CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE

UPPER GREAT LAKES REGION:

A WORKSHOP REPORT

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, Michigan

May 4-7, 1998

Compiled by

Peter Sousounis, George Albercook, Jeff Andresen, Jeanne Bisanz, Werner Braun,

Arthur Brooks, Daniel Brown, H. H. Cheng, Michael Donahue, Brett Hulsey,

Kenneth Kunkel, George Kuper, John Magnuson, Frank Quinn, Karel Rogers, Perry Samson,

Joel Scheraga, Julie Winkler

Edited by

Peter Sousounis and George Albercook

Sponsored by

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Research and Development

United States Global Change Research Program

(Cooperative Agreement No. CX 826421-01-0)

and The University of Michigan

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Upper Great Lakes Workshop would not have been possible without the efforts

from many people. First and foremost I would like to thank the members of the Workshop Steering Committee for their suggestions and guidance during the planning stages

of the workshop and their careful comments of the workshop report. I would like to

thank the Session (Sector) Chairs for their participation during the breakout sessions

and their drafting the various sector reports. I would like to thank the Rapporteurs,

whose organizational and writing skills during the breakout sessions helped capture

the main points of the lively discussions. I would like to thank Sandra Pytlinski for

handling the logistics of planning the workshop and proofing the workshop report. I

would like to thank George Albercook and for his careful editions of the sector reports

and Jeanne Bisanz for editing, and creating the format, layout and graphics. I would

like to thank the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their financial support of the workshop and EPA Project Officers Joel Scheraga and Michael Slimak for

their periodic guidance throughout the entire process. Finally, and perhaps most

importantly, I would like to thank all the workshop participants and invited speakers,

without whose time and very valuable input neither the workshop nor the report would

have been possible.

Table of Contents

FOREWORD.....................................................................................................................................................................1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................... 3

SECTOR REPORTS

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 11

CLIMATE .............................................................................................................................................................. 13

WATER RESOURCES .............................................................................................................................................. 19

WATER ECOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................ 23

LAND ECOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................... 29

AGRICULTURE ...................................................................................................................................................... 37

INFRASTRUCTURE. ................................................................................................................................................. 43

ECONOMY ............................................................................................................................................................ 51

HUMAN HEALTH .................................................................................................................................................. 57

GOVERNANCE & EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 61

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1INVITED TALKS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 69

BENCHMARKS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE, BY JOHN FRASER HART ................................................................. 71

WORKING TOWARD A NATIONAL ASSESSMENT, BY ROBERT J. CORELL ....................................................... 77

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS EFFECTS, BY MICHAEL MACCRACKEN ................................................ 83

CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION, BY DEREK WINSTANLEY ................................................ 93

MAKING SENSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS, BY OTTO C. DOERING III ................................................. 97

REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND FRESH WATER ECOLOGY, BY JOHN J. MAGNUSON .................................101

GLOBAL WARMING IN MINNESOTA: PLAYING WITH FIRE, BY MICHAEL NOBLE ..........................................107

GETTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, BY LINDA MORTSCH .......................................................................115

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE: A BUSINESS MODEL APPROACH, BY CHARLES B. KITZ ..................................123

COPING WITH CLIMATE CHANGE, BY JOEL D. SCHERAGA ........................................................................131

APPENDIX 2WORKSHOP AGENDA.............................................................................................................................141

APPENDIX 3PARTICIPANTS & AFFILIATIONS................................................................................................................143

APPENDIX 4RAPPORTEURS & PARTICIPANTS...............................................................................................................145

APPENDIX 5STEERING COMMITTEE............................................................................................................................153

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Peter J. Sousounis

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

1. INTRODUCTION

The Upper Great Lakes Workshop, sponsored

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA), was held at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan from 4-7 May 1998

to discuss some of the potential consequences

of climate change in the Upper Great Lakes

region (e.g., Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan). The workshop was one of 19 workshops

that were sponsored by the U.S. Global Change

Research Program through other federal agencies. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sponsored the Upper Great

Lakes Workshop, while the National Aeronatics

and Space Administration (NASA) sponsored

similar workshops in the Southeastern United

States. The workshop addressed four questions:

(1) What are the current stresses in the region?

(2) How will climate change and climate variability ameliorate or exacerbate these stresses?

(3) What additional information is needed to

understand better the impacts of climate change

and variability in the region? and (4) What are

the coping mechanisms that would minimize

the (negative) impacts of climate change in the

region? The workshop was unique for this

region because it brought together over 120

stakeholders from industry, government,

academia, and environmental groups who had

concerns about climate change.

2. PLENARY SESSIONS

The workshop began with an informal slide presentation given by Professor John Fraser Hart

from the University of Minnesota on Monday

evening (4 May). The slide show highlighted

some concerns about how climate change may

impact life in the Great Lakes region, and gave

attendees some food for thought as they prepared for intense discussion over the next two

and a half days.

On Tuesday morning, Robert Corell (National

Science Foundation) talked about the importance of the workshop from a National Assessment standpoint. Michael MacCracken (U.S.

Global Change Research Program) talked about

the current state of knowledge as far as global

climate change is concerned. Derek Winstanley

(Illinois State Water Survey) talked about some

of the regional patterns of climate that have been

exhibited in the Upper Great Lakes region and

really put the concept of climate change and

variability in perspective. Professor Otto

Doering (Purdue University) concluded the

morning session by discussing some of the impacts that climate change may have on the Upper Great Lakes region as far as agriculture, industry, and the economy are concerned.

Professor John Magnuson (University of Wisconsin) gave an informal talk during lunch regarding some of the anticipated ecological impacts from climate change. The afternoon was

reserved for Breakout Sessions I and II. That

evening, Michael Noble (Minnesotans for an

Energy Efficient Economy) talked about energy

conservation and climate change.

Wednesday morning began with a summary

from each of the breakout groups regarding their

discussions from the previous day. Linda

Mortsch (Environment Canada) followed with

a discussion of additional information that is

needed to help everyone understand the potential impacts of climate change. The talk was motivation for Breakout Session III. At lunch,

Charles B. Kitz from the Chrysler Corporation

presented thoughts about climate change from

a business perspective. After lunch, a talk by
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

4

Joel Scheraga (U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency) that focused on mechanisms that are

or that may be available to cope with climate

change provided motivation for Breakout

Session IV.

Each of the breakout groups provided summaries of their four breakout sessions on Thursday morning. Note that the invited talks given

by the speakers are provided in Appendix 1.

3. STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS

Stakeholders divided into breakout groups to

discuss the above mentioned questions as they

related to important regional sectors: water resources (WRES), water ecology (WECO), land

ecology (LECO), agriculture (AGRI), infrastructure (INFR), economy (ECON), and human health (HLTH). Additionally, breakout sessions that focused on Climate, and Governance

& Education were conducted.

3.1 Climate

The Climate breakout group focused on a series of questions that differed from those discussed in most other sectors. One major theme

of the breakout discussions was the assessment

of the natural variability of the regional climate.

Understanding the short-term and long-term

natural variability is important both for understanding the behavior of the regional climate

and for assessing the performance of General

Circulation Models (GCMs) simulations for the

region. The breakout group emphasized the

importance of a quality observational record for

evaluating climate variability and discussed the

many limitations of the available historical climatological record. Alternative means for enhancing and extending the climatological

record, such as the use of proxy data, were also

discussed.

A second major theme was the role of General

Circulation Models (GCMs) in impacts analysis. The breakout group acknowledged that the

limitations of the current family of models make

assessing regional climate change difficult. Regional climate models and statistical

downscaling were advocated as ways to provide greater spatial detail and richness to climate scenarios. The breakout group emphasized

that the unique meteorology of the Great Lakes

region needs to be carefully considered in model

simulations and in any impacts analyses.

General recommendations of the breakout group

were that more research is needed to better understand past and current climate variability in

the Upper Great Lakes region. More research

is also needed to evaluate the behavior of GCMs

at different levels of greenhouse gas forcing.

Finally, a better understanding of the interaction between the large water bodies of the Great

Lakes and the regional climate is necessary

before long term climate impacts can be

adequately assessed.

3.2 Water Resources

Understanding the impacts on water resources

is the linchpin to understanding impacts of climate change on other sectors. The water in the

Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Basin serves as a

resource for sustaining human life, ecology, agriculture, trade, energy generation, and recreation, to name a few.

Stakeholders composed a list of stresses and

discussed how they would be affected by climate change. Despite the uncertainties in

future climate predictions because models (e.g.,

general circulation models) either exclude or do

not incorporate properly the Great Lakes, it was

generally agreed that climate change would

exacerbate these stresses.
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5

Stakeholders raised concerns about decreased

lake levels or net basin supply (NBS), which

may result from lower land-based runoff (from

higher evapotranspiration) and higher lake

evaporation during the fall and early winter. The

predicted reductions in lake levels ranged from

0.5 m on Lake Superior, from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and Oregon

State University (OSU) models, to 2.5 m on

Lakes Michigan and Lake Huron, from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics model. These decreased lake levels would result in a 20-40%

outflow reduction of the St. Lawrence River.

Stakeholders expressed unanimously the need

for improved regional climate models. They

noted that the ultimate goal is to develop and

run these high resolution climate models to

simulate accurately the impacts of global

and regional climate change on individual

watersheds.

3.3 Water Ecology

The Great Lakes Basin supports 131 elements

(i.e., plant and animal species as well as community types) that are critically imperiled or

rare on a global scale.

Stakeholders noted that current stresses from agricultural practices (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides,

animal waste), urbanization, forestry and recreation uses, shoreline modification, dam and

hydrological manipulation, eutrophication,

toxics and contaminants, and accidental

introduction of exotic species, were of greatest

concern.

Stakeholders noted that any changes in climate

such as mean temperature, seasonality, weather

extremes, ice, water levels, runoff, wind and

cloud cover could have strong and hard-to-predict impacts on aquatic systems. One example

that was discussed was the potential effects on

deep inland lakes. Temperature increases could

decrease the hypolimnion, leading to a decrease

in dissolved oxygen, a decrease in lake primary

productivity, and a decrease in coldwater fish

populations. These increases could also decrease

ice cover and reduce winter kills. Overall

changes in the seasonal patterns of freezing/

thawing, and water level, for example, could

interfere with aspects of fish (and other species)

life histories, such as timing of reproduction.

Still, the stress that may prove to be most important regarding aquatic ecosystem health is

how land-use changes as a result of changing

climate.

It was noted that declines in water levels may

cause coastal wetlands to migrate lakeward and

inland wetlands to ‘dry out’. Impaired water

quality could lessen fish health, survival, and

productivity. Warm water fish species could

replace cool water species. The biodiversity loss

could have indirect impacts. For example, loss

of genetic material may prevent new innovations in the agricultural and pharmaceutical

industries.

Stakeholders indicated that better models are

needed, that integrate climate, landscape, hydrology, and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Some important coping mechanisms included

promoting the consideration of environmental

costs (externalities) in cost/benefit assessments

of various planning and mitigation strategies,

increased efforts at public outreach and education regarding the potential effects of climate

change on aquatic ecosystems, and the development of adequate restoration techniques for

aquatic systems.

3.4 Land Ecology

A unique combination of soils and climate

allows abundant coniferous tree growth throughout the Upper Great Lakes region. Michigan

ranks second only behind Oregon in Christmas

Tree production.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

6

Stakeholders discussed how regional climate

change may displace forest zones with decreased acreage of boreal forests. Higher temperatures could lead to increases in forest growth

rates in marginal areas that are now limited by

temperature. Increased potential for damage

from fires, pests, and diseases is possible. The

southern transition zone of the boreal forest is

susceptible to expansion of temperate forests.

Temperate forests may have to compete with

other land-use pressures. Stakeholders generally agreed that the rate of temperature change

will likely exceed the rate of species migration.

Massive diebacks could occur. Changes in both

forest resource availability (supply) and demand

are expected.

Stakeholders listed some important stresses

including land-use changes from population

growth and redistribution, urban expansion,

agriculture, mining, forestry, and recreation.

Additional stresses occur from disease, fragmentation, pests (Gypsy Moth), exotic species,

and natural disasters such as fire and flood. It

was noted that climate change would likely

exacerbate most of these stresses.

Stakeholders wanted better systems to monitor

land-use changes and climate changes; better

models of land-use dynamics to produce

scenarios; and more information on historical

species migration and carbon sequestration of

forests.

Public education was noted as an important coping strategy. Other strategies included facilitating species migrations where possible; planning

and policy to anticipate land-use conflicts; rethinking fire and pest management strategies in

light of changing climate; and understanding

what current strategies are failing.

3.5 Agriculture

The Upper Great Lakes region has a combined

climate and soil regime that makes most of it

suitable for farming. Less than four percent of

all the farms are irrigated at present. The region

as a whole is suitable for growing eight of the

top ten food crops in the world. Michigan, for

example, is a leading producer of several varieties of beans, tart cherries, cultivated blueberries, cucumbers, and greenhouse flowers. Minnesota is a leading producer of sugar beets, dark

red kidney beans, processed sweet corn, and

green peas, and ranks third nationally in hog

production. Wisconsin is a leading producer of

many dairy products in the Upper Great Lakes

region.

Stakeholders discussed a variety of economic,

environmental, societal, and climatological

stresses and noted difficulties in determining

whether the direct effects from regional climate

change would have a positive or negative impact. For example, a longer growing season

would not necessarily translate to more agricultural productivity in the region because precipitation distributions may change unfavorably and

also because soils in the northern part of the

region are not necessarily suitable to support

the same types of crops that are now limited to

southern portions of the region. Stakeholders

also expressed difficulty in determining whether

the indirect stresses, which are related to

economics, government regulations, and population demographics, would be impacted by

climate change and if so how.

Stakeholders believed that the most useful additional information they could obtain was to

understand more accurately how regional

climate, especially weather extremes and

interannual variability, would change.
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7

Some coping strategies included increased use

of irrigation to compensate for possibly drier

conditions, government policies to get farmers

through difficult years, and increased use of

reduced tillage systems to provide the potential

for significant carbon sequestration and to realize the benefits of improved tillage, soil fertility, and water holding capacity.

3.6 Infrastructure

The Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway constitutes a major international waterway, which

serves a region that has approximately 50 ports,

25% of North America’s population, creates

more than 1/3 of the continent’s gross national

product, produces 2/3 of Canada’s industrial output, grows about 1/2 the soybean and corn in

the U.S., and accounts for some 40% of U.S.

manufacturing. Several power plants generate

electricity for the lower Great Lakes region.

Stakeholders raised concerns about possible increases in extreme weather events (as a result

of climate change) that would further stress energy demands, power lines, and buildings. There

was also concern that overall increases in temperature would shift the energy demand period

from winter to summer.

Concerns were also raised about reduced water

levels. Without dredging, ships would likely

have to reduce their cargoes to navigate shallower channels. But, a longer (ice-free) shipping season may allow for shipping more,

smaller loads, resulting in no net annual loss.

Dredging, lowering docks, extending water supply sources and storm water outfalls are costly

actions that may have to be implemented. Hydropower production along the Niagara and St.

Lawrence Rivers could be reduced by lower lake

levels and higher water temperatures. A reduction in hydropower may be further strained by

increased demand for energy for air conditioning and refrigeration during the summer months.

Stakeholders wanted more information on extreme weather events; an integrated Geographical Information System (GIS) database for infrastructure characteristics; information about infrastructure use by various population segments;

and cost/benefit analyses of different policy options. Stakeholders also wanted better regional

climate models.

3.7 Economy

The Great Lakes region is the Industrial Heartland of the U.S. It is a leader in automobile, paper product, medical, chemical, and pharmaceutical production. Recreation is also important

economically to the region. Michigan has more

registered boaters and more golf courses than

any other state. Ice fishing and snowmobiling

are popular pastimes in the region.

Stakeholders noted that stresses associated with

climate change in the Great Lakes region are centered around three key issues: historical tensions

between economy and environment, economic

realities which exist for businesses, and the impacts of social factors.

It was noted that most aspects of industry and

manufacturing in the Upper Great Lakes region

are not vulnerable to the direct effects of the predicted changes in temperature, precipitation, or

weather variability associated with climate

change. Exceptions include tourism, recreation,

and agriculture, where negative and positive impacts may offset each other. Nevertheless, the

economy and commerce of the region are highly

vulnerable to the indirect effects of climate

change. That is, public opinion has the potential

to vastly change markets; altered governmental

policy has the potential, if not carefully designed,

to devastate Great Lakes industries.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

8

Extensive economic modeling with numerous

possible policy responses is needed so industry

may best adapt to potential changes. Multiple

government-scientist-industry partnerships are

needed to facilitate communication and information exchange. The media should have reliable information sources that are not slanted

toward scare tactics.

Education of the general public and business

people in both direct and indirect impacts of climate change were mentioned as a powerful coping mechanism. Part of that education should

include an understanding of the constraints under which industry/commerce operate.

The key tools that can facilitate adaptation of

industry/commerce to climate change are policies that set an economic environment (e.g., remove barriers that impede change), and the promotion of consumer markets. It was noted that

responses to climate change should be tested

for dual benefit. That is, the best response would

not only address climate change, but also ways

to stimulate desirable economic growth and

economic opportunity, energy (and other)

efficiency, and innovation.

Numerous coping strategies such as lifestyle

changes, better building standards, and more

resilient energy sources, were discussed.

