Global Warming

Author: Ozone Action

Topic: Issues

Global warming is undoubtedly one of the greatest global environmental and economic threats facing humanity. The effects of global warming on the United States could include bankrupting the reinsurance industry, the spread of infectious tropical diseases, massive ecological disruption and increased severe and unpredictable weather, all of which will significantly impact commerce, agriculture and communities across America.

The debate over global warming has moved from questions of if? and how? to those of when?, how much? and how bad? The only questions remaining are about the extent of the damage and disruption and how the world can respond while bracing for the impacts.

Addressing global warming also provides one of the greatest opportunities facing America and the world in the 21st century. If the United States forges true leadership in the global fight to stop global warming, the opportunities for American workers, the economy, quality of life as well as global stewardship are breathtaking. Investing in a clean energy future means new industries with significantly greater job density than coal, oil and gas[i] [ii]. Ending our dependence on fossil fuels means not only abolishing the insecure present reliance on foreign oil, but an end to most air pollution, as we know it. While we are presently losing the race, surpassing the clean energy efforts of foreign car and energy companies will sustain the United States' economic and moral leadership throughout the world.

True leadership on global warming will have three major components:

• Providing World Leadership - Lead the world and the U.S. Congress toward adoption and implementation of an international climate treaty that will adequately address the urgency of global warming.
• Cutting U.S. Pollution - Adopt existing technologies to cut pollution from vehicles, power plants and industry and promote expansion of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency measures for buildings, appliances and the transportation sector.
• Investing in America - Lead the world in clean energy technology, creating new jobs and economic growth.

The Scientific Consensus

There is no longer a substantial debate in the scientific community about whether global warming exists, though a few skeptics remain. In the last decade the debate has shifted from questions of if? and how? to those of when?, how much? and how bad? Increasingly, scientific bodies and organizations have called for stronger U.S. leadership on global warming.

1995

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report - Over 2,000 scientists representing experts on climate from academia and industry coauthored and peer-reviewed a document reviewing the scientific evidence of global warming called The Second Assessment Report of the IPCC[iii]. The IPCC concluded: "the balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate."

1997

The "Scientists' Statement on Global Climatic Disruption" - 2,500 scientists declared: "human induced climate change is underway" adding that the "scale, severity and costs" of the threat inspired their "note of urgency." The group called for "early domestic action to reduce U.S. emissions..." and urged strong government action to curb global warming.[iv]

The World Scientists' Call for Action at the Kyoto Summit - 1,560 scientists from 65 countries, including 109 Nobel laureates, called for "all government leaders to demonstrate a new commitment to protecting the global environment" and pushed for a strong emissions reduction mandate in Kyoto.[v]

1998

American Geophysical Union - The American Geophysical Union, which has 35,000 members, issued a statement stating the mounting evidence of human impact on the climate should spark debate on plans to either reverse climate change or adapt to it. The statement concludes that scientific research supports the theory that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases ``have substantially increased as a consequence of fossil fuel combustion and other human activities.'' They also stated that any present level of uncertainties in the science did not justify inaction[vi].

1999

The heads of both the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the British Meteorological Office called the evidence for global warming "almost incontrovertible, that man has an effect and therefore we need to act accordingly." These scientists also declared, "ignoring climate change will surely be the most costly of all possible choices, for us and our children."[vii]

2000

National Academy of Sciences - A special panel of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the recent observed warming trend is "undoubtedly real".[viii]

National Assessment "Climate Change Impacts on the United States" - The first comprehensive report on the subject was released by the US Global Change Research Program. The four-year study resulted in both a regional and sectoral assessment of the likely impacts of global warming on the United States. Scientists detailed and projected widespread impacts on agriculture, forests and biodiversity, public health, water resources and coastal areas[ix].

2001

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report - The next IPCC global assessment on the social, economic and scientific impacts of global warming, called The Third Assessment Report (TAR), is due in January 2001. The TAR will present the scientific evidence accumulated in the five years since the 2nd Assessment and is likely to draw stronger conclusions about the human fingerprint on climate change.[x]

Current and Future Impacts

Below are the impacts that the IPCC and leading scientists are presently documenting and predict will occur in the U.S. due to global warming.

