benefits. They currently provide about 60 percent of ournation’s timber supply, with expectations of increases in the future. Improved planning and management on nonindustrial, pri-vate forestlands and marginal agricultural lands can help meet resource needs and provide important ancillary benefits thatimprove environmental quality—e.g., wildlife habitat, soil conservation, water quality protection and improvement, and recre-ation. Additionally, tree planting and forest management increase the uptake of carbon dioxide and the storage of carbon in liv-ing biomass, soils, litter, and long-life wood products.



Waste ManagementClimate and Waste Program17

Description: This program encourages recycling and source reduction for the purpose of reducing greenhouse emissions. EPA isimplementing a number of targeted efforts within this program to achieve its climate goals. WasteWise is EPA’s flagship volun-tary waste reduction program. EPA initiatives on extended product responsibility and biomass further reduction efforts throughvoluntary or negotiated agreements with product manufacturers and market development activities. The Pay-As-You-Throw ini-tiative provides information to community-based programs on cost incentives for residential waste reduction.

Objective: The program aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through progressive waste management activities.

Greenhouse gases affected: The program takes a life-cycle perspective on greenhouse gas emissions from waste managementpractices, accounting for emissions and sinks from energy use, forest management, manufacturing, transportation, and waste man-agement. The principal greenhouse gases affected are carbon dioxide and methane; nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbons are alsoaffected.

Type of policy or measure: The program is a voluntary effort, using partnerships, information dissemination, technical assis-tance, and research to promote greenhouse gas reductions.

Status of implementation: WasteWise currently has over 1,200 partners, representing 53 civic and industrial sectors and rang-ing from Fortune 1000 companies to small local governments. Extended product responsibility is facilitating negotiationsbetween industry and state leaders on product stewardship systems (e.g., carpets and electronics). The biomass effort includes acompost quality seal program, compost use for state highway projects, and market development for bio-based products. Over5,000 communities are participating in the program’s Pay-As-You-Throw educational initiative, which provides ongoing techni-cal assistance to stakeholders ranging from industry to governments and international organizations. EPA estimates reductions of8 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in 2000 and projects reductions of 20 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in 2010.

Implementing entities: EPA, working with government, industry, and nongovernment organizations, acts as the primary imple-menting agency.

Costs of policy or measure: Most of the waste-reduction measures result in cost savings or minimal costs when viewed from afull-cost accounting perspective.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: Measures under this program yield collateral benefits, including energy sav-ings, and reduced emissions from raw materials acquisition, virgin materials manufacturing, and waste disposal.

Interaction with other policies or measures: EPA’s Climate and Waste Program has assisted organizations interested in quan-tifying and voluntarily reporting greenhouse gas emission reductions (e.g., through DOE’s 1605b Program) from waste manage-ment activities. Also, EPA’s activities under Initiative 16 complement its methane reduction programs (Actions 33 and 34),including the Landfill Methane Outreach Program.

17 Part of Action 16 in the 1997 U.S.Climate Action Report; continuing.

Appendix B ■ 219

Stringent Landfill Rule18

Description: Landfill gas, which is the largest contributor to U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions, also contains significantquantities of nonmethane organic compounds. Landfill New Source Performance Standards and Emissions Guidelines (LandfillRule) require large landfills to capture and combust their landfill gas emissions. Due to climate concerns, this rule was made morestringent (i.e., by lowering the emissions level at which landfills must comply with the rule from 100 to 50 megagrams of non-methane organic compounds per year), resulting in greater landfill gas recovery and combustion.

The rule works hand-in-hand with EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program to promote cost-effective reductions in methaneemissions at larger landfills. The Landfill Methane Outreach Program provides landfills with technical, economic, and outreachinformation to help them comply with the rule in a way that maximizes benefits to the environment while lowering costs.

Objective: The rule requires U.S. landfills to capture and combust their landfill gas emissions. This reduces their emissions ofmethane, as well as nonmethane organic compounds.



Status of implementation: The Landfill Rule was promulgated under the Clean Air Act in March 1996, and implementationbegan at the state level in 1998. Preliminary data on the impact of the rule indicate that increasing its stringency has significantlyincreased the number of landfills that must collect and combust their landfill gas. EPA estimates reductions in 2000 at 15 tera-grams of CO2 equivalent. The current projection for 2010 is 33 teragrams of CO2 equivalent, although the preliminary data sug-gest that reductions from the more stringent rule may be even greater over the next decade.

Implementing entities: EPA promulgated the Landfill Rule, and individual states implement it.

Costs of policy or measure: The rule’s objective is to reduce nonmethane organic compound emissions because of their con-tribution to local air pollution. Combustion of the of nonmethane organic compound-containing landfill gas also reduces themethane it contains, at no incremental cost.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: Combusting landfill gas reduces emissions of nonmethane organic com-pounds as well as methane. It also can reduce odors and improve safety by stopping landfill gas migration.

Interaction with other policies or measures: The rule interacts with the Landfill Methane Outreach Program.



Landfill Methane Outreach Program19

Description: Landfills are the largest source of U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions. Capture and use of landfill gas reducemethane emissions directly and carbon dioxide emissions indirectly by displacing the use of fossil fuels. The Landfill MethaneOutreach Program (LMOP) works with landfill owners, state energy and environmental agencies, utilities and other energy sup-pliers, industry, and other stakeholders to lower the barriers to landfill gas-to-energy project development.

While LMOP works hand-in-hand with EPA’s Landfill Rule to promote cost-effective reductions in methane emissions at largerlandfills, it focuses its outreach efforts on smaller landfills not regulated by the rule, encouraging the capture and use of methanethat would otherwise be emitted to the atmosphere. LMOP has developed a range of tools to help landfill operators overcomebarriers to project development, including feasibility analyses, software for evaluation project economics, profiles of hundreds ofcandidate landfills across the country, a project development handbook, and energy end-user analyses.

Objective: The program aims to reduce methane emissions from U.S. landfills.

Greenhouse gases affected: Methane and carbon dioxide.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary/negotiated agreements, information, education, and outreach.

Status of implementation: Launched in December 1994, LMOP has achieved significant reductions through 2000, reducingmethane emissions from landfills by an estimated 11 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in that year alone. The program includes over240 allies and partners, and the number of landfill gas-to-energy projects has grown from less than 100 in the early 1990s toalmost 320 projects by the end of 2000. EPA projects reductions of 22 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in 2010.

Implementing entities: EPA, in partnership with landfills and the landfill gas-to-energy industry.

Costs of policy or measure: LMOP participants implement only cost-effective landfill gas-to-energy projects. Projects imple-mented since the program’s launch have created millions of dollars of revenue for public and private landfill owners and others.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: Combusting landfill gas reduces emissions of nonmethane organic com-pounds as well as methane. It also can reduce odors and improve safety by stopping landfill gas migration.

Interaction with other policies or measures: The program interacts with the Landfill Rule.

Contact: Paul Gunning, EPA, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, (202) 564-9736, [email protected].


Appendix B ■ 221

Cross-sectoral

Federal Energy Management Program

Description: The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) is a separate DOE sector. It reduces energy use in federal build-ings, facilities, and operations by advancing energy efficiency and water conservation, promoting the use of renewable energy,and managing the utility choices of federal agencies. FEMP accomplishes its mission by leveraging both federal and privateresources to provide technical and financial assistance to other federal agencies. FEMP helps agencies achieve their goals by pro-viding alternative financing tools and guidance to use the tools, technical and design assistance for new construction and retro-fit projects, training, technology transfer, procurement guidance, software tools, and reporting and evaluation of all agencies’programs.