3.8 Human Health

Stakeholders listed stresses for health care, environment, and lifestyle. A major health care

stress was its limited access. Severe weather

events (weather extremes), and air/water quality were also noted. Finally, lifestyle choices

including diet, tobacco, alcohol, and drug use

were listed as stresses on human health. Stakeholders noted that some anticipated aspects of

climate change could further impact human

health. For example, increased frequency/

change in timing or locations of severe weather

events (extended heat/cold waves, tornadoes,

lightning, heavy rains, floods) could lead to increased injury and mortality. Extended heat/cold

waves with low winds would be conducive to

increased levels of air pollutants (i.e. tropospheric ozone, particulates) and could lead to

increased morbidity and mortality. Some effects

could be indirect such as those from increased

survival of vector-borne pathogens because of

milder winters; increased Lyme disease from

more frequent precipitation; and increased

toxins in food and water from increased use of

pesticides to control infestations.

Informational needs included better regional

climate models to evaluate the regional-scale

implications of climate change/variability (i.e.

for the Upper Great Lakes region), and better

monitoring of high risk areas, sensitive populations, and important socioeconomic factors so

that public health methods can be developed and

implemented to prevent/reduce health impacts.

Coping mechanisms included the development

of integrated weather forecasting and health

warnings (i.e. broaden current ozone, pollen

warnings); educating the general public, health

care professionals, and government officials

about the potential impacts of climate change

on human health; and keeping people out of high

risk areas (i.e. flood plains).

3.9 Governance & Education

The Governance & Education breakout group

discussed governance and educational issues on

two different days. Separate sets of questions

were developed for both portions because the

questions asked in the other breakout groups did

not directly apply to governance and education.

Regarding governance, some stakeholders felt

that governments should stay clear because they
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

9

are too slow and inefficient to facilitate the radical and innovative measures that may be needed

to deal with climate change. Other stakeholders felt that governments should provide strong

international, domestic, and local leadership.

These stakeholders also felt that governments

should continue to fund research programs in

environmental science and renewable energy

resource development and communicate the

results of this research to the public in a politically unbiased manner. Stakeholders also felt

that governments should participate in voluntary partnerships with business and industry so

that the two groups can work together, instead

of against each other, to modify industrial

practices that have a negative impact on the

environment.

Regarding education, stakeholders emphasized

the importance of disseminating information

about climate change during times when the

public's attention is focused on Earth's climate

(e.g., weather catastrophe). Stakeholders also

noted that the information should include a general description of the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect and that all things are known about

climate change, but the consequences of many

climate change scenarios must be considered.

Importantly, stakeholders noted that the public

should understand that scientific data can be

interpreted in different ways in order to promote

a specific point of view. Finally, stakeholders

noted that people should realize that the causes

of climate change are directly linked to human

behavior.

4. CLOSING REMARKS

The Upper Great Lakes region has much at

stake when it comes to considering the potential impacts of climate change. Its importance

from hydrological, agricultural, industrial, and

recreational perspectives, to name a few, means

that even slight climate changes and slight

changes in weather extreme patterns could have

significant impacts.

The Upper Great Lakes Workshop served as a

mechanism to identify concerns of people who

have a stake in the future of the Great Lakes

region. These concerns are being addressed in

a follow-up assessment. The assessment will

consider how regional climate change, as defined by newly available scenarios that include

the Great Lakes and other what-if scenarios, will

impact some of the sectors that were discussed

at the workshop.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

10
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

71

BENCHMARKS

FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

John Fraser Hart

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota

This evening I would like to explore with

you some of the present geographic patterns that might be used as benchmarks

for the identification of climatic change in the

Upper Great Lakes region. There are some

fairly momentous changes already underway.

Some of these changes obviously will be accelerated or retarded by climatic change. But I

think we need to be cautious about giving too

much credit to climatic change or to El Niño, or

to whatever else happens to be our favorite

whipping boy or seems to be popular this week.

I begin with the assumption that climatic change

is not going to have much direct impact on city

folk. Some of them might be moderately inconvenienced, but most will simply reset their thermostats and go on about their business. Even in

urban areas, I assume that many will not be

greatly affected by change, and in the interest

of time I will ignore it, despite its importance in

a few areas. I want to focus on rural areas, which

were settled predominantly by two groups. The

largest native-born groups were Yankees and

Yorkers, who were leapfrogging westward to

the frontier. Some became farmers, to be sure,

but many sought their fortunes in commerce,

and they played a major role in the development of towns and cities. The other major group

of early settlers came directly from Europe.

Actually, the Upper Lakes States was the only

large area, in the United States, where foreignborn people comprised as much as a quarter of

the total population.

The construction of railroads in the 1850s, 60s

and 70s enabled immigrants to travel directly

from their homes to the port of embarkation in

Europe, and from the port of entry in the United

States directly to the frontier. For the most part

the foreign-born became farmers, and often

there was tension between the foreign-born on

the land – the farmers, and the Yankees and the

Yorkers who had businesses in small towns and

cities. Neither group, however, seemed to

understand that milking cows was women’s

work, well beneath the dignity of a man, and

after a highly successful initial fling with growing wheat, they settled down to become dairy

farmers.

There are well-known maps for the types of

farming in the United States which identify the

Upper Lakes States as a dairy farming area. But

some of these maps can be grievously exaggerated – you have got to be suspicious of any map

showing a distribution that changes sharply and

abruptly at a state line or along an international

boundary. A more realistic map is based on sales

of dairy products. Two quite different but

equally revealing maps can be compiled from

the identical data statistics. One map shows sales

per square mile, [and] emphasizes the absolute

importance of Wisconsin and Minnesota as dairy

states, with Michigan a very poor third. The

other map, which shows sales of dairy products

Figure 1: Sales of dairy farm products in 1992. Adapted from

slide presented by Frazer Hart, May, 1998.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

72

as a percentage of all farm sales, shows that

farmers in the northeast rely far more heavily

on sales of dairy products, whereas dairy farmers in the Upper Lakes States are appreciably

more diversified.

Ralph Steiner is a representative Wisconsin

dairy farmer. He was milking 15 cows when he

started farming in 1950, and he has gradually

built up his herd to 45 milking cows. Ralph has

120 acres of cultivable land. His principal crop

is alfalfa, which gives him protein-rich hay that

is excellent feed for his cows. He has 40 acres

of corn, and he chops the entire plant for silage

before the grain is ripe. Now corn is a subtropical plant, and summers in the northern part

of the Upper Lakes States are too cool for the

grain to ripen before the first frost. Traditional

dairy farm states have barns with huge lofts for

storing alfalfa hay and cylindrical silos for storing the corn crop. Better varieties and increased

yields have enabled dairy farmers to fill their

silos from only half as much acreage as they

once needed, and some of them are willing to

gamble that the rest of the corn field will ripen

into grain. But they are taking a chance, that an

early snow won’t beat them to the punch.

Most dairy farmers have learned that it is

cheaper and easier for them to buy the grain

corn they need, instead of trying to grow it themselves. I think that dairy farmers in the Upper

Lakes States are in for some rough sledding.

They have been cocooned — they would say

victimized, but I think they have been sheltered

— they have been cocooned by a truly bizarre

price support system. For example, a milk marketing “order” is actually an area within which

all dairy farmers receive the same support price

for their milk. The milk price support system is

a relic of the era of the horse and buggy and the

slow milk train that stopped at every crossroads.

Dairy farmers have a long tradition of cooperation that dates back to the days when cheesemaking left the farm house kitchen and moved

into the crossroads creamery, and no other group

of farmers is so well organized to insure that

Congress treats them the way they want to be

treated. The support price of milk increases with

distance to Eau Claire, Wisconsin. And that is

indeed a disadvantage for dairy farmers in the

Upper Lakes States. But they have been too

complacent in their political power, too conservative about adopting new technologies.

For example, the average number of cows per

dairy farm in Wisconsin increased from 15 in

1949 to 50 in 1992, while California was exploding from 16 to 400. Dairy farmers around

the peripheries, especially in California, have

capitalized on technological innovations to develop large new dairy operations, but the Upper Lakes States have only a handful. In 1992,

the United States had 564 dairy operations that

were milking 1,000 cows or more. These operations accounted for less than l/2 of 1% of all

our dairy farms, but they produced nearly 10%

of our milk. On these large operations, the cows

spend their lives in small enclosures called drylots where they are fed alfalfa hay trucked in

from distant places. Three times a day they are

marched to milking parlors where they are

milked and given concentrated feed shipped in

from all over the world. A parlor can handle 50

cows at a time – an entire average Wisconsin

dairy herd in one single place – and it operates

Figure 2: Dairy farm in Minnesota which contrasts sharply with

the dairy farm production in California; photo by Don Breneman,

Minnesota Extension Service.
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

73

24 hours a day. The lights have never been

turned off since the day it was opened.

Urban sprawl is displacing dairy farmers in California, and they’re starting to look for new areas. Joe Pires, for example, was milking 2,000

cows in Tulare, California, but he set up his kids

on a large new operation near Elkton, South

Dakota, just west of the Minnesota line. Joe

was milking 1,400 cows, the equivalent of 28

average Minnesota dairy farms. “Why would

your kids want to move from California to South

Dakota?” I asked him. He thought a minute,

and then he said, “They’re crazy.” Crazy or not

— I think it is large new operations like these

that are going to sound the death bell for many

traditional small dairy farms in the Upper Lakes

States.

Fruit production is a specialized agricultural

activity along the eastern side of Lake Michigan. It capitalizes on the ameliorating effect of

the lake. But I think that the days of fruit farming in Michigan also are numbered. The fruit

has to be picked by hand, and finding an adequate and reliable supply of harvest labor has

always been a headache for fruit producers.

Some producers have taken a page from Tom

Sawyer. Let the suckers pay you for the privilege of doing the work themselves by charging

them to pick their own. Some producers will

even sell you a tree. They tend it for you, let

you know when the fruit is ripe and ready to

pick, even lend you a table so you can have a

picnic under your own fruit tree. Marketing is

becoming a major headache. Gordon Nye has

160 acres of peach and apple orchards, and he

is too small. The major grocery chains want

large standard lots over the longest possible season. They would rather do business with a few

large producers in California than with many

small growers like Gordon. He has had to build

his own roadside market. “One hour by interstate highway from the Chicago loop,” he said

proudly, and this is where he sells his products.

The fruit farmers of southwestern Michigan already rely heavily – perhaps too heavily – on

direct sales to consumers. I wonder how much

longer they will be able to compete with large

producers in areas with longer growing seasons.

I have a hunch that many of them will be out of

business long before the climate can change

enough to affect them.

Figure 3: Fruit market near Traverse City, Michigan; photo by Michigan Farm Bureau.

The southwestern corner of

the Upper Great Lakes region is quite a different

story. Southwestern Minnesota is part of a vast field of

corn and soybeans that

stretches 800 miles eastward

from Sioux City to Cincinnati and bulges about 200

miles north and south. In

parts of Illinois and Iowa, an

incredible three quarters of

the land area – the total land

area – is devoted to just

these two crops – corn and

soybeans. Farmers like

Doug Magnus are concentrating on doing what their
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

74

Figure 4: Isle Royale National Park, Lake Superior, Michigan.

US Fisheries and Wildlife Service; photo by: Mark E. Hodgkins.

computers tell them to do. They are growing

corn and soybeans that they can sell straight

off the farm as cash grains. In 1983, Doug was

farming 700 acres of corn and beans. He told

me that was about all he could handle. This

year he is farming 1,500 acres and eagerly looking for more because a 1,500 acre cash-grain

farm is undersized by today’s standards. Can

cash-grain farming spread northward into what

is now dairy country if the climate ameliorates?

I doubt it for two reasons: First, the dairy areas

do not have the vast level areas necessary for

the efficient operation of huge modern farm machines; and secondly, extensive areas, especially

in Michigan, have sandy, outwash soils of great

thirstiness and low inherent fertility.

What are the agricultural prospects for the boreal forest areas in the northern parts of the

Upper Great Lakes States? In Canada, where

farmland is in precious short supply, they call

it the pioneer fringe. They are still clearing the

forests and trying to bring it into production.

Unfortunately, about the only crop you can really count on in such areas is hay, and you’re

not going to be able to make much money growing hay. Some farmers have been able to eke

out a living at the southern edge of the boreal

forest, but for many of them, I suspect the principal source of farm income is the mailbox

down at the end of the lane. Most attempts to

farm the boreal forest have eventually wound

up in heartbreak and abandonment. Between

1934 and 1987 more than two of every three

farms in the boreal forest areas of Minnesota

and Wisconsin were abandoned. Even more

striking is the astonishing decline in the number of farms throughout nearly all of Michigan,

which is rapidly losing whatever agricultural

importance it might once have had. Climatic

change cannot be blamed for this loss. The cards

in the environmental deck are stacked heavily

against the boreal forest. Evergreen coniferous

trees drop acid needles, rainwater percolating

down through this litter is acidified, and leaches

soluble plant nutrients from the soil. The glaciers left a terribly tangled drainage system. The

problems posed by climate seem to be almost

an incidental addendum to this dreary litany of

environmental constraints. Climatic change

is not going to change the soil, nor the topography, nor the deranged drainage system.

The primeval boreal forest was pretty spectacular before the lumber barons butchered it, to

judge from the little bits and pieces that escaped.

The forest that replaced it is a pretty sorry collection of weed trees. And several human lifetimes of careful management will be needed to

restore the boreal forest to its primeval splendor. Forest industry companies are trying to

expedite the process by developing industrial

forests to produce the prodigious amounts of biomass they require. They are planting rows of

coniferous seedlings on land where they had poisoned broadleaf saplings that might compete.

But in the north, trees will grow only one-third

as fast as in the south. Perhaps climatic change

might level the playing field a bit. But one might

wonder whether it is wise to encourage the

growth of the pulp and paper industry which is

one of our most egregious environmental polluters, spewing great clouds of toxic gases into

the atmosphere and throwing great quantities of

acid waste into rivers and streams.
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

75

Figure 5: Lumber camp, c.1900. Superior, Wisconsin; photo from

Douglass County Historical Society.

Figure 6: Loading logs on the truck for transport to the milling

plant; Superior National Forest, Minnesota; photo from USDA

Forest Service.

 The first lumbering operations in the boreal

forest used natural waterways to reach the

wooded areas, to drive the logs to the sawmills.

They employed hordes of lumberjacks, who

were housed in logging camps with bunk

houses, cook shacks, blacksmith shops, barns

for horses and oxen, and a host of smaller web

buildings. But lumbering has changed. Clayton

Rollins is a modern lumberman in northern

Minnesota. His daddy hired 50 lumberjacks.

Clayton can cut more lumber than his daddy

did and only employs two workers. Clayton

operates the feller-buncher. One worker drives

the tractor that skids logs to the harvester; the

other operates the harvester. The feller-buncher

has a huge claw that grabs a tree at ground level

and has a pair of powerful hydraulic shears that

can cut through a 12-inch tree as easily as scissors can cut through paper. The claw grabs the

tree, the shears snip it off, the machine twirls

it like a baton, places it on the ground, to be

skidded to the harvester, which slices it into

four-foot lengths that are ready to be trucked to

the mill.

After the accessible areas near the streams had

been logged off, the lumbermen built railroads

to get them into the more remote interfluve

areas. The lumbering railroads had the side

effect of making the boreal forest easily accessible to city folk — sufferers from hay fever,

members of rod and gun clubs.

The first resorts in the boreal forest were primitive affairs where people could get back to nature. Since World War II better highways and

better automobiles have spawned vast development of second homes and summer cottages.

Some lakeshore areas are as extensively built

up as the city streets that their residents were

trying to escape. Artificial created huge new

lakeshore developments. Lake Arrowhead did

not even exist until the developer built a dam in

1980. He subdivided the land around it into

some 2,000 more-or-less lakeshore lots and created a veritable new city. Michigan has fewer

lakes and other bodies of inland water than the

morainic belts of Minnesota and Wisconsin. But

Michigan has even more second homes and

summer cottages. The pattern in Michigan is

linear rather than clustered because water

related recreation in Michigan is oriented

toward rivers rather than towards lakes, and

many Michigan rivers have almost continuous

strings of cottages.

Seasonality has been the curse of resort areas

in the boreal forest. People in resort areas have

had to earn their entire 12 month income in a

few hectic weeks between Memorial Day and
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

76

Figure 7: Boats at TLR Marina, Monroe, Michigan. Michigan

Sea GrantExtension; photo by: Carole y. Swinehart.

Labor Day. But resort areas have begun to develop more year-round activity. Older folk enjoy the relative peace and quiet of the shoulder

season of the fall when the noisy kids have gone

back to school and the leaves are changing color.

And skiing and snowmobiling attract enthusiasts in winter.

The natural history of a summer cottage is well

known. It starts off as a hunting shack up in the

woods, where dad and the boys can put on their

red-checked flannel shirts, play poker, smoke

cigars, drink whiskey, pretend that they are the

reincarnation of Daniel Boone. Eventually,

mom starts to get suspicious. She decides to

tag along. Talk about culture shock! Finally she

calms down, and says, “Well, where’s the

biffy?” “Gee whiz, mom, we’ve been using that

tree out there.” Next thing you know, you’ve

got running water and electricity and a telephone. And as mom and dad start to get older,

they begin to think this might not be such a bad

place to retire. So they winterize the place and

move into it as their new primary retirement

home. It becomes their primary residence because their new second home is a trailer park

beneath the palm trees in southern Florida where

they winter.