Temperature Change - Global mean surface air temperature has increased by between 0.54 and 1.08 degrees Fahrenheit. The IPCC projects that the average global temperature will increase by 1.8 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100[xi].

Extreme Weather - Warmer global temperatures will lead to an amplified hydrological cycle and greater evaporation and more precipitation overall.[xii] This means there may be increased flooding in some regions and more severe droughts in other areas. Heat waves are predicted to become more serious due to a combination of more extreme high temperatures and an increase in night temperatures. In addition, global atmospheric and ocean circulation patterns that drive weather patterns worldwide such as El Nino, La Nina, the Gulf Stream and the Northern Atlantic Circulation are likely to be affected which influence weather worldwide.

Sea Level Rise - Sea level has risen four to six inches during the past 100 years.[xiii] Sea level rise is caused by expansion of the oceans as they warm and by melting mountain and glacial ice sheets. Sea level is expected to rise another six inches to three feet by 2100[xiv]. Sea level rise could lead to flooding of low-lying property, loss of coastal wetlands, erosion of beaches, saltwater contamination of drinking water, and decreased longevity of low-lying roads, causeways, and bridges. In addition, sea level rise could increase the vulnerability of coastal areas to storms and associated flooding[xv].

Oceans - Ocean ecosystems and ocean circulation systems will be strongly affected by global warming. A distinct recent rise in sea temperatures has already been detected.[xvi] Global weather cycles driven by ocean temperatures such as El Nino and La Nina have been predicted to become more severe and have become more frequent in recent years. [xvii] Warming sea temperatures in the tropics have been measured and have been linked to coral reef decline worldwide.[xviii] Such changes in ocean circulation patterns and water temperature in addition to sea level rise and altered flow from rivers put delicate coastal ecosystems at risk (including saltwater marshes, mangroves, wetlands and river deltas) that provide crucial human food resources and breeding grounds for oceanic species[xix].

Human Health - According to the IPCC, "climate change is likely to have wide-ranging and mostly adverse impacts on human health with significant loss of life."[xx] The most direct effect of climate change will most likely be the impacts of hotter temperatures themselves. Extremely hot temperatures and high humidity increase mortality rates for many reasons, particularly among very old and very young people living in cities.[xxi] For example, people with heart problems are vulnerable because the cardiovascular system must work harder to keep the body cool during hot weather. Heat exhaustion and some respiratory problems such as asthma attacks increase.[xxii] In July 1995, a heat wave killed over 700 people in the Chicago area[xxiii]. A recent report analyzing NOAA weather data by Ozone Action and Physicians for Social Responsibility concluded that the average number of four day heat waves has more than doubled nationwide since 1950 and that there are now twice as many high heat index days as there were in the 1950s. Among the regions with the largest increase in heat stress have been the Mid-Atlantic, the Southeast, the Southwest and Northwest United States.[xxiv]Temperature changes will also increase the transmission of infectious diseases like malaria, dengue, West Nile Virus, yellow fever and encephalitis. Mosquitoes spread and reproduce faster and bite more as the air becomes warmer. At the same time, greater heat speeds the rate at which diseases such as malaria inside them reproduce and mature. Mosquitoes that spread the malaria parasite live only several weeks; warmer weather increases the chancesthat the parasites will mature in time for the mosquitoes to transfer the infection. As regions warm, mosquitoes will be able to spread to areas in which they could not formerly live[xxv].

Forests - The IPCC reports that entire forest types may disappear and that boreal (or northern) forests are likely to experience large-scale losses of living trees[xxvi]. Projected temperature increases over the next 100-200 years will force forests to move up to 200 miles to the North. While an increase in CO2 may help forests grow more rapidly in the short-term, scientists predict that a dramatic rise in CO2 and temperature could lead to massive forest die-off and species loss[xxvii]. The rate at which the temperature changes, the increased spread of pests, increased forest fires from dry weather, the level of development blocking forest movement, the soils in the areas where forests will need to move and other factors will determine the ability of forests and species to survive global warming[xxviii].

Glaciers, Ice Caps and Snow - Computer models predict that between one-third and one-half of existing mountain glaciers could disappear this century[xxix]. The reduced amount of glaciers and snow cover would significantly affect river flow and water supply, affecting endangered salmon, hydroelectric generation and agriculture[xxx].