Objective: The program aims to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy use in federal buildings, facilities, and opera-tions.


Types of policy or measure: Economic, information, and education.


Implementing entities: DOE and other federal agencies.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The program has non-greenhouse gas environmental benefits, improvesenergy efficiency, promotes interaction and information sharing across federal agencies, provides education and training to fed-eral personnel, and supports technology development and deployment.


State and Local Climate Change Outreach Program

Description: This program provides a variety of technical and outreach/education services related to climate change, includingguidance documents, impacts information, modeling tools, policy and technology case studies, electronic newsletters and com-munications, technical assistance, networking opportunities, and modest financial support for analysis and activities. The expect-ed results are increased awareness about climate change, well-informed policy choices, and accelerated reductions in greenhousegas emissions, as well as additional economic and clean air benefits achieved from lower emissions.

Objective: The program aims to enable state and local decision makers to incorporate climate change planning into their prior-ity planning, so as to help them maintain and improve their economic and environmental assets.


Type of policy or measure: Information, education, and research (policy analysis).

Status of implementation: The program has been ongoing since the early 1990s and has recently expanded its focus to encour-age comprehensive, multi-pollutant policy planning. The program’s budget for fiscal year 2000 was $0.8 million; for fiscal year2001, it was $1.23 million.

Implementing entities: EPA provides technical and financial support to state and local governments through this effort. Thestate and local governments, in turn, develop greenhouse gas inventories and action plans where they set reduction targets forthemselves. They also conduct outreach and demonstration projects in their jurisdictions to increase awareness about climatechange and facilitate replication of successful mitigation opportunities.

Costs of policy or measure: State and local governments have identified tremendous potential and actual opportunities fromgreenhouse gas emission reductions. For example, 12 of the state plans completed so far have forecast reductions of 2010 emis-sions by 13 percent (256 teragrams of CO2 equivalent) cumulatively, with a cost savings exceeding $7.8 billion if the actions areimplemented as recommended. Local governments are reporting actual savings of about 7 teragrams of CO2 equivalent per yearfrom their efforts, with cost savings of $70 million.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: Local governments are reporting actual savings of 28,000 tons of air pol-lution and $70 million in energy and fuel costs each year. State plans have identified annual potential energy and fuel savings ofalmost $8 billion, plus the creation of more than 20,000 jobs from climate change mitigation policies. One state plan identifiedmitigation policies that would reduce cumulative acid rain precursors and ground-level ozone precursors by 24 and 30 percent,respectively, through 2020.

Interaction with other policies or measures: Rather than trying to be an expert at all levels, the program serves as a one-stopshop for state and local governments looking to reduce greenhouse gases. When governments express interest in particular activ-ities and technologies that are covered under a national program, the program refers them to the appropriate program so theymay acquire additional information and move forward under the guidance of national experts.

Contact: Julie Rosenberg, EPA, Global Programs Division, (202) 564-9154, [email protected].

Appendix C Part 1: Selected Technology Transfer Activities

Part 2: Table 7.3—U.S. Direct Financial Contributions and Commercial SalesRelated to Implementation of the UNFCCC


Renewable Energy Power Generation & Renewable Energy in Rural Areas

Purpose: Promote the appropriate and sustainable use of renewable-energy (RE) technologies in Mexico to (1) increase the qual-ity and lower the costs of RE technologies and systems by expanding markets for, and providing feedback to, the U.S. andMexican RE industry; (2) increase the use of clean energy sources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit pollution; and(3) increase the economic, social, and health standards in rural, off-grid communities by utilizing energy for productive-use appli-cations.

Recipient country: Mexico.

Sector: Mitigation: energy.

Total funding: $12 million.

Years in operation: 1994–present.

Description: The program implements RE projects that demonstrate the technology and its application on a larger scale by theGovernment of Mexico. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) helped government counterpart agenciesdevelop two national plans that promote RE through expansion/replication of USAID pilot efforts. For example in 1999, morethan 100 RE systems were installed that will generate more than 14,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity over their lifetimesthat would have otherwise been generated by fossil fuel plants. The majority of this power generation is taking place in the townof San Juanico, Baja California Sur, where a large USIJI-approved hybrid RE (wind and photovoltaic) project will avoid the gen-eration of approximately 100,000 teragrams of CO2 emissions over the project’s estimated 30-year lifetime.

Factors that led to project’s success: The model for the Mexico Renewable Energy Program is based on guidelines providedby the Photovoltaic System Assistance Center (15 years of domestic and international interactions) at Sandia NationalLaboratories and 8 years of experience gained by the program from working in Mexico. The fundamental principles of the modelare (1) partnerships, (2) capacity building, (3) technical assistance, (4) pilot project implementation, (5) project replication, and(6) monitoring.

Technology transferred: Equipment to prevent the anthropogenic generation of GHGs: Photovoltaic and small wind electric systems tiedto specific applications, such as water pumping, electrification, home lighting systems, and communications.

Impact on greenhouse gas emissions/sinks (optional): Not calculated.

Appendix C ■ 225

EcoHomes Project/Sustainable Homes Initiative

Purpose: To promote energy-efficient housing design to increase savings in space heating and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.EcoHomes trains lenders, builders, and community groups to increase their awareness of low-cost, environmentally sound, energy-efficient housing that can be incorporated into South Africa’s housing program.

Recipient country: South Africa.


Total funding: $750,000.

Years in operation: EcoHomes: 1997–2001; SHI: 1999–2002.

Description: USAID’s approach to environmental programs in South Africa is aligned with the country’s immediate developmentneeds (i.e., housing) and the South African government’s development policy, which seeks to implement environmentally benigndevelopment projects. USAID has supported these two sustainable housing initiatives that link renewable energy use with newhousing developments as a solution for nonurban areas having no access to the power grid. These initiatives aim to promote thedevelopment of energy-efficient, environmentally sustainable, and affordable housing.

USAID co-sponsors the Sustainable Homes Initiative (SHI), a national effort to increase awareness and construction of environ-mentally sustainable, affordable housing. SHI provides professional assistance to housing designers and developers to increaseenergy efficiency and environmental sustainability; develop and market building materials and products; train builders, lenders,and policymakers; disseminate products, designs, and professional resources; and develop case studies documenting the cost andenvironmental benefits of energy-efficient housing.

Factors that led to project’s success: Active participation of all stakeholders involved, ranging from the local and nationalgovernments to banks and builders; compatibility with the national government’s development objectives.

Technology transferred: Equipment to prevent the anthropogenic generation of GHGs: Passive-solar building design, appropriate buildingmaterials for home insulation; landscape design with shade trees.

Impact on greenhouse gas emissions/sinks (optional): 1999: Kutlwanong Civic Association/Eco-Homes project saved an estimated 210 metric tons of CO2 per year. The GugulethuCommunity Development Corporation’s construction of model homes led to a savings of 13 metric tons of CO2.2000: With the addition of 11,400 houses, 99.4 gigagrams of CO2 will be avoided over the project’s 25-year lifetime.


Coastal Resources Management Program

Purpose: To promote the essential elements of sustainable development—protecting the world’s environment, fostering bal-anced economic growth, encouraging democratic participation in governance, and improving the health and well-being of peo-ple in developing countries—in the context of coastal resource management.

Recipient countries: Indonesia, Tanzania, Mexico.

Sector: Adaptation: coastal zone management, protection of coral reefs and other marine resources.

Total Funding: $31 million.

Years in operation: 1999–2003.

Description: This program promotes integrated coastal management. It includes such activities as development of watershedmanagement plans; protection of marine areas; conservation of critical coastal habitats to protect from storm surge, sea level rise,and erosion; and development of best practices for coastal planning.