Cohort survival ratios demonstrate the importance of retirement migration to the boreal forest. An age cohort is a group of people of the

same age. They are ten years older when the

census is taken ten years later. In some counties the number of people in the cohort age 60-

64 in 1980 was greater than the number of

people in the same cohort, age 50-54 in 1970.

What explains this increase? It is extremely

difficult to be born at any age over 50. So we

may safely assume that people age 60-64 in

1980 have retired and moved to these counties.

In a sense, it is the retirement belt of the Upper

Lakes States.

The in-migration of retired people has helped

to stabilize the economies of resort areas in the

boreal forest. Retired people have created jobs

in construction, in maintenance and repair. They

have created new jobs for plumbers and utility

workers and even garbage collectors, because

rural areas in the boreal forest do not have the

city services that retired people expect and demand and for which they are able to pay. Local

young people, who once had to go to the cities

in search of jobs when they finished school or a

stint in the service can now find jobs close to

home. These jobs helped to stabilize an

economy in the boreal forest that is based on

a complex of tourism, recreation, resorts, and

retirement migration.

I have no idea how climatic change might affect this new economy. In areas farther south, I

have argued that the fruit areas in southwestern

Michigan, and the dairy areas in Wisconsin, may

already be under greater stress than many people

seem to realize. And Michigan has almost

ceased to be a farming state. I am rather more

sanguine about the future of cash grain farming

areas in southwestern Minnesota. But I have

argued that environmental constraints will limit

the expansion of cash grain farming northward.

In short, I believe that momentous changes

already are underway in the rural areas of the

Upper Lakes States. But I defer to those of you

who are assembled here to try to figure out how

these areas are going to be impacted by climatic

change.
 SECTOR REPORTS

11

SECTOR REPORTS

The Upper Great Lakes Workshop was the first step in learning about and

documenting the stakeholders concerns in our region for the National Assessment process. The purpose of the workshop was to collect input from a broad

range of stakeholders that might be impacted by climate change and variability. Prior to the workshop, organizers decided which sectors were most important to examine. These sectors were chosen based on what was at stake in the

region, as well as what previous climate change studies had shown would likely

be affected. For the Upper Great Lakes region, there were nine sectors. They

were Climate, Water Resources, Water Ecology, Land Ecology, Agriculture,

Infrastructure, Economy, Human Health, and Governance & Education.

During the workshop, participants were organized into sector breakout groups

according to their particular interests and asked to address four questions during four separate brainstorming sessions. Experience and interest were valued

as highly as expertise and academic credentials during these discussions. All

ideas and concerns were written on flip charts by rapporteurs, and afterward,

each sector produced a report that chronicled their discussions.

The main objective of these sector reports was to capture the key points and

the dynamic exchange of information during the breakout sessions. Undoubtedly, some of the concerns that were expressed in the breakout groups will turn

out to be less important than others, but by erring on the side of inclusion, the

chance of missing a concern was decreased. Additionally, the input from these

breakout groups provides the basis for a more rigorous and detailed study of

climate change impacts in the Great Lakes region that will be conducted in a

Regional Assessment of Climate Change. This follow-up activity to the workshop will also provide information for the National Assessment.

CLIMATE SECTOR

13

CLIMATE

SECTOR REPORT

Session Chairs: Kenneth Kunkel and Julie Winkler

Rapporteur: Michael Crimmins

OVERVIEW

The Climate breakout group included participants from various universities and research

facilities from around the Upper Great Lakes

region. The overall strength of the group was

its knowledge of climate modeling and regional

climatology. Participants with expertise in

paleoclimate reconstruction, mesoscale modeling, and hydrology further extended the knowledge base of the group. This diverse and comprehensive background of the participants made

for very insightful and productive discussions

concerning the monitoring of climate variability, assessing potential climatic change, and

evaluating the resulting environmental impacts

for the Upper Great Lakes region.

Because the set of questions that most of the

other sectors addressed was not applicable, a

different set of overarching questions (listed in

the next section) was devised to guide the breakout discussions. Each of the four breakout sessions

was further guided with specific questions (also

listed below) that related to the general

overarching themes. In addition, each session

began with a short presentation by one of the

group participants. These presentations provided a “jumping off” point for the discussion.

A major theme of the breakout discussions was

the assessment of the natural variability of the

regional climate. Understanding the short-term

and long-term natural variability is important

both for understanding the behavior of the

regional climate and for assessing the performance of General Circulation Model (GCM)

simulations for the region. The breakout group

emphasized the importance of a quality

observational record for evaluating climate

variability and discussed the many limitations of

the available historical climatological record.

Alternative means for enhancing and extending

the climatological record, such as the use of proxy

data, were also discussed.

A second major theme was the role of GCMs in

impacts analysis. The breakout group acknowledged that the limitations of the current family

of models make assessing regional climate

change difficult. Regional climate models and

statistical downscaling were advocated as ways

to provide greater spatial detail and richness to

climate scenarios. The breakout group emphasized that the unique meteorology of the Great

Lakes region needs to be carefully considered in

model simulations and in any impacts analysis.

General recommendations of the breakout group

were that more research is needed to better

understand past and current climate variability

in the Upper Great Lakes region. More research

is needed to evaluate the behavior of GCMs at

different levels of greenhouse gas forcing. Also,

a better understanding of the interaction between

the large water bodies of the Great Lakes and the

regional climate is necessary before long term

climate impacts can be adequately assessed.

More specific recommendations, along with the

background for these recommendations, are

provided below.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS FOR THE

CLIMATE BREAKOUT GROUP

Overarching Questions

The following overarching questions were

addressed by the Climate Breakout Group:

1. Scenarios. What are the important characteristics that climate change scenarios should

possess if they are to be used for impacts assessment in the Upper Great Lakes region?
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

14

2. GCMs. How can the important climate and

weather characteristics be incorporated into

GCM-based scenarios?

3. Research. What new directions of research

should be pursued to reduce uncertainties in

scenarios?

4. Uncertainties. What uncertainties exist

regarding current and past climate of the Upper

Great Lakes region?

5. Baseline data. What research still remains

to be conducted to provide an adequate baseline

climatology for the region?

6. Monitoring. What (e.g. tools, knowledge,

data) is required for adequate climate monitoring in the future?

Specific Questions

The specific questions discussed in the breakout

sessions were as follows:

• Scenario development. What is the nature

of historical variability of climate in this region,

particularly with regard to impacts-relevant

characteristics, such as water supplies and extreme events? What range of conditions should

be incorporated into scenarios? What are the

limitations in using GCM-based scenarios? Will

GCM-based scenarios provide unrealistic

ranges of future conditions?

• Spatial Variability. How do climate fluctuations and trends vary spatially across this region? Will GCM-based scenarios produce unrealistic spatial patterns? What methods are

available to produce realistic spatial patterns?

• Local influences. How are local and regional

features of the climate (e.g., lake effect snowstorms, lake breezes and near-shore modification of temperature) related to large-scale variability and change? How can such features be

incorporated into GCM-based scenarios? Will

such scenarios provide a realistic range of

future conditions?

• Land Surface. How important are landsurface feedbacks in modifying the climate of

the region? How likely is it that these feedbacks

will change in response to anthropogenic

influences? Is it important that GCM-based

scenarios incorporate a range of land-surface

feedbacks?

• Future research. What are the major recommendations of the group related to the

overarching questions? What new research

should be pursued to reduce uncertainties in

scenarios of future change?

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Scenario length. The historical climate

record exhibits temporal variability over a range

of time scales. Of particular interest are multidecadal periods with climate conditions significantly different than the long-term mean. Such

long-term variability is likely to be a feature of

any future climate regime. Some impacts will

be sensitive to variability on long time scales.

In order to accurately assess such impacts, it is

necessary to have scenarios of great length.

Recommendation #1:

We recommend that scenarios used for climate

assessments be of an appropriate length. A minimum length of 100 years is recommended for

examining important long-term variability

within the Upper Great Lakes region.

• Scenario detail. Many impacts are directly

caused by short-term and/or extreme weather

events. In order to assess such impacts, scenarios rich in detail are required. Weather events

that need to be specified in order to assess

certain impacts of climate change include: thunderstorm (wind, hail, tornadoes, etc.) frequency,

winter storms (wind, snow, etc.), critical
CLIMATE SECTOR

15

temperature threshold exceedances, freeze

dates, clouds/fog, length of wet/dry periods, and

heavy precipitation amounts and intensities.

Recommendation #2:

We recommend that scenarios have, at a minimum, a daily resolution in order to assess eventinfluenced impacts and be rich in climatic detail, including the variables listed above to the

extent practical.

• Derived climate variables. Related to Recommendation #2 is the use of “integrative” or

“derived” variables rather than “standard” climate variables in impacts analysis. Integrative

and/or derived variables may include ice-on and

ice-off dates, bore-hole temperatures, evapotranspiration, soil moisture balance, and length

of time above a threshold temperature, among

other possibilities. An advantage of employing

integrative and/or derived variables is that these

variables represent more closely the concerns

of stakeholders. Another advantage is that some

of the integrative variables (ice on/ice off, for

example) have long records and can be used to

supplement standard climatological records.

Disadvantages of integrative and/or derived

variables are that they often require careful

interpretation and that they may be hard to

produce from model output.

Recommendation #3:

We recommend that analysts consider integrative and/or derived climate variables when

developing climate impacts assessments. However, they should bear in mind that the choice

of an integrative or derived variable is likely

specific to the impact under investigation. Climatologists, impact analysts, and stakeholders

should work jointly in defining appropriate

integrative and/or derived variables.

• Model assessment. General circulation

models incorporate a variety of simple parameterizations to simulate boundary layer processes, convection, and radiation, to name a few.

These parameterizations lead to uncertainties in

certain aspects of the GCM-based climate projections. Some aspects, such as mean annual

temperature, may be associated with a relatively

smaller level of uncertainty than others. Also,

these uncertainties may vary from one region

to another. For example, uncertainties may be

greater for high-latitude locations compared to

low-latitude locations. An excellent starting

point for assessing the uncertainty of a future

climate projection is to evaluate how well

GCMs simulate the current or control climate.

This type of evaluation can be useful for identifying “uncertainty boundaries” for perturbed

simulations.

Recommendation #4:

We recommend that uncertainties in model

climatologies of impacts-relevant variables be

assessed and documented at the regional scale.

This assessment should encompass not only

mean temperature and precipitation, but also

other impacts-relevant variables, such as those

listed in the “scenario detail” section under

Recommendation #1.

• Downscaling. We recognize that many of

the weather phenomena listed in the “scenario

detail” item are not resolvable in the current generation of GCMs. Thus, the richness called for

in Recommendation #2 is often not directly

achievable from GCM output. However, there

are downscaling methods that can contribute to

the desired richness.

Recommendation #5:

We recommend that available contemporary

downscaling techniques be applied to GCM

scenarios in order to maximize the climate

detail available for impacts assessment, to the

extent that the current state of science allows.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

16

• Mesoscale features. A unique feature of the

Upper Great Lakes region is the modification

of the climate by the Great Lakes. Features such

as lake-effect snow and near-shore modification of temperature have a multitude of impacts.

These are mesoscale features, unresolved by

most GCMs. Accurate estimates of future

changes in these features will require

downscaling. This is a problem that is ideally

suited to the use of Regional Climate Models

(RCMs) embedded within GCMs. A possible

short-term solution, as regional models are developed further, is the use of statistical

downscaling and analogue models.

Recommendation #6.1:

We recommend that statistical downscaling and

analogue techniques be developed specifically

for the assessment of near-shore lake modification features.

Recommendation #6.2:

We recommend the continued support for the

development of RCMs with a resolution that is

capable of simulating lake effects. It is important that they eventually incorporate a lake

model in order to assess the timing of any overturning of the lakes in a perturbed climate. It is

not sufficient for them to incorporate the lakes

as a simple water surface.

• Multiple scenarios. It is important that impacts researchers appropriately convey the uncertainty of climate scenarios to stakeholders.

One method of conveying uncertainty is to employ an ensemble of climate scenarios that span

a range of plausible outcomes. However, in order for this to be possible, impacts analysts must

have ready access to simulations from a large

number of GCMs and RCMs.

Recommendation # 7:

We recommend that analysts routinely employ

an ensemble of scenarios for impacts research.

In order to facilitate analysts’ access to climate

simulations, we recommend that a central

“clearing house”, perhaps at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, be established

where model developers can archive detailed

output from recent model simulations.

• Spatial variability. The spatial variability of

severe climatic anomalies plays a key role in

the management of Great Lakes water supplies.

Specifically, Lake Superior is used as a storage

basin to minimize fluctuations in the levels of

the lower lakes. This management strategy is

of limited effectiveness when anomalies are in

phase between Lake Superior and the rest of

the basin. The outcome of an impacts assessment will depend on the nature of this spatial

variability.

Recommendation #8:

We recommend that the spatial variability of

climatic anomalies simulated in GCM and RCM

scenarios be documented to assist in the

interpretation of the outcomes of impacts

assessments. Of particular interest is the frequency of in-phase and out-of-phase patterns

of anomalous temperature and precipitation conditions, both in control and perturbed climate

simulations.

• Proxy data. As stated under Recommendation #1, large variability at low frequencies

(periods of years to several decades) is evident in

the Upper Great Lakes region. Such variability

can both ameliorate and exacerbate greenhouse

gas-induced change. Our understanding of the

magnitude and nature of this variability is incomplete, particularly with regard to very long

period variations. Proxy data (e.g., sediment

analysis, isotope analysis, ice on/ice off and tree

ring data) may allow us to extend the climate
CLIMATE SECTOR

17

record back several hundred years in this area.

In addition, the joint use of proxy data and

paleoclimatic simulations helps to validate

GCMs and RCMs.

Recommendation #9:

We recommend further support for the collection and examination of proxy data to extend

the climatic record and for the validation of

climate models.

• Vegetation. The synergistic effects of climate

on vegetation are of great interest to climatologists and ecologists. The human-induced deforestation of the Upper Great Lakes region in

the mid-to-late 1800s and the subsequent reforestation in the early 1900s is likely more

extreme than land cover changes expected

under climate change. The impacts of this deforestation/reforestation on the climate record,

however, is unclear.

Recommendation #10:

We recommend that long-term climate records,

including proxy records, be carefully examined

to determine whether a signal reflecting past

large-scale changes in vegetation can be

identified.

• Land-surface interactions. Land-surface

feedbacks are important when examining impacts at fine spatial and temporal scales. These

feedbacks include both natural surface changes

(e.g., changes in lake ice cover) and anthropogenic changes (e.g., increased urbanization/

suburbanization, or wetland removal).

Recommendation #11:

We recommend that developers of GCMs and

RCMs continue to work toward the inclusion

of land-surface feedbacks in climate models,

such as the inclusion of interactive biosphere

models.

• Monitoring. A quality observational network

with fine temporal and spatial resolution is

absolutely essential to: 1) understand the current baseline climatology, and 2) to identify and

evaluate changes in short and long term climate

variability. Recent changes in climate observing practices in the United States raise concerns

about the long-term health of our current network. In addition, recent improvements in

remotely-sensed observations of atmospheric

variables provide unprecedented opportunities

for a more detailed and sophisticated monitoring

of our climate.

Recommendation #12:

We recommend that, at a minimum, the current

observational record be retained and, preferably,

that the observational network be improved. In

addition, we support the improvement and use

of remotely-sensed observations of atmospheric

variables.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

18
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

77

WORKING TOWARDS A

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT

Robert J. Corell

National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA

Dr. Robert Corell, Director of the Geosciences Division at the National Science Foundation, provided information

about the purpose of the workshop from a national perspective. The following is a summary

of his talk.

In 1990, the Global Change Research Act mandated the preparation of (periodic) scientific assessments of global change. In 1997, the Subcommittee on Global Change Research

(USGCRP), which coordinates the U.S. Global

Change Research Program (USGCRP), initiated

a national, scientifically based assessment of the

consequences of climate change and climate

variability for the people, environment, and

economy of the United States. This assessment

would provide an opportunity to foster the participation of people who use global change information throughout the country and to enhance their ability to plan for and to cope with

climate changes and variations. This assessment

would be a core activity of the USGCRP. The

USGCRP’s conduct of the assessment would be

overseen by the National Science and Technology Council and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The goal of the National Assessment would be to determine the local, regional,

and national implications of climate change and

climate variability within the United States in

the context of other existing and potential future environmental, economic, and social

stresses. Of particular importance would be understanding the regional mosaic of what has

been and what will be occurring as a result of

global change.

Dr. Corell emphasized that the National Assessment process has been designed to create a continuing dialog among government, business and

industry, labor, nonprofit organizations, the scientific research and education communities, and

the public. He indicated that a multi-pronged

approach will be used to generate the needed

information about the implications of climate

change and variability for the United States:

1. Regional Assessments: 20 regional assessments will focus on the issues of most importance at the regional level across the

United States. Each will begin with a

scoping workshop involving an average of

100 regional participants in a dialogue about

perspectives and priorities related to global change for that part of the country. Each

workshop will be followed by a minimum

of three activities: (1) quantitative analysis

of 2-3 key issues; (2) continuous engagement of regional stakeholders; and (3) publication of a report in a common format.

Many regional assessments will go beyond

this scope in holding additional meetings,

or publishing multiple products for different audiences.