Solutions

I. America as World Leader - The Kyoto Protocol

In 1990, President Bush and over 140 other world leaders signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), or the Rio Accords. The Accords, which were ratified by the U.S. Senate, set a voluntary goal of reducing developed countries' global warming pollutants such as carbon dioxide (CO2) to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Today, the U.S. pollutes 11 percent more than it did in 1990. The failure of FCCC participants to voluntarily cut their pollution led to the birth of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Kyoto Protocol sets goals for cutting pollution and provides flexible ways for countries to protect the environment while building strong economies. In the short term, the Kyoto Protocol will reduce developed countries' global warming pollution to 5% below 1990 levels by the year 2012. The treaty's primary mechanisms include: 1) The Clean Development Mechanism, a tool used to transfer clean energy technology to developing nations, 2) Emissions Trading, a tool used to allow companies or countries to trade "pollution permits," and 3) Adequacy Provisions which ensure that the Protocol is adequate to address global warming.

As the most powerful nation and the largest global warming polluter, the U.S. is in the position to lead the world in solving global warming while reaping the economic and environmental benefits of the energy transition.

Unfortunately, the United States has consistently fought against provisions to make the Kyoto Treaty adequate and to require significant reductions of domestic pollution.

Our platform on the Kyoto Protocol includes:

1. Kyoto Must Cut Global Warming Pollution To Address Global Warming
   • Limit Emissions Trading - Commit that 80 percent of U.S. pollution reductions promised under the Kyoto Protocol will occur domestically. Currently, the U.S. plans to achieve the majority of our emissions reductions by trading rather than developing clean energy technologies to cut our pollution at home. No emissions trading should be allowed if the actual pollution reductions in other nations are not verifiable.
   • Kyoto Must Cut Pollution Enough Stop Global Warming - In order to work, the treaty must include strong provisions and a short time-line for the Protocol to be strengthened to cut pollution enough to stop global warming.
2. Kyoto Must Not Roll Back Environmental Progress
   • No Nuclear Energy in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) - The nuclear industry is working to turn the Clean Development Mechanism into a subsidy for the development of nuclear energy throughout the world -the Chernobyl Deployment Mechanism.
   • No Clearcuts and Tree Farms in the CDM - Trees, farmland, oceans and plants absorb carbon dioxide. While ending clearcutting is part of the solution to stop global warming, the U.S. must prevent the Kyoto Protocol from including incentives to plant industrial tree plantations or the replacement of native ecosystems with carbon-sink plantations.
   • "Clean Coal" - The CDM should only allow solar, wind, geothermal, small hydropower and other clean forms of renewable energy.
3. The U.S. Must Take Leadership
   • Developing Countries - As the leading global warming polluter, the United States should take a leadership role in cutting its emissions and assisting developing nations in cutting their pollution. The Protocol was written with the understanding that each nation's energy consumption habits and projected emissions vary, and that there are "common but differentiated responsibilities[xxxi]." Because the bulk of global warming pollution came from industrialized nations such as the United States over the last century, the treaty allows developing countries the opportunity to cut their pollution at a slower rate. Argentina and Kazakhstan, however, have announced that they will accept binding pollution targets immediately. China and India have both recently taken steps to cut their emissions as well. In addition, all developing countries can cut their pollution through the Clean Development Mechanism.
4. The U.S. Should Ratify Kyoto
   • The Kyoto Protocol will be in force when fifty-five countries, including developed countries accounting for fifty-five percent of emissions reductions, ratify the treaty.
   II. Cutting U.S. Global Warming Pollution

   There are policies available to U.S. decision-makers that will enable us to meet and beat the Kyoto targets while growing the economy[xxxii]. The United States can easily meet our Kyoto objectives by cleaning up power plants, cars and trucks, using the EPA's authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the current Clean Air Act, and by investing in energy efficient appliances, homes and buildings. Good global warming policy will result in lower utility bills, fewer trips to the gas pump, and freedom from many respiratory problems and more efficient homes.