Factors that led to project’s success: An integrated, participatory approach by stakeholders at the local and national levelsto coastal management, which allows for effective response to development challenges, including those posed by climate vul-nerability, variability, and sea level rise.

Technology transferred: Capacity building for integrated coastal management; geographic information systems (GIS) for map-ping coastal resources.

Impact on greenhouse gas emissions/sinks (optional): Not applicable.

Appendix C ■ 227

Philippine Climate Change Mitigation Program

Purpose: To mitigate greenhouse gas emissions through energy-sector initiatives without adversely affecting economic growth.The program focuses on four principal efforts to help the Government of the Philippines and the local private sector to (1)increase the use of clean fuels, including natural gas and renewable energy; (2) improve the policy environment for power-sec-tor restructuring and privatization; (3) increase energy efficiency; and (4) strengthen the institutional capability of governmentagencies involved in the restructuring of the energy sector.

Recipient country: Philippines.


Total funding: $8.9 million.


Description: This joint program of USAID and the Government of the Philippines is a direct response to mitigate global cli-mate change. It promotes more efficient generation, distribution, and consumption of electricity by expanding the use of cleanfuels, building public and private-sector capacity for improved energy-sector development and management.

Factors that led to project’s success: The development of policies that lead to the adoption of legislative and administrativeactions that result in increased efficiency and/or cleaner energy production.

Technology transferred: Capacity building.

Impact on greenhouse gas emissions/sinks (optional): Avoidance of approximately 19.2 teragrams of CO2 equivalent peryear by 2002 through the use of cleaner fuels; and avoidance of at least 1.7 teragrams of CO2 equivalent per year by 2002 throughimprovements in energy efficiency.


Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Program

Purpose: (1) To promote sustainable development by reducing vulnerability to natural hazards in existing and planned devel-opment; (2) to improve public awareness and development decision making by accurately mapping hazard-prone areas; (3) toimprove hazard risk management by the insurance industry and help maintain adequate catastrophe protection for the region;(4) and to promote community-based disaster preparedness and prevention activities with support from the private sector.

Recipient countries: Caribbean region, Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Haiti,Jamaica, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, St. Lucia.

Sector: Adaptation: weather related disaster preparedness; vulnerability assessments.

Total funding: $5 million.


Description: Implemented for USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance by the Organization of American States’ Unit ofSustainable Development and Environment, this program’s activities target six major themes: (1) community-based preparedness,(2) hazard assessment and mapping, (3) hazard-resistant building practices, (4) vulnerability and risk audits for lifeline facilities,(5) promotion of hazard mitigation within the property insurance industry, and (6) incorporation of hazard mitigation into post-disaster recovery.

Factors that led to project’s success: (1) Close coordination with development finance institutions; (2) training of Caribbeanprofessionals, which raised awareness and provided potential long-term capacity for this type of work; (3) outreach to institu-tions that share a concern for disaster preparedness /loss reduction and have resources to contribute (e.g., financial services indus-try: banks and the property insurance industry); (4) USAID/OAS team approach to problem solving; (5) Technical AdvisoryCommittee’s ability to keep the project relevant to the needs of the region; and (6) implementation of the National MitigationPolicy and Planning Activity, which helped to facilitate the use of many mitigation tools, policies, and practices introduced bythe project.


Appendix C ■ 229

Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWS NET)

Purpose: To help establish more effective, sustainable, and African-led food security and response networks that reduce vulner-ability to food insecurity.

Recipient countries: Burkina Faso, Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda,Somalia, Southern Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Sector: Adaptation: agriculture.

Total funding: $6.3 million.

Years in operation: FEWS: 1985–2000; FEWS NET: 2000–2005 (planned).

Description: FEWS NET assesses short- to long-term vulnerability to food insecurity with environmental information from satel-lites and agricultural and socioeconomic information from field representatives. The program conducts vulnerability assessments,contingency and response planning, and other activities aimed at strengthening the capacities of host country food security net-works. Network members include host country and regional organizations that work on food security, response planning, envi-ronmental monitoring, and other relevant areas.

Factors that led to project’s success: (1) The combined environmental monitoring expertise of the U.S. National Aeronauticsand Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S GeologicalSurvey (USGS); (2) implementation by African field staff.

Technology transferred: Information networks: remote-sensing data acquisition, processing, and analysis; geographic information sys-tem (GIS) analytical skills. Equipment to facilitate adaptation: GIS hardware and software.



Río Bravo Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project in Belize

Purpose: To reduce, avoid, and mitigate approximately 2.4 teragrams of carbon over the life of the project through the preven-tion of deforestation and sustainable forest management practices.

Recipient country: Belize.

Sector: Mitigation: forest conservation.

Total funding: $5.6 million (U.S.) for first 10 of 40 years.

Years in operation: January 1995–present. Project duration is 40 years.

Description: This project is one of the first fully funded forest-sector projects implemented under USIJI. It was developed byThe Nature Conservancy in collaboration with Programme for Belize (PfB, a local NGO) and Winrock International. The proj-ect is underway at the Río Bravo Conservation and Management Area on 104,892 hectares (260,000 acres) of mixed lowland,moist subtropical broadleaf forest. PfB manages the project along with the entire private reserve. In addition to support from PfB,a number of energy companies provided $5.6 million to fund the first 10 years of the project, after which it is expected to beself-sustaining. These companies include Cinergy, Detroit Edison, PacifiCorp, Suncor, Utilitree Carbon Company, andWisconsin Electric/Wisconsin Gas, and American Electric Power.

Factors that led to project’s success: A well-designed forest conservation and management project can produce significantnet carbon benefits that are scientifically valid and long lasting. The project also helps conserve biodiversity, improve local envi-ronmental quality, and meet a variety of sustainable development goals by enhancing local capacity to manage and secure theprotected area. Management practices include (1) creation of undisturbed buffer areas and protection zones, (2) silvicultural treat-ments to boost biomass volume between cutting cycles, (3) reduced-impact harvesting techniques, (4) promotion of highlydurable timber products, and (5) enhanced fire management and site security.

Technology transferred: Training: Jobs and training in forestry, forest management, and park security.

Impact on greenhouse gas emissions/sinks (optional): A total of 59,720 hectares (153,000 acres) of mixed lowland, moistsubtropical broadleaf forest will be included under the project, leading to the protection of up to 240 tree species, 70 mammalspecies, and 390 bird species.

Appendix C ■ 231

Coal Mine Methane Recovery Project in China

Purpose: To work with the Government of China and the Chinese coal industry (1) to identify opportunities to reduce methaneemissions from coal mining and use these emissions as energy; (2) to develop the domestic capacity to implement coal minemethane technologies; and (3) to develop commercial partnerships between Chinese and foreign companies to realize profitableprojects that reduce methane emissions.

Recipient country: China.

Sector: Mitigation: energy, industry.

Total funding: $150,000.

Years in operation: 1989–present.

Description: Chinese mines are the greatest global source of methane emissions from coal mining. This U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) project involves assessments and pilot projects for capturing abundant gas resources at Chinese mines,with concurrent mine safety, power production, and climate benefits. A Coalbed Methane Information Clearinghouse is housedat the China Coal Information Institute and has conducted considerable outreach to U.S. and other companies interested in thismarket. The clearinghouse has published journals in Chinese and English, has hosted several domestic and international semi-nars, and has developed with EPA an economic analysis model to identify profitable projects to reduce methane emissions. It cur-rently is participating in studies that will ultimately lead to significant investment in commercial-scale projects. Theclearinghouse and EPA signed an agreement in April 1999 at the Gore–Zhou Energy and Environment Forum, outlining a two-year market data development project, that, building on the Clearinghouse’s experience, is providing information and analyseson specific coal mine methane project opportunities for Chinese and Western investors and developers.