2. Sectoral Assessments: Sectoral assessments will focus on issues that are national

in scope and related to the goods and services on which people, society, and the

economies depend. The first phase of the

assessment will focus on five sectors:

agriculture, water, human health, forest, and

coastal areas and marine resources. However, the regional assessments will provide

coverage (although not necessarily

national) of many additional sectors and

issues.

3. National Synthesis: A Synthesis Report

will integrate key findings from the regional

and sectoral assessments and will address

overarching questions related to implications over the next 25 and 100 years.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

78

To promote consistency and coherence across

the regions and sectors, a series of guideline scenarios will be prepared that estimate how the

nation is expected to develop economically, demographically, and technologically over the

next 25 to 100 years. A series of scenarios also

will be developed that define a range of changes

in climate, resource use, and ecosystem distribution so that the potential consequences of

long-term climate change for the United States

can be evaluated.

As the first step of the regional assessment, all

of the regional workshops have been asked to

address four fundamental questions:

1. What are the current environmental

stresses?

2. How will projected changes in climate and

climate variability exacerbate or ameliorate

existing stresses, or introduce new stresses?

3. What information is needed to provide better and more certain estimates of the consequences of climate change and variability?

4. What strategies may help the region or sector cope with the anticipated consequences

of changes in climate? What opportunities

exist for win-win solutions and approaches?

As the USGCRP conducts the National Assessment, a number of public-private partnerships

will be established with the intent of creating a

collaborative network of decisionmakers, scientists, and other interested parties. Those partnerships will underlie a continuing process that

will produce periodically updated, scientifically

–based evaluations and summaries of current

understanding.

The assessment process will be designed to be

comprehensive and integrative, to couple research by scientists with specific policy-relevant

needs of stakeholders, to ensure scientific excellence and credibility, to be open to broad

participation, and to provide planners, managers, organizations, and the public with information they will need to cope with natural climate

fluctuations and projected climate changes.

A series of summary reports will describe the

consequences of climate change and variability

for regions and sectors. These will be based on

more detailed findings and documentation published by each regional or sectoral assessment

activity. The set of summary reports will be accompanied by a synthesis report that provides

an overview and integration of the regional and

sectoral reports. The first series of assessment

reports was completed in late 1999. These

reports will point to many issues requiring

elaboration as part of the continuing research

and assessment process.

To support the various assessment activities, a

significant USGCRP priority will be an assessment-oriented research agenda as well as a

strong, broadly based research program aimed

at improving fundamental understanding of the

earth system. A number of agencies already have

regional research and assessment programs underway, and additional activities are being

planned by a broader set of USGCRP agencies.

An open and inclusive process that encourages

the participation of the most qualified scientific,

technical, and socioeconomic experts will ensure the credibility of the National Assessment

reports. Draft assessment reports will be subject to an open and wide-reaching review process, and well-documented and reviewed alternative interpretations will be accommodated.

Continuing and close involvement of stakeholders and decisionmakers will ensure relevance

to policymakers. Internal and external evaluation processes will ensure that the continuing

series of assessment activities and reports

present a clear and fair depiction of scientific

understanding and stakeholder interests and

needs.
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

79

Dr. Corell noted that the value of the assessment process will depend on communicating the

findings and lessons emerging from the dialog

among the many and diverse stakeholders and

scientific communities. The U.S. Climate

Forum, held at the Department of Commerce

on November 12-13, 1997, was the first major

step to encourage nationwide participation in

the assessment process. Assessment activities,

workshop reports, and analytic findings will be

communicated broadly through the media, the

World Wide Web, and other channels. Reports

will be made widely and inexpensively available. Outreach also will occur through programs

that target both the formal (i.e., school-based)

and informal (i.e., museum, park, and community-based) educational communities.

Reasons for the assessment include:

1. To Prepare the Nation for Future

Change. To assure that the United States is

prepared for future change, the United

States Global Change Research Program

(USGCRP) has initiated a national assessment on the potential consequences of climate variability and change for the nation.

The national assessment process will analyze and evaluate what is known about the

potential consequences of climate variability and change for the nation, in the context

of other pressures on the public, the environment, and the nation’s resources.

2. Responsive to Congressional Needs. The

USGCRP is mandated by statute with the

responsibility to undertake scientific assessments of the potential consequences of

global change for the United States in the

“Global Change Research Act of 1990”

(P.L. 101-606), which states the federal

interagency committee for global change

research of the National Science and Technology Council “shall prepare and submit

to the President and the Congress an assessment which:

• integrates, evaluates, and interprets the

findings of the program and discusses the

scientific uncertainties associated with such

findings;

• analyzes the effects of global change on

the natural environment, agriculture, energy

production and use, land and water

resources, transportation, human health and

welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity;

• analyzes current trends in global change,

both human-inducted and natural, and

projects major trends for the subsequent 25

to 100 years.”

3. Providing Input Into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The

national assessment has been timed to provide input in the Third Assessment Report

of the UNEP/WMO Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which

has been working to integrate more regional

detail into its analyses.

4. Involving Stakeholders from a Broad

Spectrum of Society. The national assessment process will involve a broad spectrum

of stakeholders from state, local, tribal, and

federal governments; business; labor;

academia; nonprofit organizations; and the

general public.

5. Linking Scientists and Stakeholders. The

assessment will link research by scientists

to specific needs of the stakeholders; and

will provide planners, managers, organizations, and the public with the information

needed to increase resilience to climate

variability and cope with climate change.

6. Scientific Excellence Combined with

Open and Participatory Approach. The

national assessment is founded on the principles of scientific excellence and openness,

and will be integrative and iterative.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

80

Dr. Corell ended his talk by describing some

results from regional workshops, already held

(prior to the Upper Great Lakes Workshop):

In the Southeastern United States, the El NiñoSouthern Oscillation (ENSO) signal is quite

pronounced. Studies of the relationship between

El Niño and agricultural production in the region are helping farmers adjust to changing climate conditions, providing an example of how

a better understanding of these short-term,

interannual climate variations may help those

who will be affected in the future by climate

change.

In the Central Great Plains, the agricultural sector faces a number of challenges. Farmers and

ranchers must cope with extreme weather

events—floods, droughts, blizzards, hail storms,

tornadoes, and others—that might become more

severe and frequent in the future. They also are

working to reduce runoff of crop and animal

wastes into water supplies and to slow the loss

of soil to erosion.

But theirs’ is not a message of despair. Already

they are developing and implementing sustainable land practices, both because these practices

increase their incomes and because they protect the environment. One example of such a

win-win solution occurs when ranchers supplement their incomes by converting animal wastes

into marketable biomass fuels, which simultaneously reduces the amount of the greenhouse

gas methane released into the atmosphere. Likewise, by increasing the carbon content of the

soils and thus pulling carbon dioxide from the

atmosphere, farmers are adding to the resilience

of their fields to drought, whether natural or

enhanced by climate change.

In the Southwest, communities in arid and

semi-arid environments are especially sensitive

to impacts on water resources. They depend on

access to adequate supplies for their people and

their agriculture, but are at risk to the extremes

of flood and drought cycles. Most water in the

Southwest comes from melting snow in the

Rocky Mountains or underground aquifers. As

population in the region increases, overuse is

depleting the aquifers and climate change is

expected to affect the amount of water from

snowmelt. At the same time, rising temperatures

over land could intensify the strong convective

storms that can occur in the Southwest. Understanding how all of these factors interrelate

would provide the information needed by

regional decisionmakers to consider options and

develop plans for meeting societal needs.

In the Pacific Northwest, the Columbia River

is the lifeblood of the region. Variations in climate already require management of competing water demands along the river system in

order to protect fisheries while providing water

for irrigation, hydroelectric power, and communities. Changes in the seasonal timing and

amount of precipitation are expected to affect

the timing of peak runoff and river discharge,

creating a potential mismatch between water

supplies and user needs. Understanding these

changes would provide opportunities for the

various sectors to adjust by improving irrigation efficiency, changing crops, and developing alternative energy sources.

The New England region is downwind from

emissions from industrial, utility, and transportation sources in the rest of the United States

and parts of Canada, the quality of life there is

threatened by poor air quality. If CO2

 emissions

were reduced, then the region would see benefits far beyond the prevention of climate

change. Emission reductions would help abate

the region’s air pollution and acid rain, while

improving visibility during summer months. Improving the gas mileage of automobiles, via new

hybrid technologies and other innovative approaches, as well as conversion of Midwestern

power production facilities to alternative energy

sources, would result in lower levels of
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

81

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, organic compounds, and tropospheric ozone affecting the

region. Human health would benefit immediately from emission reductions; the health of

the region’s ecosystems also could benefit, and

healthier forests would take up more CO2 from

the atmosphere.

Alaska has warmed about 5 °F over the past 30

years and this warming is already having a significant influence. Warmer days could bring

more personal comfort and longer farming seasons, but they would also affect fisheries and

cause a thawing of the permafrost layer. This

thawing is particularly significant because it

would result in damage to buildings, roads, railroads, and other infrastructure, while also

causing slumping in forests that leads to their

transformation into wetlands. Drier summers

have reduced forest health, leading to an

increase in forest fires and in insect infestation.

Alaska is faced with developing the means to

cope with what may prove to be the most pronounced climate change in the United States.

In the Mid-Atlantic region, climate change could

have profound effects on human health, ecosystems, and outdoor recreation because of the

region’s unique combination of geography, aging infrastructure, economic structure, population density, and mixed land use. One of the

prime issues for the Chesapeake Bay is sea-level

rise. Past rises have eroded coasts, threatened

homes, narrowed recreational beaches, and

eroded wetlands and bay beaches that are important habitats for birds and fish. Information

is needed to evaluate new construction or rebuilding within areas of high risk from natural

hazards (e.g., zones prone to flooding, coastal

storms, or tidal surges), and to determine the

best means of protecting ecosystems and infrastructure. One of the most important elements

of a response strategy would be the communication of climate change projections to improve

land-use and drought planning efforts and

strategies for managing water across regional

or local districts.

In the Northern Great Plains, the April 1997

flood of the Red River washed out homes and

businesses that had been in Grand Forks, North

Dakota, and East Grand Forks, Minnesota, for

generations. The disaster was expected to occur, at least on the average, only once every 500

years. The Mayors at the time, Pat Owens of

Grand Forks and Lynn Stauss of East Grand

Forks, faced a new uncertainty as they began to

rebuild their cities. Will floods of this magnitude occur more frequently in the future? If so,

what level of protection must be provided? Can

dikes or diversion channels be built to withstand

even greater floods? No one is quite certain how

severe or how frequent future floods—or their

opposites, droughts—will be. But the climate

change that is already underway is likely to

change the pattern of storms and spring melts

in this region. The historical pattern of seasonal

river flows might change as well.

For Mayors Owens and Stauss, climate change

is a current issue. Displaced people and businesses need decisions now on how close to the

river they can build and what level of protection will need to be provided. These decisions

will affect future generations as well. To

protect lives, property, and livelihoods for residents both today and tomorrow, the two

mayors need the best possible information about

future climates.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

82
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

83

Figure 1: Deforestation worldwide adds 1 to 2 billion metric

tons of carbon to the atmosphere each year. CLIMATE CHANGE,

State of Knowledge, October, 1997; photo by ©P. Grabhorn.

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

AND ITS EFFECTS

Michael MacCracken

U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC

My task is to try to set the stage with

respect to the size of the climate issue – what we know, what we don’t

know, what we sort of understand. Definite uncertainties exist. We don’t know as much as we

wish we did, and right now the question is how

should we address the issue.

Emissions from Human Activities are

Changing Atmospheric Composition

Presently, we are causing the CO2 concentration to

rise and it is clearly a result of human activities.

The concentration of CO2 was about 280 parts per

million (ppm), or 0.028%, before the start of the

Industrial Revolution; it is now over 360 ppm. The

rising CO2 concentration is caused by emissions

are of two types. Since the start of the Industrial

Revolution, there have been substantial emissions

due to cutting down forests for the purpose of expanding agriculture (Figure 1). The biospheric

emissions from deforestation are currently roughly

one billion metric tons of carbon per year. In comparison fossil fuel emissions total about 6 billion

metric tons of carbon per year. To put that into perspective, there are six billion people on the planet,

so emissions total one metric ton of carbon per

person per year, all being added to the atmosphere.

The atmosphere has an annual cycle where the CO2

concentration tends to be high in the winter and low

in the summer. Each year, the greening of the planet

to create leaves, grass, etc., pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere during the summer and returns CO2

 to

the atmosphere in the fall and winter. If you multiply the seasonal change in CO2 concentration of 7

to 8 (ppm) change each year by the volume of the

Northern Hemisphere, you find out how much carbon is going into the hemispheric greening each year

and how much is coming back out. It turns out to

be about 7 or 8 billion metric tons of carbon per

year which is roughly the same amount that is being put into the atmosphere each year as a result of

human activities. In other words, human activities

put as much CO2 into the atmosphere each year as it

takes to green the Northern Hemisphere each year.

That is a lot of carbon.

As I said, the emissions of CO2 per person are about

one ton of carbon per year on a global average, but

there is a dramatic variation across the globe. The

United States is responsible for about 5 tons per

person. Europe and much of the rest of the developed world adds about 3 tons per person each year,

while citizens in most of the developing world add

only a few tenths of a ton of carbon per person each

year. These are dramatic differences.

It is important to realize in this debate that carbon

emissions per person is a way of looking at this

issue in terms of capita the relative equity around

the world. Another way to look is at total emissions

per country; using this measure the United States

puts out the most and China’s amount is growing at

the fastest rate. We need to recognize that, while

there are many different ways of portraying carbon

emissions in the political arena, there is strong

agreement that it is a human-induced effect.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

84

Figure 2: Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change. Source: Vostok

ice core data from Barnola et al., 1987; current data from the Carbon Dioxide Information

Analysis Center, 1997, Oak Ridge, TN.

We are also adding other

components to the atmosphere. The second most

important greenhouse gas

that is being added by human activities is methane.

Its concentration has been

going up significantly.

During preindustrial times

its concentration was 700

parts per billion (ppb) or

so, and it is now over 1700

ppb. In addition, we have

been adding chlorofluorocarbons and nitrous oxides. To complicate things

even further, we are also

adding sulfur dioxide to

the atmosphere, which creates aerosols, producing

that whitish haze that we

have in industrial areas.

Quite clearly, human activities are changing the

composition of the atmosphere. We are driving the

climate system. The

changes in these concentrations are affecting the

climate, enhancing the

natural greenhouse effect.

Changing Atmospheric Composition will Enhance the Natural Greenhouse Effect

We know that the composition of the atmosphere determines how much heat (or infrared) energy is

absorbed by the atmosphere and reradiated back to the surface. It is nice to think, especially on this

sunny day, that solar radiation keeps us warm and provides the energy for the planet. While this is true,

the surface actually receives twice as much heat energy radiated from the atmosphere as from solar

radiation. Thus, solar energy absorbed at the surface is radiated away as heat energy, but then recycled

by the atmosphere back to warm the surface.

We know that this is a real effect. One way we know this is by looking at what the climate might be if we

were to have no atmosphere at all – like the moon. There is a very different climate on the moon. We also

know this if we look at the climates of the planets. Observations indicate that Venus is very hot. The

surface temperature is 700-800 oF. You might think that it is hot because it’s closer to the Sun. This is

CO2 CONCENTRATION

(Antarctic Ice Core)

Current

Level

Carbon dioxide (ppmv)

300

250

200

Thousands of years ago

150 100 50 0

TEMPERATURE

CHANGE ( ̊C)

0

-2

-4

-6

2

Temperature change ( ̊C)

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration

and Temperature Change

Level

1800AD
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

85

Figure 3: The global average temperature has risen by about

1o F over the last century. Source: Data from Hansen et al.,

1995, Goodard Institute for Space Studies.

only partly true. It turns out that because Venus is

very cloudy, it absorbs less solar energy per square

meter than the Earth. It is very hot, it turns out,

mainly, because of the very strong greenhouse effect, not just because it is closer to the Sun.

We also know that CO2 and the climate are related

because we can look back into the Earth’s history.

This graph (Figure 2) reconstructs conditions about

160,000 years into the past based on records of

ice cores from the Antarctic. The blue curve is

the concentration of CO2 that is measured in tiny

air bubbles that are trapped in the ice. Starting at

zero (the present), there is a preindustrial concentration 280 part per million. Going back about

20,000 years, the CO2 concentration during the

peak of the last glacial (or “ice age”) was about

200 parts per million, and this low level extends

back for about 100,000 years. Going back 120,000

years or so, to the previous interglacial, the CO2

concentration was about 300 parts per million.

Scientists have since continued the record back

about 400,000 years. Now the association is not

perfect, but it is reasonably clear from the geologic evidence that the timing of glacial cycles is

probably driven by changes in the Earth’s orbit.

Yet, if you consider just changes in the Earth’s

orbit as the driving force in a climate model, it

will not produce an ice age. In order to get the

conditions for an ice age, a major feedback mechanism like changes in CO2 is needed. 

The evidence

shows that carbon dioxide and methane are causing an important amplifying effect, with their

greenhouse enhancement contributing to glacial

cycling.