   Clean Cars

   • Use current EPA authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Push national adoption of California zero emission vehicle standards. This will drive the market to produce fuel cells - a potentially zero emission energy source - for vehicles and stationary sources.
   • Provide clean commuters incentives rebates, like tax breaks for using public transportation, buying clean cars, carpooling and living closer to work. Adopt greenhouse gas standards for motor fuels, stimulating biofuels and less carbon rich fuel sources[xxxiii].
   Clean Up Power Plants
   • Pass a power plant pollution law that controls all four major pollutants: CO2, NOx, SOx and mercury. Passing such legislation will help push power plants away from carbon intensive coal to less carbon rich fuels.
   • Make all "grand-fathered" power plants meet modern pollution standards.
   • Develop demand-side energy efficiency improvements funding as part of electric utility restructuring[xxxiv].
   • Implement a renewable portfolio standard requiring each utility or power provider to purchase a given amount of power form renewable sources[xxxv].
   Transportation Policy
   • Improvements to rail transport should be made with Federal support extended for expansion and upkeep of local commuter rail systems as well as national rail infrastructure.
   • Highway expenditures should be linked to transportation energy efficiency improvements at the local level.
   • Since, rail transport is much more energy efficient than trucking, federal policies to level the cost of rail transport with trucking should be implemented.
   Consumer/Businesses
   • Consumers deserve the choice to purchase more energy efficient appliances, homes and cars.
   Appliance Standards
   • Push for stronger appliance efficiency standards for everything from water heaters to transformers, commercial refrigeration equipment to gas ranges.
   • Extend EPA's Energy Star labeling program to cover a wider range of consumer products including microwave ovens and various home electronics[xxxvi].
   • Establish rebates or other purchasing incentives to push commercial and consumer sales of higher efficiency appliances and electronics.
   Houses/Buildings
   • Adopt escalating building energy efficiency codes nationally and at the state level, moving beyond present "good practice" standards[xxxvii].
   • Provide financial incentives for homebuilders, property owners and homeowners to build new homes and buildings to the highest possible standards and retrofit old buildings by insulating, replacing windows and installing efficient heating and air conditioning.
   Renewable Energy
   • Remove federal subsidies for mature energy sources such as fossil fuels and add subsidies for renewable fuels.
   Economy-Wide Carbon Reductions
   • Implement a mechanism for charging a fee based on carbon intensity of fuel sources for carbon and pool revenues to recycle into energy efficiency improvements.
   Domestic Forests
   • A moratorium on logging and road building in national forests is the best global warming policy. Private forest land can handle supply needs and limiting federally subsidized undervalued timber would boost efficiency.
   • Private timber lands should be held strictly accountable for practices that result in a net loss of carbon to the atmosphere.
   • All U.S. forestland should be managed in order to be a net long-term sink for carbon. However, credits from forest sinks should not be valued one for one with tailpipe or smokestack emissions reductions because forests are a less reliable long-term solution than source reductions.
   Agriculture
   • Agriculture can be part of the global warming solution through production of bio-fuels and wind power. Incentives, tax breaks or financial assistance should be provided to farmers who want to take part in such activities.
   • There should also be incentives for reduced farm fuel, pesticide and fertilizer use. Fully fund already existing initiatives that would provide research and implementation of sustainable agriculture mandates [xxxviii].
   III. Invest in America

   Weshould have the courage to work beyond special interests with investments in the status quo and instead invest taxpayers' money in industries that will create more high quality jobs and position the United States as an international leader in developing technologies to protect the environment. The Wisconsin Energy Bureau estimates that overall renewable energy creates three times as many jobs as comparable spending on fossil fuels[xxxix]. In addition, renewable energy investments stimulate the local economy and create more jobs than comparable investments in fossil fuels. There are two main reasons for this. First, while fossil fuel industries such as coal and oil have downsized their workforces significantly, emerging renewable energy industries have a greater "job density," creating more jobs per dollar invested than other energy sources. Second, the renewable energy industry is generally based on local resources, leading to increased spending in the local economy, triggering the "multiplier effect" in which money being reinvested in a local community accelerates development[xl].

   Conclusion

   The remaining questions in the global warming debate is whether the United States will emerge as a global leader that invests in American workers, the environment and new technologies or whether the United States will continue on the path to climatic, environmental and economic disruption because of our dependence on fossil fuels.