Factors that led to project’s success: (1) Interest generated by coal sector in methane recovery for safety, productivity, andenergy value of coal mine methane recovery; (2) interest generated by the Government of China in developing coalbed methaneresources for energy supply, energy security, and local/regional environmental benefits; (3) interest generated by internationalorganizations and companies in the global environmental and energy benefits of coal mine methane; and (4) nurturing of part-nerships with responsible Chinese organizations in developing the nation’s coal mine methane resources.

Technology transferred: Equipment to reduce anthropogenic sources of GHGs: Coal mine methane gas production technologies (surfaceand in-mine); coal mine methane use technologies. Training/Capacity Building: Financial analysis and marketing to internationalcompanies.

Impact on greenhouse gas emissions/sinks (optional): Emission reductions have more than quadrupled since 1990 toapproximately 500 million cubic meters of methane per year (more than 7 teragrams of CO2 equivalent per year).


Appendix C ■ 233


Appendix C ■ 235


Appendix C ■ 237


Appendix C ■ 239


Appendix C ■ 241


Appendix C ■ 243


Appendix C ■ 245


Appendix C ■ 247


Appendix DClimate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions1


This National Research Council study originated from a May 11, 2001, White House request to help inform the Administration’sreview of U.S. climate change policy. In particular, the written request asked for the National Academies’ “assistance in identify-ing the areas in the science of climate change where there are the greatest certainties and uncertainties,” and “views on whetherthere are any substantive differences between the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] Reports and the IPCCsummaries.” In addition, based on discussions with the Administration, a number of specific questions were incorporated into thestatement of task for the study.

SUMMARY

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and sub-surface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likelymostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of naturalvariability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. Secondaryeffects are suggested by computer model simulations and basic physical reasoning. These include increases in rainfall rates andincreased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought. The impacts of these changes will be critically dependent on the mag-nitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs.

The mid-range model estimate of human-induced global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)is based on the premise that the growth rate of climate forcing2 agents such as carbon dioxide will accelerate. The predictedwarming of 3°C (5.4°F) by the end of the 21st century is consistent with the assumptions about how clouds and atmospheric rel-ative humidity will react to global warming. This estimate is also consistent with inferences about the sensitivity3 of climatedrawn from comparing the sizes of past temperature swings between ice ages and intervening warmer periods with the corre-sponding changes in the climate forcing. This predicted temperature increase is sensitive to assumptions concerning future con-centrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols. Hence, national policy decisions made now and in the longer-term future willinfluence the extent of any damage suffered by vulnerable human populations and ecosystems later in this century. Because thereis considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of green-house gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject tofuture adjustments (either upward or downward).

Reducing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current model predictions of global climate change will require majoradvances in understanding and modeling of both (1) the factors that determine atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasesand aerosols, and (2) the so-called “feedbacks” that determine the sensitivity of the climate system to a prescribed increase ingreenhouse gases. There also is a pressing need for a global observing system designed for monitoring climate.

The committee generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC Working Group I(WGI) scientific report, but seeks here to articulate more clearly the level of confidence that can be ascribed to those assessmentsand the caveats that need to be attached to them. This articulation may be helpful to policy makers as they consider a variety ofoptions for mitigation and/or adaptation. In the sections that follow, the committee provides brief responses to some of the keyquestions related to climate change science. More detailed responses to these questions are located in the main body of the text.

What is the range of natural variability in climate?

The range of natural climate variability is known to be quite large (in excess of several degrees Celsius) on local and regional spa-tial scales over periods as short as a decade. Precipitation also can vary widely. For example, there is evidence to suggest thatdroughts as severe as the “dust bowl” of the 1930s were much more common in the central United States during the 10th to 14thcenturies than they have been in the more recent record. Mean temperature variations at local sites have exceeded 10°C (18°F)in association with the repeated glacial advances and retreats that occurred over the course of the past million years. It is moredifficult to estimate the natural variability of global mean temperature because of the sparse spatial coverage of existing data anddifficulties in inferring temperatures from various proxy data. Nonetheless, evidence suggests that global warming rates as largeas 2°C (3.6°F) per millennium may have occurred during retreat of the glaciers following the most recent ice age.

1 The text in this appendix is from the foreword and summary of NRC 2001a, found at http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange.2 A climate forcing is defined as an imposed perturbation of the Earth’s energy balance. Climate forcing is typically measured in watts per square meter (W/m2).3 The sensitivity of the climate system to a prescribed forcing is commonly expressed in terms of the global mean temperature change that would be expected after a time sufficiently

long for both the atmosphere and ocean to come to equilibrium with the change in climate forcing.

Appendix D ■ 251

Are concentrations of greenhouse gases and other emissions that contribute to climate change increasing at an accel-

erating rate, and are different greenhouse gases and other emissions increasing at different rates? Is human activity the

cause of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and other emissions that contribute to climate change?

The emissions of some greenhouse gases are increasing, but others are decreasing. In some cases the decreases are a result of pol-icy decisions, while in other cases the reasons for the decreases are not well understood.

Of the greenhouse gases that are directly influenced by human activity, the most important are carbon dioxide, methane, ozone,nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Aerosols released by human activities are also capable of influencing climate.Table D-1 lists the estimated climate forcing due to the presence of each of these “climate-forcing agents” in the atmosphere.

Concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) extracted from ice cores drilled in Greenland and Antarctica have typically ranged fromnear 190 parts per million by volume (ppmv) during the ice ages to near 280 ppmv during the warmer “interglacial” periods, likethe present one that began around 10,000 years ago. Concentrations did not rise much above 280 ppmv until the Industrial Rev-olution. By 1958, when systematic atmospheric measurements began, they had reached 315 ppmv. They are currently ~370 ppmvand rising at a rate of 1.5 ppmv per year (slightly higher than the rate during the early years of the 43-year record). Human activ-ities are responsible for the increase. The primary source, fossil fuel burning, has released roughly twice as much CO2 as wouldbe required to account for the observed increase. Tropical deforestation also has contributed to CO2 releases during the past fewdecades. The oceans and land biosphere have taken up the excess CO2.

Like CO2, methane (CH4) is more abundant in Earth’s atmosphere now than at any time during the 400,000-year ice core record,which dates back over a number of glacial/interglacial cycles. Concentrations increased rather smoothly by about 1 percent peryear from 1978 until about 1990. The rate of increase slowed and became more erratic during the 1990s. About two-thirds ofthe current CH4 emissions are released by human activities, such as rice growing, the raising of cattle, coal mining, use of land-fills, and natural gas handling—all of which have increased over the past 50 years.

A small fraction of the ozone (O3) produced by natural processes in the stratosphere mixes into the lower atmosphere. This “tro-pospheric ozone” has been supplemented during the 20th century by additional O3, created locally by the action of sunlightupon air polluted by exhausts from motor vehicles, emissions from fossil fuel burning power plants, and biomass burning.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is formed by many microbial reactions in soils and waters, including those acting on the increasing amountsof nitrogen-containing fertilizers. Some synthetic chemical processes that release N2O have also been identified. Its concentra-tion has increased approximately 13 percent in the past 200 years.