Enhancing the National Greenhouse

Effect is Causing Changes in the Climate

Given the activities that have been changing the

CO2 concentration for a couple hundred years, are

these changes affecting the temperature of the

Earth? This is a record of the surface temperature

(Figure 3) of the Earth’s surface taken from numerous stations and ships representing land and

ocean regions. The evidence shows that the average temperature of the earth is climbing gradually. It has risen about 0.6 of a degree Celsius or

so over the last hundred years. The increase is not

completely smooth and scientists are working to

understand why. But the temperature of the Earth

is clearly going up.

Other kinds of changes are also occurring. Figure

4 provides a record of where the temperature is

going up in the U.S. over the last 100 years. It is

warming almost everywhere. The size of the dot

is an indication of the size of the trend. In some

places it is warming more than others. To understand why there are changes in different regions,

we must understand the regional details of climate

change and that can be difficult. For example, in

the North Atlantic, temperatures can be affected

dramatically by what is happening to the ocean

currents. Over the industrialized regions of the U.S.

and to some extent over parts of Europe, the presence of sulfur aerosols may be diminishing the

warming influence by somewhat masking the

effect of the greenhouse gases.

There are also changes in precipitation occurring

the over the U.S.– it is gradually getting wetter.

That is expected from the warming of the world,

which will intensify the hydrologic cycle. Again

the pattern over the U.S. is not completely uniform. As was commented by the speaker last night,

14.0

14.1

14.2

14.3

14.4

13.5

13.6

13.7

13.8

13.9

5 year average

Global Average Temperature

 ̊ C  ̊ F

1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

57.20

57.38

57.56

57.74

57.92

56.30

56.48

56.66

56.84

57.02
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

86

we do need to look critically at the data, particularly when we see systematic differences across

state boundaries. Some state boundaries correspond with natural features like the Sierra Mountains, for example, along the California border. But

that is not always the case and we do have to be

careful. Overall, however, we are seeing a general

increase in the amount of precipitation, and there

is additional evidence that this increase in precipitation comes primarily in the form of heavy storms

(as opposed to more frequent, light rains).

So, in answer to the question “Is the world really

changing?” I think it is. The near-surface temperatures are rising and the ocean surface temperatures

are rising; temperatures measured in boreholes

in the Arctic are showing warming; mountain

glaciers are melting; and sea levels are rising from

thermal expansion and from additional water from

melting glaciers. There are a host of things that

are happening, including the movement of some

species to new locations. There are numerous

indications that changes are occurring. The

difficult question is to understand why that is

the case.

One of the things that the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change (IPCC) reported on was research to what extent these changes are due to

human activities. First of all, the rate of warming

that has occurred recently is dramatically different than for most periods in the past. There have

been a few periods in geological history where

similar dramatic changes have been recorded, but

there were also other simultaneous events in the

natural world, that most likely contributed to the

dramatic warming. Now, in the absence of these

natural factors changing in these unusual ways,

we are nonetheless seeing a rapid rise in temperature. Basically, the temperature is unusually warm

compared to the other period in the past. We are

seeing that the lower atmosphere has warmed over

the past several decades, while the upper atmosphere has cooled. This type of change is an indication that greenhouse gases are causing the

change rather than other factors. If the change were

due to an increase in solar radiation, both the upper and lower atmosphere would be warming. That

is not happening. Because greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries,

whereas aerosols remain for only a couple of

weeks, the greenhouse warming influence will

Figure 4: U.S. temperature and precipitation on trends over the last 100 years. Source: Karl et al. (1996).

Red circles reflect increasing precipitation

Blue circles reflect decreasing precipitation

Red circles reflect warming

Blue circles reflect cooling

Temperature and Precipitation Trends, 1900 to Present

Temperature Precipitation
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

87

dominate over the long term. And so there

is a range of factors that led the IPCC to conclude that, while we can’t prove it definitively

(i.e., we can’t prove it beyond all doubt with

very high statistical certainty), the balance of

evidence suggests that there is a discernible

human influence on the global climate.

The IPCC tried to estimate the magnitude of

these changes. They used simplified climate

models that include the effects of rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, the cooling

influence of sulfate aerosols, and the natural

variations that we think have occurred in the

solar radiation, which probably caused a fair

amount of the variability in earlier times.

Comparing the model results with observations, the IPCC concluded that humans are

indeed influencing the global climate.

The agreement however, is not perfect. One

of the factors not yet included in these models are major volcanic eruptions. There was

a series during the first decade of this century that likely tended to make that period a

little bit cooler. There were also some major

volcanic eruptions during the 20th that were

not taken into account, such as Pinatubo eruption in 1991 (Figure 5). One interesting point

is that, if these lower dips that occurred in

the 19th century (e.g.,1883) were due to the

effects of major volcanic eruptions, and we think they were,

the cooling after the Pinatubo eruption (which was comparable in size to the 19th century eruptions) did not take temperatures down anywhere near to what they were after

the 19th century eruptions. This is one more indication

that there is a warming trend that seems to be strongly

influenced by human activities.

Future Emissions will Accelerate Global Warming

If we have a reasonable understanding that there has been

a human effect on the recent climate, what is going to

happen in the future? Human activities are currently causing the emission of 6 billion tons of carbon from fossil

fuel combustion, with most of that coming from the

developed nations of the world (Figure 6). In the future,

there is likely to be some growth in the developed

country emissions and very large growth in developing

Figure 5: Aerial view of Mount Pinatuba after the

cataclysmic June 15, 1991 erruption. Source: USGS/

Cascades Volcano Observatory, photo by E.W. Wolf.

Figure 6: Total World Emissions, 1995 and 2035. Sources: Carbon Dioxide

Information Analysis Center, 1997, Oak Ridge, TN; Edmonds, 1997, Batelle

Laboratories, using IPCC IS92A emission scenario.

Total World Emissions

1990 Developed

World

74%

U.S. 22%

Developing

World

26%

China

11%

2035 Developed

World

50%

US 15%

Developing

World

50%

China

17%
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

88

Figure 7: Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and temperature

changes as projected to year 2100. Sources: Vostok ice core data from

Barnola et al., 1987; current data from Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis

Center, 1997, Oak Ridge, TN; Edmonds, 1995, IPCC emission scenario.

Atmospheric

and

country emissions. The IPCC estimated

20 billion tons of carbon per year in the

year 2100. By that time there may be 10

billion people in the world, yielding a

global average total of two tons of carbon per person per year. Compared to

what we have right now, which is one

ton per person per year, that will represent significant growth in per capita use,

but use will still be much less than in

the U.S. today. There are some people

who have looked at the IPCC estimate

for the central trend and think they are

actually underestimating what could

occur because the people of the world

will want to use much more energy, and

carbon emissions would be even higher

in the future. Alternatively, if new energy technologies are widely introduced,

emissions could be less.

So what will rising emissions mean for

the future? Over the past 200 years we

have gone from a natural CO2 concentration of 200-300 ppm to a level of 360-

370 ppm (Figure 7). By the year 2100,

if we have these kinds of emissions,

which is not at all implausible, the CO2

concentration will rise to 700 parts per

million, which was last experienced on

the Earth, about 40 or 50 million years

ago. This would be a very dramatic

change.

Because projecting changes in emissions

and concentrations are uncertain, the

IPPC projects relatively broad range of

possible future concentrations. The

lower case scenario shown in Figure 7

goes up to about 500 ppm in 2100, and

this is based on the assumption that there

will only be 6 or 7 billion people in the

world in the year 2100. Most people

think the population is going to be a lot

higher than that, and IPCC also has scenarios going to higher levels.
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

89

c Carbon Dioxide Concentration

d Temperature Change

The climate is also going to change. If modelers

assume the same response to changes in atmospheric composition as has occurred in the past,

then there would be a temperature increase of

about 1 to 3 1/2 degrees Centigrade. While this

range seems quite broad, half of the range is due

to uncertainty about how the climate will respond

and the range of estimates in the climate simulation. The other half of the range is due to uncertainties in the socioeconomic assumptions – how

the world will develop and what kind of energy

we will use. Thus, although it sounds like a big

range, it is important to understand that there are

mainly two main contributors to the range.

 Other changes that could occur include a potential over many centuries for intensified rates of

loss of polar ice sheets in Greenland and the West

Antarctic. There is a lot of ice tied up in those ice

sheets – and a lot of sea level equivalent (loss of

one of these ice sheets over several centuries

would result in 15 feet of sea level rise). So, there

are a lot of potential changes that could happen

to the climate. We are getting better at modeling

gradual changes, but there is also the possibility

of unpredictable, sudden changes.

Consequences will Result from the

Changing Climate

Most research over the past 20 to 30 years has

been focused on if climate is changing and is it

due to human activities? The IPCC findings are

also giving a clear indication that climate is going to be changing much more in the future. Although we don’t know the details, the climate will

be changing. Now, the issue for some has become

“So what! Who cares if it changes?” Here in Ann

Arbor, in the winter you might like the temperature to be a few degree warming. On the other

hand, if you are a farmer in Nebraska, a few degree warming in the summer may not be helpful

at all. And so the questions have become, “What

are the types of impacts that could occur?” I am

going to give a brief overview of the kinds of impacts that could occur.

It is important to recognize that when you look at

the impacts of fossil fuels, that they are not only

the cause of these changes, but provide a tremendous benefit to society that sustains our standard of

living. Thus, if we are going to justify making

changes with respect to fossil fuel use, we ought to

be comparing the impacts of fossil fuel cutbacks

with the major types of impacts that might occur.

One category of the effects of changes in temperature, precipitation and sea level rise, are human

health. It is important to look at potential impacts

as well as potential coping mechanisms. For example, warmer conditions in cities that exacerbate

thermal stress may be offset with air conditioning

of living quarters. There may be situations where

disease vectors for infectious diseases are not killed

off by the frost in the winter. For instance, some

were concerned that the earlier spring that has occurred this year because of the El Niño will allow

some of these vectors to become active earlier in

the year. There are also health-related issues about

air quality that should be given attention.

A second category of potential major consequences

is agriculture. Agriculture in some regions may well

benefit because CO2

 is a plant nutrient. If plants

have enough water, sunlight and nutrients, increasing the CO2

 concentration can actually produce

agricultural benefits. In particular, the technologically advanced countries may be able to get a

significant benefit from the fertilization and the

increased water use efficiency that occurs. The situation is more problematic in some of the developing nations because they have much less flexibility

to move crops around because they rely more on

traditional kinds of one-crop economies. Another

potential issue are the consequences of impacts on

species and the destruction of natural habitat.

There are shifts in various species and ecosystems

that are expected with a change in climate. Forests

tend to be very tightly attuned to the climate, so the
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

90

forest composition will change in various ways –

different species moving in different ways. Wildlife tends to be dependent on the particular timings of various ecosystem activities, and so there

could, for example, be significant disruption to migrating species. Ecosystems tend not to move as a

whole. Different parts have different sensitivities

and they each move at different rates. They are

likely to get torn apart, and the question is “What

will happen with respect to how ecosystems

move?”

Water resources are absolutely critical for society

and the distribution of storms and rainfall are very

important to determining water resources. This

graph (Figure 8) is from a model calculation trying to give an indication of what may happen to

soil moisture in various regions in the U.S. The

Figure shows consequences for two times CO2 at

the left and four times CO2 on the right. All of

these colors are showing significant percentage

drops and reduction of soil moisture in the summertime. The farmers will need to cope with a

range of effects as a result of reduced soil moisture — to do this, farmers may change planting

times, rotate their crops, or they may have to start

to irrigate (assuming that there are water resources

and aquifers available). Changes in soil moisture

may also provide the opportunity to try novel

crops, although farmers would also need different

management strategies to cope with an increased

incidence of pests, weeds and disease.

Impacts on coastal regions are likely to be very

important. Sea level is estimated to go up by about

a foot to maybe as much as three feet over the

next hundred years. This range depends, to a large

extent, on what happens to the polar ice sheets.

The expectation is that polar ice sheets will build

up some snow for a while and keep the sea level

rate from rising too fast. Eventually, we would

expect to get sufficient warming for melting to

begin. The main lingering uncertainty in scientist’s

minds is that we can’t fully account for the sea

level rise that occurred in the last hundred years

without there having been some melting of the

polar ice sheets. So, with limited knowledge about

the magnitude of the projected sea level changes,

it is difficult to project what sea level rise will

mean for particular regions around the country and

around the world.

For many regions of the country, a sea level rise is

going to be particularly problematic. The coast in

the mid-Atlantic region around Washington, D.C.

is a particularly interesting area for some of us.

There are many locations where businesses and

residents are within three feet of sea level – there

is a lot of coastal property that is right at sea level.

A couple of years ago the Chesapeake Bay had

major damage due to hurricane and storm surges.

Local officials looked at historical records of sea

levels and concluded that sea levels are rising about

Figure 8: Percent reduction in June-August soil moisture, 2 X

CO2 and 4 X CO2. Source: Manabe & Stouffer, 1994, NOAA

GeophysicalFluid Dynamic Laboratory, Princeton, NJ.

Percent Reduction in June-August

Soil Moisture

Percent Reduction in June-August

Soil Moisture

2 X CO2

4 X CO2
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

91

a foot per century with about half of that due to

global warming and about half due to the land sinking. They were very concerned. They had a conference and invited some Dutch engineers over to

talk about it. The Dutch engineers turned out to be

flabbergasted that the states of Maryland and

Virginia didn’t have a plan for building a levee

across (the) Chesapeake Bay to protect them!

The Challenge of Slowing Global Warming

Given all these potentially important impacts, an

important question to ask is how hard it is to do

something about it? The nations of the world did

agree at the Rio Summit and set the objective of

trying to stabilize the climate so these kinds of

impacts would not occur. This is rather an ambitious goal – to stabilize the greenhouse gas concentrations, not emissions, thereby to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference on the climate.

They set the qualification that needs to be done

rapidly enough to slow down climate change and

not disrupt ecosystems. However, we want to make

sure that emissions are not cut so fast that food

production is disrupted. We also want to do it in

such a way that the cutback does not threaten sustainable economic development. This is quite a list

of conditions – trying to figure out a pathway is

quite a challenge.

To get a sense of what it takes to stabilize the climate system, we can estimate the reductions in

emissions that are needed. If we want to stabilize

the greenhouse gas concentration at today’s level,

we would have to reduce emissions to about two

billion tons of carbon per year over the next century. That is one third of our present level, even

though the population is increasing. That would

be extremely difficult to do. If we want to stabilize at twice the preindustrial concentration, (about

550 ppm), we would need to limit the average

emission rate for the next century to about eight

billion tons of carbon. And remember what I said

– the IPCC predicted that carbon emissions are

projected to go from a level of 6 up to about 20

billion tons of carbon per year over the next

century, or an average of maybe 12 or 13 billion

tons per carbon a year for the next century, or an

average of maybe 12 or 13 billion tons per carbon

a year for the next century. To get the 8 billion

tons of carbon per year in order to stabilize concentrations at two times preindustrial levels, we would

need a 30-40% cutback globally below the

projections.

Cutting the emissions too rapidly would endanger

the global economy, whereas cutting emissions too

slowly risks environmental damage and risks disrupting the climate. One approach might be to focus on technological options of improved efficiency and low-cost energy strategies. That requires risking some money now to invest in those

kinds of strategies. What the nations are proposing to do is to take a series of steps to try and move

forward. The nations of the world tentatively

agreed last December to the Kyoto Agreement as

a first step. I want to point out that, to achieve

stabilization, this can be viewed as really only a

first step. The negotiators proposed to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions by 2010 from the developed countries, reaching to 5-8% below their

1990 levels. Even if this is implemented economic

growth around the world will cause the concentrations and emissions to both continue to go up.

Even though this is only a beginning and it is one

that has not been accepted by everyone, countries

are starting to move in that direction. While there

may be shortcomings in the agreement, if the world

does not take some sort of first step, the question

becomes at what point we do take a first step? The

alternative is that the concentrations will continue

upward.

The real issue is whether we can sustain ourselves

through the next couple of generations, and then

through the next century? The most important

thing to understand for this workshop is that there

is really no way that cutbacks in emissions are going to stop climate change in the near future. We
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

92

are going to have to figure out how to cope with

climate change – plan in advance to minimize the

adverse impacts and to take advantage of any opportunities presented. What this workshop is about

is looking at the changes that are projected, understanding our vulnerability, and trying to figure

out if there are some win-win approaches for all

of us, so we can minimize the adverse impacts

that occur.
WATER RESOURCES SECTOR

19

WATER RESOURCES

SECTOR REPORT

Session Chair: Frank Quinn

Rapporteur: Michael Barlage

INTRODUCTION

The Water Resources breakout group included

participants from various sectors of government,

education, and industry from the United States

and Canada. Many of the participants were

experts in the field of Great Lakes research and

policy making.

The breakout sessions were dedicated to answering the four questions that we were asked to

address. Each session began with a brief fifteen minute introduction by the session chair.

The remaining time consisted of a free forum

discussion of the current question. Discussion

continued until each member was given sufficient time to express his/her view on the issue

being considered.

The discussion group was expected to interpret

the four questions broadly in an effort to reduce

the chance that significant issues would be overlooked. Because this was an initial effort, failing to include potentially critical issues was

considered a greater mistake than including issues that, upon further study, turn out to be relatively unimportant. The participants were not

asked to make quantitative assessments of the

impacts that they discussed.

It was clear during the breakout sessions that

although the group was answering different

questions in each session, the four questions

were intertwined and each question was addressed to some degree in each session.

SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS

The Great Lakes region contains a vast, valuable resource of fresh water. Climate change is

expected to increase the value of this resource.