   Investing in a clean energy future will mean more skilled jobs for American workers, ending our dependence on foreign oil, dramatic air quality improvements and a better quality of life. Investing in clean energy also means winning the global race to produce clean cars and energy sources that could sustain the United States' economic leadership into the 21st century.

   True American leadership on global warming has three major components:

   Providing World Leadership - We must lead the world and push for a tough Kyoto Protocol.

   Cutting U.S. Pollution - We must adopt current available solutions to cut pollution in the United States.

   Investing in America - We must position American workers and industry to be a world leader in clean energy technology.

   ---

   [i]Tellus Institute et al., 97, "Energy Innovations: A Prosperous Path to a Clean Environment", June 1997, Tellus Institute, Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural Resources Defense Council, Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.tellus.org/ei/index.html ;

   [ii] USDOE, 97, "Dollars from Sense: The Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy", U.S. Department of Energy, September 1997, http://www.eren.doe.gov/power/dollarsfromsense.html

   [iii] IPCC 1995. Working Group Two of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment Report, published 1996

   [iv] Dr. F. Sherwood Rowland, Dr. Peter H. Raven, Dr. John P. Holdren, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Dr. Harold A. Mooney, Dr. George M. Woodwell, June 1997 "The Scientists' Statement on Global Climatic Disruption", sponsored by Ozone Action

   [v] UCS, 97, Union of Concerned Scientists, Nucleus, Volume 19, number 4, Winter 1997

   [vi] AGU, "Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases", Adopted by Council December 1998, http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change.html

   [vii] Michael McCarthy, 1999, "Climate Chiefs issue severe weather warning", The Independent, Dec. 23, 1999 and USA TODAY, Letter to the Editor, January 6 2000

   [viii] NAS 2000. National Academy of Sciences. Reconciling Observation of Global Temperature Change

   [ix] Public Review Draft, 2000, Climate Change Impacts on the United States National Assessment, US Global Change Research Program June 2000. http://www.usgcrp.gov/

   [x] TAR draft in progress, out for review this fall.

   [xi] IPCC 1996. Kattenberg, A., et al., pp 289-357., Climate Change 1995, Working Group I, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)

   [xii] ibid.

   [xiii]EPA Global Warming website, http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/impacts/

   [xiv] IPCC 1996. Bijlsma, Luitzen, et al., pp 290-319., Climate Change 1995,Working Group II, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)

   [xv] EPA website, http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/impacts/

   [xvi]Recer Paul, 2000, "Greenland ice cap is melting, raising sea level", The Associated Press. July 21, 2000

   [xvii] Suplee, Curt 98, Washington Post, "El Nino Impacted by Atmospheric Warming" June 9, 1998

   [xviii] cite coral reef studies: State Dept and more recent publications

   [xix] IPCC 1995

   [xx] ibid

   [xxi] Kalkstein, Laurence and J. S.Greene, 1997. An Evaluation of Climate/Mortality Relationships in Large U.S. Cities and the Possible Impacts of Climate Change, Environmental Health Perspectives, 105(1): 84-93

   [xxii] http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/impacts

   [xxiii] ibid

   [xxiv] http://www.ozone.org/heatstress/index.html

   [xxv] http://www.scientificamerican.com/2000/0800issue/0800epsteinbox5.html

   [xxvi] IPCC 1995.

   [xxvii] IPCC 1995

   [xxviii] EPA, Forest Global Warming Impacts, http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/impacts

   [xxix] IPCC 1995

   [xxx] ibid

   [xxxi] UNFCCC

   [xxxii] Economists Statement, Redefining Progress, 2,500 economists, including 7 Nobel Laureates, have said will make it possible for the U.S. to meet Kyoto goals without hurting the U.S. economy. http:www.rprogress.org

   [xxxiii] ACEEE 1999

   [xxxiv] ACEEE 1999

   [xxxv] ACEEE 1999

   [xxxvi] ACEEE 1999. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. Meeting America's Kyoto Protocol Target: Policies and Impacts. Geller et al. December 1999. http:www.aceee.org/pubs/e993.htm

   [xxxvii] ACEEE 1999

   [xxxviii] Sustainable Ag Coalition

   [xxxix] ibid.

   [xl] DOE, 97

   Adopted from Ozone Action's "Presidential Platform on Global Warming.