Atmospheric concentrations of chlorofluorocarbons rose steadily following their first synthesis in 1928 and peaked in the early1990s. Many other industrially useful fluorinated compounds—e.g., carbon tetrafluoride (CF4), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—have very long atmospheric lifetimes, which is of concern, even though their atmospheric concentrations have not yet producedlarge radiative forcings. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are replacing CFCs, have a greenhouse effect, but it is much lesspronounced because of their shorter atmospheric lifetimes. The sensitivity and generality of modern analytical systems make itquite unlikely that any currently significant greenhouse gases remain to be discovered.

What other emissions are contributing factors to climate change (e.g., aerosols, carbon monoxide, black carbon soot),

and what is their relative contribution to climate change?

Besides greenhouse gases, human activity also contributes to the atmospheric burden of aerosols, which include both sulfate par-ticles and black carbon (soot). Both are unevenly distributed, owing to their short lifetimes in the atmosphere. Sulfate particlesscatter solar radiation back to space, thereby offsetting the greenhouse effect to some degree. Recent “clean coal technologies”and use of low-sulfur fuels have resulted in decreasing sulfate concentrations, especially in North America, reducing this offset.Black carbon aerosols are end-products of the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass burning (forest fires and landclearing). They impact radiation budgets both directly and indirectly; they are believed to contribute to global warming,although their relative importance is difficult to quantify at this point.


How long does it take to reduce the buildup of greenhouse gases and other emissions that contribute to climate

change? Do different greenhouse gases and other emissions have different drawdown periods?

A removal time of 100 years means that much, but not all, of the climate-forcing agent would be gone in 100 years. Typically,the amount remaining at the end of 100 years is 37 percent; after 200 years, 14 percent; after 300 years, 5 percent; and after 400years, 2 percent (see Table D-1).

TABLE D-1 Removal Times and C l imate-Forc ing Values fo r Spec i f ied Atmospher ic Gases and Aeroso ls

A removal time of 100 years means that much, but not all, of the climate-forcing agent would be gone in 100 years. Typically, the amountremaining at the end of 100 years is 37 percent; after 200 years, 14 percent; after 300 years, 5 percent; and after 400 years, 2 percent.

Climate-Forcing Agents Approximate Removal Times Climate Forcing Up to the Year 2000(Watts/m2)

Greenhouse GasesCarbon Dioxide >100 years 1.3–1.5Methane 10 years 0.5–0.7Tropospheric Ozone 10–100 days 0.25–0.75Nitrous Oxide 100 years 0.1–0.2Perfluorocarbon Compounds >1,000 years 0.01

(including SF6)

Fine AerosolsSulfate 10 days -0.3 to -1.0Black Carbon 10 days 0.1–0.8

Is climate change occurring? If so, how?

Weather station records and ship-based observations indicate that global mean surface air temperature warmed between about0.4° and 0.8°C (0.7° and 1.5°F) during the 20th century. Although the magnitude of warming varies locally, the warming trendis spatially widespread and is consistent with an array of other evidence detailed in this report. The ocean, which represents thelargest reservoir of heat in the climate system, has warmed by about 0.05°C (0.09°F) averaged over the layer extending from thesurface down to 10,000 feet, since the 1950s.

The observed warming has not proceeded at a uniform rate. Virtually all the 20th-century warming in global surface air tem-perature occurred between the early 1900s and the 1940s and during the past few decades. The troposphere warmed much moreduring the 1970s than during the two subsequent decades, whereas Earth’s surface warmed more during the past two decadesthan during the 1970s. The causes of these irregularities and the disparities in the timing are not completely understood. Onestriking change of the past 35 years is the cooling of the stratosphere at altitudes of ~13 miles, which has tended to be con-centrated in the wintertime polar cap region.

Are greenhouse gases causing climate change?

The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in green-house gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. The stated degree ofconfidence in the IPCC assessment is higher today than it was 10—or even 5—years ago. However, uncertainty remains becauseof (1) the level of natural variability inherent in the climate system on time scales of decades to centuries, (2) the questionableability of models to accurately simulate natural variability on those long time scales, and (3) the degree of confidence that canbe placed on reconstructions of global mean temperature over the past millennium based on proxy evidence. Despite the uncer-tainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and has been particularly strong within the past 20 years.Whether it is consistent with the change that would be expected in response to human activities is dependent upon whatassumptions one makes about the time history of atmospheric concentrations of the various forcing agents, particularly aerosols.

Appendix D ■ 253

By how much will temperatures change over the next 100 years and where?

Climate change simulations for the period of 1990 to 2100 based on the IPCC emissions scenarios yield a globally averaged sur-face temperature increase by the end of the century of 1.4–5.8°C (2.5–10.4°F) relative to 1990. The wide range of uncertaintyin these estimates reflects both the different assumptions about future concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols in the var-ious scenarios considered by the IPCC and the differing climate sensitivities of the various climate models used in the simula-tions. The range of climate sensitivities implied by these predictions is generally consistent with previously reported values.

The predicted warming is larger over higher latitudes than over lower latitudes, especially during winter and spring, and largerover land than over sea. Rainfall rates and the frequency of heavy precipitation events are predicted to increase, particularly overthe higher latitudes. Higher evaporation rates would accelerate the drying of soils following rain events, resulting in lower rela-tive humidities and higher daytime temperatures, especially during the warm season. The likelihood that this effect could proveimportant is greatest in semi-arid regions, such as the U.S. Great Plains. These predictions in the IPCC report are consistent withcurrent understanding of the processes that control local climate.

In addition to the IPCC scenarios for future increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, the committee considered a scenariobased on an energy policy designed to keep climate change moderate in the next 50 years. This scenario takes into account notonly the growth of carbon emissions, but also the changing concentrations of other greenhouse gases and aerosols.

Sufficient time has elapsed now to enable comparisons between observed trends in the concentrations of CO2 and other green-house gases with the trends predicted in previous IPCC reports. The increase of global fossil fuel CO2 emissions in the pastdecade has averaged 0.6 percent per year, which is somewhat below the range of IPCC scenarios, and the same is true for atmos-pheric methane concentrations. It is not known whether these slowdowns in growth rate will persist.

How much of the expected climate change is the consequence of climate feedback processes (e.g., water vapor, clouds,

snow packs)?

The contribution of feedbacks to climate change depends upon “climate sensitivity,” as described in the report. If a central esti-mate of climate sensitivity is used, about 40 percent of the predicted warming is due to the direct effects of greenhouse gases andaerosols; the other 60 percent is caused by feedbacks.

Water vapor feedback (the additional greenhouse effect accruing from increasing concentrations of atmospheric water vapor asthe atmosphere warms) is the most important feedback in the models. Unless the relative humidity in the tropical middle andupper troposphere drops, this effect is expected to raise the temperature response to increases in human-induced greenhouse gasconcentrations by a factor of 1.6. The ice–albedo feedback (the reduction in the fraction of incoming solar radiation reflectedback to space as snow and ice cover recede) also is believed to be important. Together, these two feedbacks amplify the simu-lated climate response to the greenhouse gas forcing by a factor of 2.5. In addition, changes in cloud cover, in the relativeamounts of high versus low clouds, and in the mean and vertical distributions of relative humidity could either enhance or reducethe amplitude of the warming.

Much of the difference in predictions of global warming by various climate models is attributable to the fact that each modelrepresents these processes in its own particular way. These uncertainties will remain until a more fundamental understanding ofthe processes that control atmospheric relative humidity and clouds is achieved.

What will be the consequences (e.g., extreme weather, health effects) of increases of various magnitudes?