In a more arid environment, fresh water will be

at a demand not only by inhabitants of the region, but also by an increasing populace outside the region. Excessive agricultural by-products may cause extreme deterioration of water

quality in the region. Water levels in the future

are predicted to be highly fluctuant. Hydrologic

users have no precedent to this situation and

coping strategies must be developed to deal with

these issues.

THE 4 QUESTIONS ADDRESSED

1. What are the current concerns? & 2. How

may climate change impact our lives?

The group found it difficult to separate their responses to questions 1 and 2. The stresses listed

below therefore reflect a combined response.

Based on the fact that ertain General Circulation Models (GCMs) predict a six to nine foot

drop in water levels for the Great Lakes. A drop

of this extent will increase the need to regulate

water usage and diversion limits. In addition,

models predict future climate scenarios with

highly fluctuant water levels and some produce

hotter, drier climates. Some predictions are dramatic. During the discussion, the group listed

the types of impacts that these predicted changes

would cause if they really occurred. The list is

not organized strictly by priority. For a priority

analysis please see the Concerns Matrix at the

end of this document. The following is a list of

current and future concerns facing the hydrologic resources of the Great Lakes region.

• Failure to prepare. The group expressed

concern about a failure to prepare for the extreme events that will be expected to occur at a

higher frequency in the future climate.

• Lack of Education. Individuals are not receiving proper, accurate information regarding

how climate change and variability will affect
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

20

their lives. This lack of correct information

stems from an inability to communicate concerns, precautions, or possible outcomes of

climate change at the local level.

• Public trust. Extreme events in the future

may overrun current regulatory efforts, which

may effect a loss of public trust in these regulatory measures.

• Property owners. If lake levels become

highly fluctuant, (as models predict), then there

is concern about aggravating lake shore property owners.

• Slow response. There is concern that the

regulation response time will not be fast enough

to react to the rapidly changing lake levels. Lake

levels can change significantly on sub-year time

scales. New regulations can take several years

to implement.

• Lake Superior. Due to the shallow outflow

region of Lake Superior, it is possible during

extreme low water events that Lake Superior

could become a terminal lake.

• Shore erosion. Land owners and environmentalists will be increasingly concerned about

shore erosion on the Great Lakes, particularly

Lake Michigan.

• Wetlands. Under low water scenarios, wetlands will decrease in area or individually disappear. These wetlands serve as homes for

many native and migratory species.

• Water quality. Inland waters are expected

to decrease in quality. This decrease will occur

due to runoff of agricultural pesticides and fertilizers, the use of which is expected to increase

in the future. These fertilizers will also promote algae growth, further decreasing water

quality.

• Water rights. Many climate change scenarios

suggest that many regions in the U.S. will

experience drier summers. In a more arid

future climate, the Great Lakes will become an

increasingly important commodity because they

contain approximately 95% of the fresh water

supply in the United States. Entitlement of this

water is not firmly established and may be a

future concern.

• Better GCMs. Current predictions of global

climate change are done using sophisticated

computer models. However, these models do

not include the Great Lakes in their simulations.

The Great Lakes affect the regional climate extensively. To completely understand regional

climate change, models which include the Great

Lakes will have to be run.

• Competition. A decrease in water levels will

increase the legal conflicts which arise due to

competition for the available fresh water.

• Irrigation. Many climate change scenarios

suggest drier summers. The agricultural sector

may therefore need more water for irrigation.

This will put an even larger stress on the existing water resources.

• Lake water quality. Inland lake water, which

is used for both consumption and recreation, will

decrease in quality under an increased agricultural production scenario.

• Turn over. Some computer simulations

suggest that climate change may decrease the

biannual over turning of the Great Lakes, which

is vital to maintaining sufficient oxygen

concentration.

• Ice cover. A warmer future climate scenario

will lead to less ice cover. This can have both

positive and negative effects. Shipping may

increase, shore storm erosion may increase, and

loss of winter recreation revenues on northern

lakes may occur. Fish reproduction may either

increase or decrease.
WATER RESOURCES SECTOR

21

In summary, the major finding from this

breakout session is that past experiences with

our water resources will not be a key to future

success in a new highly fluctuating climate.

3. What additional information do we need?

The major issue for this breakout session was

the need for an improved GCMs. In order to

understand and evaluate changes in future

climate, model accuracy must be increased.

There is an immediate need for the inclusion of

regional scale models to evaluate the Great

Lakes effects on regional climate predictions.

The ultimate goal is to get temporal and spatial

resolutions at the watershed level to fully

access the impacts of global climate change on

an individual lake basis.

• Better observational network. The current

network is inadequate. There is also a fear of

losing this observational network altogether because of funding cutbacks. This loss would be

detrimental to the supply of information that is

needed to verify current climate fluctuations.

• Socioeconomic data. There is a need for

socioeconomic data on a watershed basis. The

impacts of climate change on water resources

will occur within watersheds but socioeconomic

data is collected by political jurisdiction. This

produces a mismatch that inhibits data analysis

and usefulness.

• More groundwater information. Currently,

there is very little groundwater information

available. Groundwater is a very important

variable in climate and watershed models.

• More information on extreme events. The

extreme events that are expected under climate

change are not well documented. More information on these extremes and possible solutions

for encountering them are needed.

4. How do we cope with climate change?

The identification of climate change mitigation

strategies was undertaken with the previous

breakout discussions in view. In discussing

various coping mechanisms and mitigating strategies, the group focused on two categories:

communication and development.

Communication Issues

• Inclusion. There is a need to get nontraditional players involved in the regulatory process. Examples of these nontraditional players

include riparian land owners, environmentalists,

and agricultural irrigators.

• Increased scale. Communication generally

occurs on a watershed basis. Future discussions

need to be undertaken at the regional or

interwatershed level.

• Methods. The methods of communication

need to be improved to help in the visualization

of solutions and information to hydrologic users. Current modes of communication do not

facilitate the relation to available information.

• Credibility. It is difficult to get current water

managers to listen to existing information. The

prevalence of false or misleading information

is undermining the validity of climate change

discussions. There is a need to enhance the

accuracy of information being given (to water

managers).

• Education. There is a general need for education about the possible solutions at all levels,

especially the general population, adults, and

K-12 students. The education must include

accurate information regarding what climate

change means and how it will affect future

existence.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

22

GREAT LAKESINLAND LAKESWETLANDS RIVERS & 

STREAMS

Hydropower

Navigation

Industrial Water Supply

Municipal Water Supply

Effluent Discharges

Beaches

Recreational Boating

Ice Fishing

Sport Fishing

Riparians

Infrastructure

Irrigation

Flood Control

Drought Mitigation

Ecological Concerns

Development Issues

• Models and simulations. There is a need to

develop mechanisms to deal with the trade-offs

that will occur during climate change. Accurate

lake management models need to be developed

to help local and state managers better estimate

future strategies to deal with extreme lake levels. Simulation games need to be developed so

that managers, riparians, and other players know

how the regulation of lake levels will affect various users of water resources.

• Impact analysis. There is a need to update

impact analysis for decision making. Managers are currently using risk management practices that were developed in the 1960s. With

an increase in extreme events that is predicted

in the future, these management practices will

be useless. Solutions for coping with climate

change need to be robust enough to deal with

the extreme events.

Low Concern Moderate Concern High Concern
WATER ECOLOGY SECTOR

23

WATER ECOLOGY

SECTOR REPORT

Session Chairs: Arthur Brooks and John Magnuson

Rapporteur: Kimberly Hall

INTRODUCTION

The Water Ecology breakout group included

participants from academia, federal environmental agencies, the National Wildlife Federation and the Mille Locs Band of Ojibwe Tribe.

The discussion group was asked to interpret the

four questions broadly to reduce the chance that

significant issues would be overlooked. Because this was an initial effort, failing to include

potentially critical issues was considered a

greater mistake than including issues that, upon

further study, turn out to be relatively unimportant. The participants were not asked to make

quantitative assessments of the impacts that they

discussed.

THE 4 QUESTIONS ADDRESSED

1. What are the current concerns?

• Land-use. The most important source of

impacts on aquatic systems in the Upper Great

Lakes region was thought to be land-use – specifically agriculture and urbanization (including industrial uses). These types of land-use

changes can lead to direct loss or degradation

of aquatic systems (e.g. filling of wetlands for

agriculture and siltation of streams due to runoff from agriculture).

• Agriculture. Fertilizer and pesticide runoff

produce widespread and detrimental impacts on

aquatic ecosystems. In addition to these well

known concerns, questions were raised about

industrial farms and how they handle animal

wastes. On one hand, manure was described as

having a potentially large impact on phosphorus and ammonia levels in aquatic systems. On

the other hand, European studies show that manure can be an important source of nutrients

when spread across the landscape.

• Urbanization. A study linking increasing urbanization with decreasing scores on a biotic

index was discussed. The aspect of climate

change that may prove to be most important in

terms of aquatic ecosystem health is how landuse patterns (e.g. urbanization or sprawl) change

as a result of climate change and climate change

mitigation policies.

• “Leap-frogging.” Aquatic systems are particularly vulnerable to “leap-frogging” (i.e.,

building vacation homes in remote areas causes

degradation “leaps” from cities to more rural

areas), especially groundwater systems (resulting from more well drilling and waste disposal

in previously unimpacted areas).

• Population growth. Land-use issues are

closely tied to population growth, which was

identified as an important stressor.

• Pollution. Important concerns included mercury deposition (leading to reproductive and potentially fatal, developmental impairments in

aquatic life); eutrophication (leading to reduced

dissolved oxygen and potential species loss) and

acid rain (impairing and potentially killing fish

and plant life). Other sources of point and nonpoint source pollution and existing contaminant

loads in aquatic sediments and biota were also

important concerns.

• Additional stresses. The alteration of lake

levels in the Great Lakes, the shoreline modification (related to human settlement along

shores), the loss of Great Lakes coastal wetlands

(related to the alteration of lake levels and shoreline modification), and the invasion of exotic

species were all discussed as areas of importance. The current concerns are summarized in

Figure 1.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

24

2. How may climate change impact our lives?

It was recognized that any changes in climate

could have strong and hard-to-predict impacts

on aquatic systems. Examples that were discussed included:

• Water temperature increase. Potential effects of a temperature increase on deep inland lakes could lengthen the period of thermal stratification and decrease the volume of

the layer of water beneath the thermocline.

This could lead to a decrease in dissolved

oxygen, decrease in primary productivity, and

a decrease in cold water fish populations.

• Decrease in ice cover. A decrease in ice

cover could reduce winter kills (i.e. fish that

die because of insufficient dissolved oxygen

in the water under the ice). An overall change

in the seasonal patterns of freezing and thawing could interfere with aspects of fish (and

other species) life histories, such as the timing of reproduction.

• Decrease net water basin supply. Decreased

rates of supply, coupled with increased rates

of evaporation, could lead to decreased lake

levels and the widespread loss of wetlands.

A summary of the discussed impacts on various water bodies from changes in climate

factors is presented in Figure 2. Interactions

among the climate factors shown in the table

were thought to be highly likely but beyond

the scope of the discussion.

3. What additional information do we need?

The discussion in this section fell into three

categories: better understanding, better model

development and implementation, and better

general information and better data.

Figure 2. Climate factors that affect the structure and function of

aquatic ecosystems in the Upper Great Lakes region. All of these

climate factors are likely to be affected by global climate change.

Important impacts

Very important impacts

Figure 1: Major stressors on aquatic ecosystems in the Upper Great

Lakes region.

Strongly impact ecosystem

Very strongly impact ecosystem

Likely to interact with or be further impacted as a result

of climate change

Likely to strongly interact with and be impacted by

climate change

STESSOR GREAT LAKES INLAND LAKES WETLANDS RIVERS & 

STREAMS

Toxics & 

Contaminants

Exotic Species

Eutrophication

Dams & Hydrologic

Manipulation

Shoreline

Modification

Forestry Recreation

Urbanization

Agriculture

AQUATIC ECOSYTEMS

CLIMATE GREAT LAKES INLAND LAKES WETLANDS RIVERS & 

VARIABLE STREAMS

Mean Temperature

Seasonality (temp. &

precipitation)

Weather extremes

Water level

Runoff

Wind

Cloud Cover

AQUATIC ECOSYTEMS
WATER ECOLOGY SECTOR

25

Better understanding

Improved regional climate models are needed

that incorporate feedbacks between climate

and ecological aspects of the Great Lakes. The

group discussed several issues related to

modeling.

• Recharge mechanisms. A main informational need with respect to groundwater models

is an understanding of recharge mechanisms on

the larger scale. The focus of most groundwater models is shallow system aquifers. Some

work has been done to estimate flow to and

from the lakes and the flow of groundwater.

Groundwater exchanges with the lakes are

highly variable by area because of soil type and

underlying geology.

• Runoff. Another informational need is a

better understanding of runoff. Better parameterization of runoff in GCMs and RCMs is

important because incorrect treatment of runoff can cause errors in surface fluxes. To develop improved parameterizations, there is some

question as to whether runoff data and recharge

data are both needed, because the processes tend

to cancel to a large degree. The degree of cancellation depends on the scale of the model being used and the spatial patterns of the aquatic

systems in the model. Currently there are no

projects at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

to link runoff to these models.

Better model implementation

• Linkage. Models for groundwater, river

flow, runoff, and wetlands need to be linked

together. This linkage will require the development of models for wetlands (currently there

are no generic wetland ecosystem model of

which the group was aware). It appears that there

are currently models under development that are

likely to be useful – it was mentioned that

NCAR has a version of VEMAP (Vegetation/

Ecosystem Modeling and Analysis Project) that

models the effects of current and doubled CO2

at 50 km resolution that includes the Great

Lakes. The USGS also has models of groundwater flow that are at a small scale (RASAS

studies – watershed scale) that could potentially

be linked to produce a regional model.

• Calibration. Existing groundwater models

need to be calibrated using data from periods

of major hydrologic stress. Currently there is

not sufficient information available.

• Integrated databases. There is potential to

link three existing groundwater models for different parts of the region and then tie in runoff.

It may be useful to get NOAA and the Army

Corps of Engineers involved. It was also suggested that there is a lot of information available on lake levels and stream flow that could

be linked with existing forest, agriculture, wetland distribution, and groundwater databases.

A major effort should be put into integration of

the existing databases and models to improve

understanding. The focus of these integrated

groundwater models should be on hydrologic

balance at a landscape scale. Future links envisioned by the group would be to tie in urbanization and other types of land-use change. The

group agreed that land-use changes are going

to be a key factors determining the fate of

aquatic systems. Finally, the integrated groundwater and runoff models should be linked to

GCMs and RCMs.

• Spatial Scale. Broad-based models for the

Great Lakes or wetlands are not likely to be

useful because effects related to climate change

are likely to be very site-specific. It is possible

to get (opposite) effects due to some climatic

change in adjacent sites – the results have to do

with the water budget for each water body.

Local flow paths dominate small-scale effects.

As a result, predictions need to be presented

carefully and with respect to specific sites; general broad scale predictions will be incorrect and

inappropriate.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

26

• Temporal scale. Another problem with current models is the assumption that the Great

Lakes area has remained unchanged over time.

Data from several centuries needs to be examined in order to better understand the effects of

changing climate. We are currently in a period

of declining lake levels. Lake levels also show

strong periodicities at various time scales that

are likely to be climate-driven. Both of these

would not be clear without the long-term data

sets that are available. There are likely to be

strong parallels between the inland lakes and

the Great Lakes that may be identifiable through

paleoecological studies.

Better general information and better data

• How climate shapes ecosystems. Research

should address the question of “How does

climate shape aquatic ecosystems?” Climate

change is likely to lead to a wide variety of ecosystem feedbacks. As described above, effects

are likely to differ – even in systems that

appear similar – due to differences in water

regime, soil/parent material, and location on the

landscape.

• Exotic species. The habitat needs and ecological requirements for a whole collection of

species remain unknown and must be studied.

This is especially true for those that are likely

to invade and possibly dominate aquatic systems. The forces and factors that are currently

restricting ranges (including climate factors)

must be understood to make better predictions

about what will happen in the future. The

population ecology of many species could be

dramatically altered by changes in climate.

• Air quality. Information is needed to link

nitrogen deposition patterns and the impacts on

levels in ecosystems. The Great Lakes are probably not nitrogen limited, although this may vary

seasonally. In wetlands, nitrogen can be a key

limiting nutrient. Peatlands may be particularly

at risk because Sphagnum species are killed by

high nitrogen levels. Mercury deposition is also

important to examine.

• New data. Information gathering should focus on key stressors identified in Figure 1, especially those that are susceptible to climate

change impacts. One important data need relates to the natural fluctuations in groundwater

level – most data currently reflects water levels

in pumped systems (i.e. systems in which the

water level is at least in part determined by human activity). Good data on sunlight, especially

in remote areas like the centers of each of the

Great Lakes is also needed. These data would

help in the estimation of primary productivity

in aquatic systems.

• Long-term lake levels. The relationships between long-term lake level data and other long

term climate data (i.e., CO2

 from ice cores)

should be investigated.

Organizing research and impact assessments

From the previous list it is clear that additional

research is needed. The following specific tasks

and general guidelines resulted from a discussion of the need for further research.

Specific tasks

1. Develop better proxies for assessing the

effects of climate change in the past

(in addition to the records that already

exist from long term Great Lakes water

level studies).