In the near term, agriculture and forestry are likely to benefit from CO2 fertilization and an increased water efficiency of someplants at higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The optimal climate for crops may change, requiring significant regional adap-tations. Some models project an increased tendency toward drought over semi-arid regions, such as the U.S. Great Plains. Hydro-logic impacts could be significant over the western United States, where much of the water supply is dependent on the amountof snow pack and the timing of the spring runoff. Increased rainfall rates could impact pollution runoff and flood control. Withhigher sea level, coastal regions could be subject to increased wind and flood damage, even if tropical storms do not change inintensity. A significant warming also could have far-reaching implications for ecosystems. The costs and risks involved are diffi-cult to quantify at this point and are, in any case, beyond the scope of this brief report.


Health outcomes in response to climate change are the subject of intense debate. Climate is one of a number of factors influ-encing the incidence of infectious disease. Cold-related stress would decline in a warmer climate, while heat stress and smog-induced respiratory illnesses in major urban areas would increase, if no adaptation occurred. Over much of the United States,adverse health outcomes would likely be mitigated by a strong public health system, relatively high levels of public awareness,and a high standard of living.

Global warming could well have serious adverse societal and ecological impacts by the end of this century, especially if globally-averaged temperature increases approach the upper end of the IPCC projections. Even in the more conservative scenarios, the mod-els project temperatures and sea levels that continue to increase well beyond the end of this century, suggesting that assessmentsthat examine only the next 100 years may underestimate the magnitude of the eventual impacts.

Has science determined whether there is a “safe” level of concentration of greenhouse gases?

The question of whether there exists a “safe” level of concentration of greenhouse gases cannot be answered directly because itwould require a value judgment of what constitutes an acceptable risk to human welfare and ecosystems in various parts of theworld, as well as a more quantitative assessment of the risks and costs associated with the various impacts of global warming. Ingeneral, however, risk increases with increases in both the rate and the magnitude of climate change.

What are the substantive differences between the IPCC reports and the summaries?

The Committee finds that the full IPCC Working Group I (WGI) report is an admirable summary of research activities in cli-mate science, and the full report is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary. The full WGI report and its Technical Summary are not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers reflects less emphasis on communicating the basis foruncertainty and stronger emphasis on areas of major concern associated with human-induced climate change. This change inemphasis appears to be the result of a summary process in which scientists work with policymakers on the document. Writtenresponses from U.S. coordinating and lead scientific authors to the committee indicate, however, that (a) no changes were madewithout the consent of the convening lead authors (this group represents a fraction of the lead and contributing authors) and (b) most changes that did occur lacked significant impact.

It is critical that the IPCC process remain truly representative of the scientific community. The committee’s concerns focus pri-marily on whether the process is likely to become less representative in the future because of the growing voluntary time com-mitment required to participate as a lead or coordinating author and the potential that the scientific process will be viewed asbeing too heavily influenced by governments which have specific postures with regard to treaties, emission controls, and otherpolicy instruments. The United States should promote actions that improve the IPCC process, while also ensuring that itsstrengths are maintained.

What are the specific areas of science that need to be studied further, in order of priority, to advance our under-

standing of climate change?

Making progress in reducing the large uncertainties in projections of future climate will require addressing a number of funda-mental scientific questions relating to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the behavior of the climate sys-tem. Issues that need to be addressed include (1) the future use of fossil fuels; (2) the future emissions of methane; (3) the fractionof the future fossil-fuel carbon that will remain in the atmosphere and provide radiative forcing versus exchange with the oceansor net exchange with the land biosphere; (4) the feedbacks in the climate system that determine both the magnitude of thechange and the rate of energy uptake by the oceans, which together determine the magnitude and time history of the tempera-ture increases for a given radiative forcing; (5) details of the regional and local climate change consequent to an overall level ofglobal climate change; (6) the nature and causes of the natural variability of climate and its interactions with forced changes; and(7) the direct and indirect effects of the changing distributions of aerosols. Maintaining a vigorous, ongoing program of basicresearch, funded and managed independently of the climate assessment activity, will be crucial for narrowing these uncertain-ties.

Appendix D ■ 255

In addition, the research enterprise dealing with environmental change and the interactions of human society with the environ-ment must be enhanced. This includes support of (1) interdisciplinary research that couples physical, chemical, biological, andhuman systems; (2) an improved capability of integrating scientific knowledge, including its uncertainty, into effective decision-support systems; and (3) an ability to conduct research at the regional or sectoral level that promotes analysis of the response ofhuman and natural systems to multiple stresses.

An effective strategy for advancing the understanding of climate change also will require (1) a global observing system in sup-port of long-term climate monitoring and prediction; (2) concentration on large-scale modeling through increased, dedicatedsupercomputing and human resources; and (3) efforts to ensure that climate research is supported and managed to ensure inno-vation, effectiveness, and efficiency.

Appendix EBibliography

Appendix E ■ 257

Academy for Educational Development, “Let Kids Lead.” <www.letkidslead.org>

American Planning Association, Growing Smartsm Legislative Guidebook.

Bove et al. 1998—Bove, M.C., J.B. Elsner, C.W. Landsea, X. Niu, and J.J. O’Brien, “Effect of El Niño on U.S. LandfallingHurricanes, Revisited,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 79, pp. 2477–82.

Business Roundtable 2001—Unleashing Innovation: The Right Approach to Climate Change; Turning the Promise of Technology into Reality(Washington, DC: Business Roundtable). <http://www.brtable.org/pdf/524.pdf>

Changnon et al. 1996—Changnon, S.S., K.E. Kunkel, and B.C. Reinke, “Impacts and Response to the 1995 Heat Wave: A Callto Action,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 77, pp. 1497–1506.

EOP 1993—Executive Office of the President, Climate Change Action Plan (Washington, DC).

EOP 2001a—Executive Office of the President, Action on Climate Change Review Initiatives, Washington, DC.

EOP 2001b—Executive Office of the President, Climate Change Review––Initial Report, Washington, DC. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/climatechange.pdf>

Florida State University, Center for Ocean–Atmospheric Prediction Studies. <http://www.coaps.fsu.edu>

4-H Youth Curriculum, “Going Places, Making Choices.” <www.fourhcouncil.edu>

Groisman et al. 2001—Groisman, P. Ya, R.W. Knight, and T.R. Karl, “Heavy Precipitation and High Streamflow in theContiguous United States: Trends in the Twentieth Century,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 82, pp. 219–46.

Hartmann, Dennis, Reports to the Nation on Our Changing Planet: Our Changing Climate (Boulder, CO: University Center forAtmospheric Research and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fall 1997).<http://www.ogp.noaa.gov/library/rtn4.pdf>

IGFA 2000—International Group of Funding Agencies for Global Change Research, National Updates (Oslo, Norway: IGFASecretariat). <http://www.igfagcr.org/PDF/2000Nat’l.pdf>

IPCC 1991—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change: The IPCC Response Strategies (Washington, DC: IslandPress).

IPCC 1996a—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation of ClimateChange: Scientific-Technical Analyses, R.T. Watson et al., eds. (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press).

IPCC 1996b—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, J.T. Houghton,L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callandar, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell, eds. (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UniversityPress). <http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/sarsum1.htm>

IPCC 1998—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability, R.T.Watson et al., eds. (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press).

IPCC 1999—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Aviation and the Global Atmosphere: A Special Report of IPCC WorkingGroups I and III in Collaboration with the Scientific Assessment Panel to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, J.E.Penner, D.H. Lister, D.J. Griggs, D.J. Dokken, and M. McFarland, eds. (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press).<http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/av(E).pdf>


IPCC 2000a—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in NationalGreenhouse Gas Inventories, J. Penman, D. Kruger, I. Galbally, T. Hiraishi, B. Nyenzi, S. Emmanul, L. Buendia, R. Hoppaus, T.Martinsen, J. Meijer, K. Miwa, and K. Tanabe, eds. (Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies). <http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/gpgaum.htm>

IPCC 2000b—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Trends in Technology Transfer: Financial Resource Flows,” inMethodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press).

IPCC 2001a—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contributionof Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A.Leary, D.J. Dokken, and K.S. White, eds. (Cambridge, U.K., and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press).<www.ipcc.ch/>

IPCC 2001b—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to theThird Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O. Davidson, R. Swart, and J. Pan, eds. (Cambridge,U.K., and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press). <www.ipcc.ch/>

IPCC 2001c—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. Contribution to the Third AssessmentReport of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, R.T. Watson, D.L. Albritton, T. Barker, I.A. Bashmakov, O. Canziani, R.Christ, U. Cubasch, O. Davidson, H. Gitay, D. Griggs, J. Houghton, J. House, Z. Kundzewicz, M. Lal, N. Leary, C. Magadza,J.J. McCarthy, J.F.B. Mitchell, J.R. Moreira, M. Munasinghe, I. Noble, R. Pachauri, B. Pittock, M. Prather, R.G. Richels, J.B.Robinson, J. Sathaye, S. Schneider, R. Scholes, T. Stocker, N. Sundararaman, R. Swart, T. Taniguchi, and D. Zhou, eds.(Cambridge, U.K., and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press). <www.ipcc.ch/>

IPCC 2001d—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group Ito the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. vander Linden, and D. Xiasou, eds. (Cambridge, U.K., and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press). <www.ipcc.ch/>

IPCC/UNEP/OECD/IEA 1997—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United Nations Environment Programme,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, International Energy Agency, Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines forNational Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Paris, France: IPCC/UNEP/OECD/IEA). <http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs1.htm>

Karl et al. 1995—Karl, T.R., V.E. Derr, D.R. Easterling, C.K. Folland, D.J. Hofmann, S. Levitus, N. Nicholls, D.E. Parker, andG.W. Withee, “Critical Issues for Long-Term Climate Monitoring,” Climatic Change, vol. 31.

Keeling, C.D., and T.P. Whorf, “Atmospheric CO2 Records from Sites in the SIO Air Sampling Network,” in Trends: ACompendium of Data on Global Change (Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory, 2000).

McCabe, G.J., and D.M. Wolock, “General-Circulation-Model Simulations of Future Snowpack in the Western United States,Journal of the American Water Resources Association, vol. 35 (1999), pp. 1473–84.

Mills et al. 2001—Mills, Evan, Eugene Lecomte, and Andrew Peara, U.S. Insurance Industry Perspectives on Global Climate Change(Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Energy). <http://eetd.lbl.gov/insurance>

NAAG 2002—National Agriculture Assessment Group, Agriculture: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, J.Reilly et al., eds. (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press and U.S. Department of Agriculture, for the U.S. GlobalChange Research Program). <http://www.usgcrp.gov>

NASA 2001—National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Earth Observing System Global Change Media Directory 2001(Greenbelt, MD: Earth Observing System Project Science Office, Goddard Space Flight Center).<http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/>

Appendix E ■ 259

NAST 2000—National Assessment Synthesis Team, Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of ClimateVariability and Change: Overview (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press and U.S. Global Change Research Program).<http://www.usgcrp.gov>

NAST 2001—National Assessment Synthesis Team, Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of ClimateVariability and Change: Foundation (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press and U.S. Global Change Research Program).<http://www.usgcrp.gov>

NCAG 2000—National Coastal Assessment Group, Coastal: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for the U.S. GlobalChange Research Program). <http://www.usgcrp.gov>

NEPD Group 2001—National Energy Policy Development Group, National Energy Policy (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office). <http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy>

NFAG 2001—National Forest Assessment Group, Forests: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change (Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, for the U.S. Global Change Research Program). <http://www.usgcrp.gov>

NHAG 2000—National Health Assessment Group (J.A. Patz, M.A. McGeehin, S.M. Bernard, K.L. Ebi, P.R. Epstein, A.Grambsch, D.J. Gubler, P. Reiter, I. Romeiu, J.B. Rose, et al.), “The Health Impacts of Climate Variability and Change for theUnited States: Executive Summary of the Report of the Health Sector of the U.S. National Assessment,” Environmental HealthPerspectives, vol. 108, pp. 367–76. <http://www.usgcrp.gov>

NHAG 2001—National Health Assessment Group, Health: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change (Washington,DC: Johns Hopkins University, School of Public Health, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for the U.S. GlobalChange Research Program). <http://www.usgcrp.gov>

NJ 2000—State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey Sustainability Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan(December 1999, 1st reprint May 2000). <http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/gcc/gcc-download.htm>

NRC 1999—National Research Council, Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).

NRC 2001a—National Research Council, Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis ofSome Key Questions (Washington, DC: National Academy Press). <http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange>

NRC 2001b—National Research Council, Committee on Climate, Ecosystems, Infectious Disease, and Human Health, Underthe Weather: Climate, Ecosystems, and Infectious Disease (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).

NSC 2000—National Safety Council, Reporting on Climate Change: Understanding the Science (Washington, DC: National SafetyCouncil, Environmental Health Center). <http://www.nsc.org/ehc/guidebks/climtoc.htm>

NSTC 2000—National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources,Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Our Changing Planet: The FY 2001 U.S. Global Change Research Program (U.S.Government Printing Office: Washington, DC).

NWAG 2000—National Water Assessment Group, Water: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change (Washington,DC: U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, and Pacific Institute, for the U.S. Global Change ResearchProgram). <http://www.usgcrp.gov>

OECD 2000—Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, Environmental Goods and Services: An Assessment of theEnvironmental, Economic and Development Benefits of Further Global Trade Liberalisation (Paris, France: OECD, Trade Directorate &Environment Directorate).


OMB 2001—Office of Management and Budget, Report to Congress on Federal Climate Change Expenditures (Washington, DC).

OOSDP 1995—Ocean Observing System Development Panel, Scientific Design for the Common Module of the Global Ocean ObservingSystem and the Global Climate Observing System: An Ocean Observing System for Climate.< http://www-ocean.tamu.edu/OOSDP/FinalRept/t_of_c.html>

Powell et al. 1993—Powell, D.S., J.L. Faulkner, D.R. Darr, Z. Zhu, and D.W. MacCleery, Forest Resources of the United States–1992,Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-234. (Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture).

Timmermann et al. 1999—Timmermann, A., J. Oberhuber, A. Bacher, M. Esch, M. Latif, and E. Roeckner, “Increased El NiñoFrequency in a Climate Model Forced by Future Greenhouse Warming,” Nature, vol. 398, pp. 694–97.

UNFCCC—United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC Guidelines on Reporting and Review.

US–AEP/USAID 2000—United States–Asia Environmental Partnership/U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S.Environment Industry Export Competitiveness in Asia.

USAID 2000a—U.S. Agency for International Development, Annual Report 2000: EcoLinks (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office).

USAID 2000b—U.S. Agency for International Development, Market Opportunities for Climate Change Technologies and Services inDeveloping Countries (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office).

USAID 2000c—U.S. Agency for International Development, Partnership Grants 2000: EcoLinks (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office).

USAID 2001a—U.S. Agency for International Development, EcoLinks (fact sheet) (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office).

USAID 2001b—U.S. Agency for International Development, “Towards a Water Secure Future: USAID’s Obligations in WaterResources Management for FY2000,” Part II (Draft, May 18, 2001).

U.S. Congress 1993—U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Preparing for an Uncertain Climate, vols. I and II(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office), OTA-O-567 and 568.