2. Develop an understanding of the connection between aquatic ecosystems,

the watershed, and local and regional

hydrology.

3. Develop basic ecosystem models for

wetlands.

4. Develop and integrate regional models

of climate, landscapes, hydrology, and

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
WATER ECOLOGY SECTOR

27

5. Improve the understanding of climate

as a basic structuring principle of

aquatic ecosystems.

6. Obtain more information about the key

stressors identified in Figure 1.

General guidelines

1. Develop location-specific studies. An

overall feeling was that the heterogeneity and interconnectedness of aquatic systems makes any sort of generalization

about stressors or effects of climate

change very difficult.

2. In terms of discussing impacts, it may be

useful to divide aquatic systems into those

directly and indirectly influenced by the

Great Lakes.

3. Streams, groundwater-fed systems and

storm-responsive systems should be examined separately. Alternatively, streams

and rivers could be divided into those that

are high and low in the landscape.

4. Wetlands should be assessed on a gradient from lake-influenced to non-lake

influenced.

4. How do we cope with climate change?

This session was short and focused on the

development of the summary list below.

1. Data usage. Maximize and integrate

current data sets and models. This will

increase the usefulness of currently available information and predictive ability.

2. Economics assessment. Promote consideration of environmental costs (externalities) in cost/benefit assessments of

various planning and mitigation strategies. Unless this is done, economic and

policy decisions intended to increase the

value of our world in future years will fail

to promote healthy ecosystems.

3. Comprehensive studies. Incorporate

climate change-related variables into ongoing studies of other stressors of aquatic

systems. This is essential to determining

the extent and type of aquatic system

vulnerability.

4. Outreach. Increase efforts at public outreach and education about potential

effects of climate change on aquatic ecosystems. Until the public is informed they

will not support enlightened policies.

5. Land-use strategies. Promote land-use

planning that will minimize potential

impacts of extreme events. Land-use patterns can either increase or decrease the

vulnerability of ecosystems.

6. Restoration. Encourage development of

adequate restoration techniques for

aquatic systems. It is not enough to decide to restore and promote healthy

aquatic systems, one must know how to

implement these goals.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

28
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

93

CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE GREAT

LAKES REGION:

PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE

Derek Winstanley

Illinois State Water Survey, Champagne, Illinois

Dr. Derek Winstanley, Chief of the Illinois State Water Survey, provided

valuable information about the

regional texture of past climate, climate change,

and climate variability in the Upper Great Lakes

region. He presented information, which illustrated that while global temperatures may have

risen in the last 100 years by 0.5 °C, not all regions have exhibited the same trend, and that

the trend, even in regions where temperatures

have increased, is certainly more complicated

than a simple monotonical increase. For

example, Figure 1 shows that in the Upper Great

Lakes region, the mean annual temperature for

the region does not exhibit any long term (e.g.,

multi-decadal) trends over the last 100 years1.

In fact, what are more apparent than net changes

over the last 100 years are the trends that last

a decade or so, as well as the interannual

variability.

Temperature extremes across the region also

have not shown a distinct trend over the last

100 years. Figure 2 shows that regarding heat

waves, there have been only two years since

1950 where there have been more than four

days with temperatures above 95 °F, while

there have been ten such years between 1900

and 1950.

The high incidence of hot days is consistent

with the distribution of three-day heat waves

during the last century. Eleven of the fifteen

greatest heat waves occurred between 1931 and

1 If only stations with filtered records (e.g., adjusted for station

displacements, etc.) are included then the regional trend

exhibited a 1-2o F increase.

Figure 3: Number of days per year below 0°F for Minnesota,

Wisconsin, and Michigan.

Figure 1: Annual mean temperature (oF) for Minnesota,

Wisconsin, and Michigan.

Figure 2: Number of days per year above 95°F for Minnesota,

Wisconsin, and Michigan.

1890

Days

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

12

0

10

8

6

2

Year

4

1890

Days

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 0

5

10

30

35

40

45

50

Year

25

20

15

1890

Temperature

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

48

38

46

44

42

40

Year
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

94

1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

2

3

Year

Precipitation 4

8

9

10

11

12

7

6

5

1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

14

6

12

11

9

7

Year

8

Precipitation 10

13

1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

4

9

8

7

5

Year

6

Precipitation 10

11

1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

6

0

5

4

3

1

Year

2

Precipitation

1948. The great heat wave during the summer

of 1995 ranks only 12th (out of 15) in terms of

intensity.

Cold waves also have not shown any consistent

trend over the last 100 years. The number of

days per year where temperatures dropped below 0 °F decreased between 1910 and 1930 but

increased between 1930 and 1980 (cf. Figure

3). First fall freeze dates, which are important

from an agricultural standpoint, also have not

changed - although last spring freeze dates have

come earlier by about ten days since 1960.

Dr. Winstanley noted that precipitation (change)

in the region is a much different story than temperature. Figures 4 and 5 show that while winter and spring precipitation for the region show

no long-term trend, summer and fall precipitation does. Specifically, summer precipitation

shows a decline from 1900 to the 1930s, an

increase from the 1930s to the mid 1950s, a

decrease from the mid 1950s to the mid 1960s,

and then a gradual increase from the mid 1960s

to the present. Fall precipitation shows more or

less steady precipitation from 1900 to 1940, and

then a slow increase from 1940 to the present.

Figure 6 shows that the number of extreme precipitation events (as defined by events > 3.0

inches) has cycled over a period of about 40

years. Figure 7 shows that snowfall has

Figure 4: Average annual precipitation for Minnesota,

Wisconsin, and Michigan.

Figure 5: Average seasonal precipitation for Minnesota,

Wisconsin, and Michigan. a) Winter, b) Spring, c) Summer,

and d) Fall.

c

b

a

d

1890

Precipitation

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22

20

18

Year
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

95

increased since 1950, while Figure 8 shows that

the number of heavy snowfall days (as defined

by events > 5 inches) has cycled over a 30 year

period.

Perhaps more striking than the recent precipitation trend for the region is the trend in lake

levels (Figure 9). For example, lake levels for

Lake Michigan and Lake Huron have basically

decreased by 5 feet from 1890 to 1940 and have

increased by 4 feet since then. The other four

Great Lakes show similar trends.

Dr. Winstanley showed several correlation

charts to indicate the relationship between

average temperature, snow, cold days, and hot

days. The chart for temperature vs. snow shown

in Figure 10 suggests that a temperature

increase of 3 °F would lead to a snow reduction of 20 inches, 12 fewer subzero days, and

5 more 90 °F-plus days.

While the temperature and precipitation trends

over the last century across the Upper Great

Lakes are not entirely consistent with global

trends, they are reflective of national trends

and variations. Figure 11 shows how winter

temperatures on average have oscillated with

a period of about 50 years for the whole U.S.

The regional changes between the first 50

years and the second 50 years show warming

in the western U.S. and cooling in the southeastern U.S. Dr. Winstanley presented several

examples. One from the southeast (e.g.,

Figure 6: Number of days with precipitation greater than 3

inches for Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Figure 8: Number of days with snowfall greater than 5 inches

for Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Figure 7: Total annual (January-December) snowfall (in)

for Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

0

0.1

Year

0.4

0.6

0.3

0.2

Days 0.5

1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

30

40

Year

70

90

60

50

Snowfall (inches) 80

100

110

120

1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

0

Year

2

1

Days 3

4

Figure 9: Historic levels on the Great Lakes.

1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980

175.6

175.9

176.2

176.5

176.8

177.1

177.4

Lake Level (meters above MSL)

2000

YEAR
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

96

Mississippi) showed how the cooling occurred

abruptly in the late 1950s (e.g., 2 °F in about 5

years) and has since weakened slightly. Another

example showed a similar trend farther north,

(e.g., in Illinois) where temperature anomalies

dropped from +1.5 °C to -0.5 °C from 1940 to

1980. Other places in the Northern Hemisphere

have also shown temperature decreases over the

last 30 years, for example, in the Arctic, as

shown in Figure 14.

Dr. Winstanley noted that the regional textures

and the areas of cooling shown in Figure 11 are

easier to understand when one considers what

else in addition to increases in carbon dioxide

(CO2

) are affecting temperatures. While CO2

increases are more or less global in extent and

would suggest warming, the presence of aerosols (as part of the products that result from the

burning which has increased the CO2) in differing concentrations would suggest cooling. The

short-term impacts of aerosols have been

confirmed by many numerical simulations

using General Circulation Models. That is, while

the simulations show slight cooling trends for

selected regions of the U.S. (e.g., Northeast,

West Coast, Southeast) during the latter part of

the 20th century, the simulations show warming

everywhere across the U.S. by the beginning of

the 21st century.

Figure 12: Temperature is this absolute or relative (of) vs. Time

(1850-Present) for the arctic region.

Figure. 11: Temperature trends from the period of 1900-1949

to the period 1950-1998. A “W” indicateds warming during

the last ~50 years, a “C” indicates cooling over the last ~50

years.

Dr. Winstanley concluded his talk by emphasizing five major points:

• Natural climate variability on a decadal scale

is high.

• Natural climate variability on a century scale

is not well known.

• No simple regional climate response to 50%

increase in greenhouse gas concentrations is

known.

• Future climate is likely to continue being

highly variable.

• Regional response to cumulative forcing by

all human activities remains highly uncertain.

37

Snowfall (inch) 50

60

Mean Temperature (o F)

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

y=-7.2644x + 383.31

R2

=0.4123

Figure 10: Mean annual temperature (oF) vs. total annual

snowfall (in) for Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

1840

Temperature

-1.5

-1.0

0

1.0

0.5

Year

1860 1880 1900 1940 1960 1980 2000

1.0

1920

Whole Arctic Selected Sites
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

97

MAKING SENSE OF

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS

Otto C. Doering III

Purdue University, Indiana

How To Approach The Issue

I

t may be better in the long-run if we back

off of the arguments about whether climate

change will occur. We can look at climate

change on the basis of a contingency analysis –

doing some looking ahead to the future just in

case it occurs. We do this in our everyday lives.

Few of us expect our houses to burn down, yet

most of us carry fire insurance. We argue little

about whether our house will actually burn

down or not. We just make a contingency plan

in case it does.

What sort of forward thinking or contingency

planning do we need to get under way to deal

with impacts? First we need to try to understand the nature of the climate change impacts

that may occur and then what the drivers of this

change are likely to be. If we don’t have some

understanding of these, then we are not likely

to be successful in coping. People tend to talk

about climate change impacts and about mitigation strategies. With the first they infer adaptation, with the second they infer policies to

reduce carbon emissions. But, what we are actually dealing with is the potential impacts of

climate change (most of it in the future) and the

very real impacts today of proposed mitigation

strategies imposed on us by national policy.

Both the potential future impact of climate

change and the impacts of mitigation strategies

are important and need to be considered in parallel. Agriculture is a sector where the impacts

of climate change itself are of primary importance. Sectors such as transportation, energy,

and primary metals are likely to be more

affected by mitigation/regulatory driven impacts

than by the actual climate change itself.

Direct Climate Change Impacts

In agriculture there are several basic concerns

about climate change in the Midwest and Upper Great Lakes region. We do not appear to be

dealing with a potentially uniform change.

More important for agriculture is the potential

change of the gradient and of the seasonal relationships. The regional models (which, by the

way, we believe are not very reliable) indicate

a greater degree of warming in the North as compared with the South. In addition, the models

indicate that there will be more warming in the

winter than in the summer. If this is true, it poses

a somewhat different set of problems for plant

breeders and plant protection specialists than a

uniform moderate warming everywhere. Pests

are much more likely to winter over in contrast

to being killed by the cold winters as they are

today.

An even greater challenge for agriculture may

be posed by what the climatologists term “seasonal fuzziness.” With the warming, spring will

come a bit earlier and fall will come a bit later,

but, more important, the seasonal demarcation

may not be as distinct. There may be more

chance of late frosts in the spring and early frosts

Figure 1: Tarnished plant bug, Lygus lineolaris, is a serious

pest of alfalfa being grown for seed. Source: U.S. Department

of Agriculture (USDA), photo by Scott Bauer.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

98

in the fall. This poses a special problem for

agriculture in our regions given the great advantage in getting corn and soybean crops planted

early to capture the maximum insolation.

Why do we worry about this, and what is the

equivalent of the insurance policy that we need

to be thinking about? It takes time to develop

frost or pest resistant varieties and pest control

practices to meet challenges like those projected

here. It will be in the best interests of the agricultural research establishment to have such

possibilities in the back of their minds as they

develop the research agenda for the coming decades. Private firms can approach this from the

standpoint of determining how much they can

afford to invest in new technology. A frost resistant corn variety able to deal with the seasonal fuzziness that might occur and still allow

a farmer to get his crop in early might be worth

up to a quarter of a farmer’s net income as compared with the cost of frost loss that would

otherwise occur. The contingency thinking

mentality is especially critical for public agricultural research. Much of the adaptation that

will not yield a clear profit will need to be

spearheaded by the public sector to prevent or

reduce the chance of food shortfalls.

Mitigation Impacts

Much of the early discussion in the U.S. of mitigation focused on utilities and heavy industry.

Transportation was usually left out of the equation. Transportation accounts for about a third

of our energy use with industry and utilities

making up roughly another third and all other

uses making up the final third. In OECD countries (Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development), transportation is a third of

all CO2 emissions and road freight traffic (much

less efficient than rail) has tripled in the last 25

years. My suspicion is that the politics of dealing with reducing transportation emissions

is much more difficult than the politics of

regulating large industries or utilities that can

be portrayed as the bad guys. Thus, politicians

have avoided tackling this one head-on. In the

U.S. our auto transportation is so driven by our

geography and historical suburban settlement

patterns that this will not be easy to modify. If

vehicle populations and miles driven per year

continue to increase as in the past, the imposition of the Sierra Club’s recommended average

fuel efficiency of 34 mpg for trucks and 43 mpg

for cars starting now will still leave us 20% short

the target of reducing CO2

 levels to those of

1990 by the year 2010.

For the energy industry, coal, which is 43% of

the electric generating capacity, actually provides 56% of the electricity and emits 88% of

the CO2

. Under some of the regulations suggested, coal is dead. It’s reprieve might come

if the industry can perfect a technology to give

efficiency levels similar to combined cycle turbines that run on natural gas. Some of the suggestions are to move to generation with natural

gas. We now have a glut of natural gas, and it is

clean and cheap. But, natural gas is our premium petrochemical building block for things

from plastics to fertilizer to pharmaceuticals. Do

we want to blow future generation’s supply of

this unique feedstock out the end of turbines to

produce increasing amounts of electricity? To

meet the 2010 objective of 1990 CO2

 emissions

Figure 2: Monroe Power Plant (fossil fuel), Lake Erie. Source:

Center for Great Lakes Aquatic Sciences, April, 1986.
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

99

we will have to do more than change fuels. We

will have to take a number of important steps:

cut electricity load growth in half, cut heat rates

10%, shift 10% of the generation to natural gas,

increase renewables share by 20% and increase

transmission and distribution efficiency by 10%.

Actually Biting the Bullet

It all comes down to a willingness to take costs

upon ourselves to deal with a broad public concern. As long as there is uncertainty about the

event, there will be many unwilling to pay the

costs of doing something. Thus, automobile

drivers will not want to be forced by higher

prices of gasoline to reduce fuel consumption.

In March 1979 gasoline was $1.10 a gallon. In

the summer of 1998 it was well below a dollar

across the U.S. and the dollar is worth one third

what it was in 1979. The fuel efficiency standards are the only reason we have the efficiency

levels we do have in automobiles today. We are

unwilling to use prices to encourage efficiency.

If we look at efforts to deal with climate change

as an insurance premium or a contingency planning effort many people may be more willing

to do something modest about it. The argument

about whether it will happen and by how much

is paralyzing. We need to be realistic about the

costs. Piling all the costs on electric utilities or

on heavy industry is perceived as saving the public from paying those costs – it only delays the

bill a little. In addition, total costs will be lower

if we get all sectors of the economy to contribute a little to the solution rather than put the full

burden on one or two players. There is economic

logic to this statement. For any sector to

reduce CO2

 emissions, there are things that can

be done initially at modest cost. To try to squeeze

more and more CO2 out of emissions costs more

and more as the CO2 producing industry proceeds up an increasing cost curve using more

expensive technology.

What we might do is be as realistic as possible

about the risk, treat our activities as insurance,

and insist that all sectors (and countries) take at

least those steps that are less expensive for them

to take to slow the growth of CO2. The environment for this will have to be one of regulatory

stability so people can invest in change without

fear of having the rules of the game change.

Most everyone is going to have to be willing to

pay something.

“If you ask several sectors to take the

easy and less expensive steps to control CO2 emissions, it will be cheaper

than asking one sector to take the full

burden and climb up the increasing cost

of getting decreasing amounts of CO2

out of the system.”
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

100
 LAND ECOLOGY SECTOR

29

LAND ECOLOGY

SECTOR REPORT

Session Chair: Daniel G. Brown

Rapporteur: Sheila Ruth Burris

INTRODUCTION

The Land Ecology breakout group included participants from universities, federal agencies, and

private industry. Several issues particular to the

Upper Great Lakes region were discussed.

Detailed results from the discussion are included

as the main content of this report. Concise

results of this discussion are included in tabular

form at the end of this report.