U.S. CSP 1997—U.S. Country Studies Program, Global Climate Change Mitigation Assessment Results for Fourteen Transition andDeveloping Countries.

U.S. CSP 1998—U.S. Country Studies Program, Climate Change Assessments by Developing and Transition Countries.

USDA 2000—U.S. Department of Agriculture, Submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change onMethodological Issues Related to Carbon Sinks.

USDA 2001—U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Agricultural Policy: Taking Stock for the New Century (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office), SN-001-000-04696-9. <http://www.usda.gov/farmpolicy/farmpolicy.htm>

USDA/ERS 2000—U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators:2000 (Washington, DC: USDA). <http://www.ers.usda.gov/emphases/harmony/issues/arei2000/>

USDA/ERS 2001a—U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Major Uses of Land in the United States,”Marlow Vesterby and Kenneth S. Krupa, eds., ERS Statistical Bulletin No. 973 (Washington, DC: USDA/ERS).<http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/majorlanduses/>

Appendix E ■ 261

USDA/ERS 2001b—U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Major Land Uses data files, October 2001.<http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/majorlanduses/>

USDA/NRCS 2000—U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Summary Report: 1997 NationalResources Inventory (Ames, IA: Iowa State University Statistical Laboratory). <http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/NRI/1997>

USDA/NRCS 2001—U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Food and Agricultural Policy:Taking Stock for the New Century. <http://www.usda.gov>

U.S. DOC/BEA 2000—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts(Washington, DC: DOC/BEA). <http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.htm>

U.S. DOC/Census 2000—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000,120th edition (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office). <http://www.census.gov/statab/www/>

U.S. DOC/Census 2001—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, “States Ranked by Numeric PopulationChange: 1990 to 2000,” data released on April 2, 2001. <http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t2/tab02.txt>

U.S. DOC/NOAA 1998a—U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NationalClimatic Data Center, Historical Climatology Series 5-1 (Asheville, NC: NOAA).<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/documentlibrary/hcs/hcs.html#overview5-1>

U.S. DOC/NOAA 1998b—U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NationalClimatic Data Center, Historical Climatology Series 5-2 (Asheville, NC: NOAA).<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/documentlibrary/hcs/hcs.html#overview5-2>





U.S. DOC/NOAA 2001c—U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NationalClimatic Data Center, The U.S. Detailed National Report on Systematic Observations for Climate (Silver Spring, MD: NOAA).<http://www.eis.noaa.gov/gcos>

U.S. DOE/EIA 1999—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, A Look at Residential Energy Consumption:1997 (Washington, DC: U.S. DOE), DOE/EIA-0632(97). <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2000a—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1999(Washington, DC: U.S. DOE), DOE/EIA-0384(99). <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html>


U.S. DOE/EIA 2000b—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 1999, vols. II andIII (Washington, DC: U.S. DOE), DOE/EIA-0348(99)/2. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epav2/epav2.pdf>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2000c—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the UnitedStates, 1999 (Washington, DC: U.S. DOE), DOE/EIA-0573(99).

U.S. DOE/EIA 2000d—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook (Washington,DC: U.S. DOE), DOE/EIA-0202(00). <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html>.

U.S. DOE/EIA 2001a—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook, 2002(Washington, DC: U.S. DOE), DOE/EIA-0384(2000). <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2001b—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review, 2000(Washington, DC: U.S. DOE), DOE/EIA-0384(2000). <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2001c—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the UnitedStates, 2000 (Washington, DC: U.S. DOE), DOE/EIA-0573(2000).

U.S. DOE/OPIA 2001—U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Policy and International Affairs, preliminary data.

U.S. DOL/BLS—U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Current Population Survey: Household Data(2000)–Annual Averages,” Table 17. <http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_over.htm>

U.S. DOS 1994—U.S. Department of State, Office of Global Change, U.S. Climate Action Report: Submission of the United States ofAmerica Under the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOS).

U.S. DOS 1997—U.S. Department of State, Office of Global Change, Climate Action Report: 1997 Submission of the United States ofAmerica Under the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOS).

U.S. DOS 2000—U.S. Department of State, United States Submission on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry, U.S. submission tothe UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.<http://www.state.gov/www/global_issues/climate/climate_2000_submission.html>

U.S. DOT/BTS 2000a—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Air Carrier Traffic StatisticsMonthly, Dec. 2000/1999, Dec. 1999/1998, Dec. 1998/1997 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOT).

U.S. DOT/BTS 2000b—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics:2000 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOT), BTS01-01. <http://www.bts.gov/btsprod/nts/>

U.S. DOT/FAA 1998—U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Statistical Handbook of Aviation1996 (Washington, DC: U.S. DOT), BTS99-03. <http://www.api.faa.gov/handbook96/toc96.htm>

U.S. DOT/FHWA 1999—U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Draft 1998 Highway Statistics(Washington, DC: DOT/FHWA), report FHWA-PL-96-023-annual.

U.S. DOT and U.S. EPA—U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “It All Adds Up ToCleaner Air.” <www.epa.gov/otaq/traq/traqpedo/italladd>

U.S. EPA 1989—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States, J.B. Smithand D.A. Tirpak, eds. (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA), 230-05-89-050.

U.S. EPA 1999—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Methane Emissions 1990–2020: Inventories, Projections, and Opportunitiesfor Reductions (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA). <www.epa.gov/ghginfo>

Appendix E ■ 263

U.S. EPA 2000—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, National Air PollutantEmissions Trends Report, 1900–1999 (Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. EPA). <http://www.epa.gov/air/data/net.html>

U.S. EPA 2001a—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Addendum to U.S. Methane Emissions 1990–2020: Inventories, Projections,and Opportunities for Reductions (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA). <www.epa.gov/ghginfo>

U.S. EPA 2001b—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft U.S. Nitrous Oxide Emissions 1990–2020: Inventories, Projections, andOpportunities for Reductions (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA). <www.epa.gov/ghginfo>

U.S. EPA 2001c—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Improving Air Quality Through Land Use Activities.<http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/EPA420R01001.html>

U.S. EPA 2001d—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–1999(Washington, DC: U.S. EPA), 236-R-01-001. <http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/emissions/national>

U.S. EPA 2001e—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. High GWP Emissions 1990–2010: Inventories, Projections, andOpportunities for Reductions (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA). <www.epa.gov/ghginfo>

U.S. EPA, NASA, and NOAA 1999—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climate Change Presentation Kit, <http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/Catalog/EPA236C99001.html>

U.S. EPA and NPS 2001—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Park Service, Climate Change, Wildlife, andWildlands: A Toolkit for Teachers and Interpreters. <http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/outreach/orwkit.html>

USGCRP 1998–2000—U.S. Global Change Research Program, Acclimations (on-line newsletter of the National Assessment ofthe Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change). <http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc>

U.S. IJI 2000—U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation, Activities Implemented Jointly: Fifth Report to the Secretariat of the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change.

WMO 1995—World Meteorological Organization, GCOS Plan for Space-based Observations, GCOS-14, WMO TechnicalDocument No. 681 (Geneva, Switzerland: WMO). <http://www.wmo.ch/web/gcos/gcoshome.html>

WMO 1997—World Meteorological Organization, GCOS/GTOS Plan for Terrestrial Climate-related Observations, version 2.0,GCOS-32, WMO Technical Document No. 796 (Geneva, Switzerland: WMO).<http://www.wmo.ch/web/gcos/gcoshome.html>

World Bank 2000—World Development Indicators 2000 (Washington, DC: World Bank).<http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi/home.html>

US Climate Action Report – 2002 - UNFCCC

Documents