THE 4 QUESTIONS ADDRESSED

1. What are the current concerns?

The session began by considering maps of landuse and land cover (USGS), eco-regions, and

locations of public lands in the Upper Great

Lakes region. The natural ecosystems of the region occur along a north-south transition from

prairie to forest in the west, and from eastern

deciduous forests to northern mixed hardwood

forests in the east. This transition corresponds

to climatic and soil gradients, and is reflected

in a steep south-north land-use gradient from

predominantly agriculture to predominantly

forest. The region is at the southern margin of

the boreal forest and has a large number of inland lakes and wetlands, including the prairie

potholes in the western portion of the region.

Without ever achieving a fully satisfactory definition of what qualifies as a “stress”, the group

focused initial discussions on identifying the

current “stresses” on the ecosystems of the region. The effects of human and natural disturbances on the landscape are numerous. Important bio-indicators such as deformed frogs in

Minnesota may be indicative of air, land, and

water quality problems. During the discussion,

one overarching theme emerged as central to

current and future land ecology concerns –

namely, ecological disturbances. These include

both anthropogenic (e.g. human population

patterns, lnd-use practices, forest management,

and agricultural pressures) and natural disturbances (e.g., fires, pests, and extreme weather

and climate events). Additionally, the group

considered the importance of extreme climatic

events for ecosystem functioning. The frequency,

intensity, duration, and location of climatic

extremes may be influenced by human activity

but the group considered them to be fundamentally natural factors.

Anthropogenic disturbances.

• Human Population. Through extensive logging, mining, urban and dispersed-rural development, and agricultural activities, the human

population in the Upper Great Lakes region has

had a significant impact on the ecological patterns and processes in the region. Ongoing

changes in the numbers and distribution of population are likely to result in further impacts.

Despite these land-use changes, the amount of

forested land in all three states (MI, MN, and

WI) has increased over the last decade.

• Rural development. In rural areas, settlement is consuming more land, increasing commuting distances, and increasing rural infrastructure demands. Although some attempts at

policy remedies have been made, the demand

for some rural land continues to rise, and a

strong home-rule tradition has limited effectiveness of statewide controls. For example, in

Michigan, the Subdivision Control Act was designed to reduce these problems by requiring

land to be sold in larger lots (i.e., greater than

10 acres). But it also increased the effects of

dispersed development by increasing the number of these now-larger lots that are sold. The
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

30

result is an increase in the rate at which farm

land and natural ecosystems are being lost.

• Urban development. Several impacts of urban development on natural ecosystems were

discussed, including forest fragmentation

(which limits the ability of ecosystems to respond to pressure by migrating); impervious

surfaces (which increasing runoff and erosion);

increased fire suppression (occasional fire is a

natural part of the Great Lakes ecosystem), and

air pollution (e.g., nitrates and ozone).

• Retirement. Population growth and redistribution are being compounded by the fact that

people are living longer. Retirement-related development has had a profound impact on rural

land-uses in the region.

• Recreation and Tourism. Another aspect of

the complex urban expansion is tourism. One

estimate puts the recreation and tourism industry in the region at $9 billion per year. Michigan is second in the U.S. only to Florida in the

percentage of homes that are used only seasonally and first in the in the U.S. in the number of

registered boaters.

• Demographic Changes. The strongest drivers of land-use change in the region within the

last several decades have been the changes in

human demographics and economics (e.g., a

more affluent, older, less agrarian, and globalized society with net migration from urban to

rural areas). These drivers are likely to continue and to interact with climate forcing. It is

not clear that climate forcing will dominate the

land-use changes. Possible economic impacts

include increases in energy consumption and

tourism in the region.

• Agricultural land-use. In the western portion of the region, intensification of agriculture

is a concern. Feedlots and hog farms, which

confine huge numbers of animals to small

spaces, have proliferated in recent years. Also,

the combination of abandonment of marginal

farmland and conversion of other farmland to

urban-type development has reduced the available productive farmland in the region.

• Pest management. Reactions to pests, such

as spraying pesticides, can have serious negative consequences for ecosystems unless management efforts are designed to minimize them.

• Mining. Another land-use practice in the region affecting ecosystem health is mining, which

includes the extraction of oil, gas, metals, minerals, and peat.

• Air pollution. Atmospheric deposition of

ammonium and other sources of nitrogen from

agricultural regions to the west and increasing

amounts of tropospheric ozone due to urbanization can place stresses on natural ecosystems.

• Loss of habitat. In the southern portion of

the region, where agriculture and urban development are extensive, there is clearly evidence

of loss of habitat. This is especially true in the

Maple/Basswood Forests of Southern Michigan,

which exist mostly as small wood lots scattered

amongst agricultural fields. Other sensitive

habitats experiencing loss and fragmentation

include prairie within forested areas. This loss

has had negative implications for threatened or

endangered species (TES), like Pitcher’s Thistle

and Karner Blue Butterflies. Other TES in the

area include Kirtland’s Warbler, which has also

suffered loss of habitat through fire suppression.

• Stresses on Native Peoples. Many indigenous cultures that depend on water resources

and species in fragile habitat for maintenance

of their traditional lifestyles have experienced

intense pressure. For example fire suppression

has altered traditional burial grounds. The deterioration in water quality has had a great impact on many groups of Native Americans as

they rely on water resources for their livelihoods

(fishing, etc.). Most Native Americans are uni-
 LAND ECOLOGY SECTOR

31

versally aligned against mining because of its

affect on water quality through ground water.

• Exotic Species. The advance of exotic

species, (that were introduced by people) like

buckthorn and honeysuckle, also represents a

major cause for concern. Exotics can spread

rapidly and push out native species.

Natural disturbances

• Pests and diseases. Natural ecosystems are

subject to the impacts of pests and diseases

resulting in significant and sometimes devastating results.

• Fire. Fire has always been an important process to which many of the ecosystems in the

region have adapted. Dramatic alterations in

fire regimes, through suppression, have led to

similarly dramatic changes in ecosystem composition and structure. Encroachment of forests into

prairie openings was noted as a particularly

important example of these changes.

• Wind. The atmosphere is an important factor

to consider because it can alleviate or intensify

existing problems. Wind-throw acts as a direct

disturbance in forested ecosystems.

• Precipitation and temperature extremes.

The flora and fauna of the region are dependent

on climatic moderation. Periodic extreme

droughts, flooding, late-spring or early-autumn

frost, low minimum and high maximum temperatures punctuate the climatic variability of

the region. Any consideration of the interaction between climate and land ecosystems

must account for the magnitude, frequency, and

duration of these events.

2. How may climate change impact our lives?

Some analyses of temperature and precipitation

trends and predictions for the Upper Great Lakes

region reveal a climate that is getting warmer

and wetter. There is significant uncertainty in

both the historical trends and the future projections at the regional scale. Therefore, the

discussion tended to focus on identifying the

sensitivities of the region’s ecosystems to

change, rather than predicting the future.

In order to address the question of impacts, it

was clear to the group that average climatic

conditions would not be the only, or even the

dominant, climate-change related effects on terrestrial ecosystems. Other potential changes

(e.g., changes in extreme events) are even less

well understood than average conditions. Three

general areas in which climate change is likely

to impact terrestrial ecosystems were identified

in the breakout group:

Land-use Issues

Disturbances and Extreme Events

Species Adaptation and Migration

Land-use Issues

• Agricultural productivity. A changing climate may have direct impacts on agricultural

productivity in the region. Because farming

tends to occur at the margins of profitability,

some climate change scenarios could favor significant increases in agricultural productivity.

Furthermore, declining productivity in other

regions may encourage agricultural intensification in the Upper Great Lakes region. This intensification would likely result in drained wetlands

and other consequences in the region. Uncertainties in such a scenario, however, are large.

• Agriculture and climate variability. One

confounding factor is the influence of climate

variability, which currently directly affects

agricultural productivity. Increases in the

occurrence of extreme events may limit real

gains in productivity.

• Pests and diseases. The interactions of pests

and disease with climatic variability are unclear
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

32

but are likely to confound analysis of how natural ecosystems will respond to climate change.

Although they might be managed through integrated pest management, pest increases could

mean an increase in the use of pesticides and

herbicides. Reactions to pests can have serious

negative consequences for ecosystems unless

management efforts are designed to minimize

them.

• Soil-imposed limits to land-use. A significant cause of uncertainty is the degree to which

land-use is limited by soil type. In addition to

climate, the land-use gradient from agricultural

production in the south, to forest and recreation

in the north, is controlled to some extent by soils

(i.e., sandier and/or more acidic soils to the

north).

• Trees. Forest productivity may also be affected by climate change. There are implications

for both the forest products industry and the

amount of carbon sequestration accounted for

in the forests. Like agricultural systems, forested

ecosystems are complicated by many interacting effects. The combined effects of climate

change, changes in disturbance regimes,

nitrogen deposition, CO2

 fertilization, and

increasing ozone levels are not yet known.

Disturbances and Extreme Events

Changes in natural disturbance regimes caused

by climate change are critical to the future functioning of the ecosystems. Climate change will

likely have effects on insect populations, fire

regimes, extreme temperatures, precipitation,

wind events, and tropospheric ozone. There has

already been tree damage due to increased ozone

concentrations throughout the rural Upper Great

Lakes region.

• Pests and diseases. The populations of forest pathogens may increase. For example,

Beech bark disease and the Woolly Adelgid,

currently in the eastern U.S., might affect forests in the Upper Great Lakes region. Because

of a warmer winter and spring in 1998, there

were predictions of a 40% increase in gypsy

moths, black flies, and mosquitoes for that summer. Indeed, gypsy moth populations were substantially larger in the summer of 1998 than in

the previous two years.

• Climate variability. Changing climatic

variability is critical to understanding ecosystem responses. Understanding changes in

patterns of events (e.g., more frequent periods

of extended drought, timing of last frost) may

be more important than understanding changes

in climate means.

• Fire. The peak fire season in the Upper Great

Lakes region is May. For this reason, changes

in late winter snow cover and early spring

precipitation will be strong determinants of fire

frequency and severity. In addition, fire management practices have important indirect

effects on increased fire potential. The more fires

are controlled, the higher the probability will

be of a catastrophic fire – unless management

includes prescribed burns.

Species Adaptation and Migration

• Change and the rate of change. Shifting

ecological zones and interactions with soils have

serious implications for the natural ecosystems

and for biodiversity in the region. The rate of

climate change is expected to be more rapid than

anything experienced in the historical record.

There is some question as to whether plant

species will be able to migrate and/or adapt

sufficiently fast.

• Forest adaptation. Trees with wind-dispersed seeds will have more trouble, especially

if they need special habitats or if their habitats

are fragmented. There is some potential for migration and replacement, such as the hemlock

migration evidenced by paleoecological records.
 LAND ECOLOGY SECTOR

33

• Limits to migration. The Great Lakes themselves and expanses of agricultural land-use in

the southern part of the region will likely act as

barriers for species migration.

• Atmospheric chemistry. It is difficult to assess the changes of CO2

 fertilization on community composition, since it will improve the

growth of some species but not others. It will

be hard to isolate the effects of CO2

 fertilization from those of climate change. Nitrogen

deposition may cause only small changes in

prairie communities because of the small size

and fragmentation of prairie reserves. However,

nitrogen deposition will likely affect forests

more significantly, especially those with deciduous trees.

• Temperature. Physical ecosystem properties

(e.g. temperature) are tied to ecosystem diversity. The group discussed recent results from

the Linkages Model, which illustrates the

temperature effects on forest structure and,

subsequently, on avian diversity.

• Intraspecies genetic diversity. An important

determinant of the ability of populations to adapt

to climate change is their genetic diversity. So

far, there has been very little direct research on

genetic diversity and its effects on adaptation

through evolution. As regional climate change

continues, some genotypes and local phenotypes

will likely become much more abundant at the

expense of more narrowly adapted species. An

example is Trembling Aspen, a species with one

of the broadest tolerance limits and adaptation

to fire.

• Species distribution and sprawl. There will

be interactions due to changing human settlement patterns. Several different types of

examples include sprawl, leading to urbandwelling deer in the Twin Cities; the escape into

forest habitats of exotic, ornamental plants;

and the spread of bovine tuberculosis from

domestic to wildlife populations.

3. What additional information do we need?

The monitoring of ecosystem status and trends,

and the acquisition of scientific knowledge

about the functioning of ecosystems form the

core of information needs in the region. With

these in mind, more information is needed in

the following areas (discussed in detail below):

Land-use Options/Scenarios

Disturbance Trends/Patterns

Determinants of Species Patterns

Other Data/Issues

Land-Use Options/Scenarios

Ultimately, the development of land-use scenarios under various assumptions of climate

change would be a valuable tool for evaluating

possible land policy responses in the region. To

develop such scenarios, additional data, scientific

investigations, and models are needed to understand the interactions among climate, land-use,

demographics, economics, soils, and other factors.

• Monitoring data. The information needs

include a better attempt to monitor ongoing

changes in land-use and land cover. Monitoring data will help identify future ecosystem

impasses as well as provide data for scenario

development.

• Carbon budget data. Concurrently, more information is needed on the changes in the

amount of forest cover and the rate of carbon

sequestration in the forested lands. This information will help improve quantification of the

regional, national, and global carbon budgets.

• Economic modeling. A better understanding is needed of the settings under which

expansion or intensification of agriculture in

the region makes sense economically. Agricultural practices have significant impacts on

ecosystems.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

34

• Competing uses. Ecosystem models should

account for competition for land among various sectors and should attempt to evaluate how

the competitive advantages in the region shift

under various climate scenarios.

Disturbance Trends/Patterns

• Historical disturbances. Information is

needed on the historical and long-term trends

in the regimes of various disturbances (including fire, pests, disease, and extreme climatic

events). Data that can be used to address this

gap include long term proxy records and historical records. Research is needed to interpret

the data in ecologically meaningful terms.

• Improved monitoring. Monitoring of ecologically significant climatic extreme events

(e.g. frost, drought) needs to be in place. In

addition, improved data collection and monitoring systems regarding all ecosystem disturbances should be established.

• Modeling. The following factors need to be

modelled: a) The responses of ecosystems to

current stresses, b) How those responses are

affected by climate change, and c) The interactions between the responses and other ecosystem stress factors. Such comprehensive, interactive models might allow better prediction of

ecosystem responses to stresses that are part of

climatic change.

• Regional climate models. As regionally specific climate modeling improves, it is hoped that

extreme events and climate variability might be

better predicted.

Determinants of Species Patterns

Better knowledge of the elements that are required by species for survival, such as the relationships between habitat patterns and species

abundance, is needed. This knowledge should

come from both the compilations of data sets,

for example on the current distributions of different species, and the scientific investigations

of the relationships between the species and their

environment.

• Interdependence data. More information is

needed regarding the interacting processes affecting species distributions, e.g., the interacting effects of climate, nitrogen deposition, CO2

fertilization, and migration mechanisms on

intraspecies competition. More stand-level

investigations of species response are needed

in attempts to account for these interactions.

• Migration studies. A better understanding

is needed, perhaps through better modeling, of

the ability of species with various dispersal

mechanisms, to migrate through fragmented

landscapes.

• Robustness and adaptability. Better knowledge of the responses of species to interannual

variability in climate is needed. For example,

species react very differently to a single severe

drought year than to several drought years in a

row. Furthermore, the equilibrium state of species with respect to climate, needs to be known.

The rate of change now is greater than ever

recorded before. It is necessary to know what

to measure in order to be able to determine the

robustness of the system, i.e., whether or not

the system can quickly adapt to changes.

Other Data/Issues

• Data existence. A variety of good data on

species distributions exists, but many are not

easy to access. A good example is the data on

tree distributions held in the General Land Office survey records. In Minnesota, the Department of Natural Resources has compiled a digital database from the survey records. Every state

has a national heritage program, which is doing

something similar, but the efforts are inconsistent. In Michigan, for example, the decision

was made not to compile the data in a digital
 LAND ECOLOGY SECTOR

35

database. Some forms of data will be more helpful than others. For instance, palynological

records cannot be used to distinguish between

red and white oak pollen and yet the species

have very different interactions with wildlife

(e.g., deer).

• Data availability. Many data on ecosystems

in all regions of the country reside within various federal and state agencies, as well as with

many various scientific investigators. It is often difficult to know what data are, in fact, available. The breakout group agreed that some effort to catalogue, or create a meta-database on

biological and ecosystem data would be valuable. Such “data about data” would serve to

minimize the duplicate collection of data.

• Remote sensing. It was also felt that, given

improvements in the spatial, spectral, and temporal resolutions of satellite remote sensing instruments, the ecosystem research and management communities should be able to make more

effective and efficient use of remote sensing.

Land-use and land cover changes, at the very

least, can be monitored with remote sensing.

There was some hope that remote sensing could

be used to improve both the thematic content

of existing data (e.g., by giving species-level

distributions) as well as the temporal frequency,

to improve interannual investigations. An example of the latter is a current prototype use of

remote sensing to potentially increase the temporal frequency of the Forest Inventory and

Analysis (FIA) program at the USDA Forest

Service.

• Public education. Another major information issue is education. Providing the public

with a regional scale prediction of changes in

their area might help personalize the issue of

climate change for people and get them involved

with the changes that are likely to occur. People

will not react to global change until they can be

told specifically how it will affect them.

4. How do we cope with climate change?

The discussion of this last question was abbreviated because many in the group were unable

to attend the discussion. The remaining members of the group discussed several possible

coping strategies to encourage sustainability of

the terrestrial ecosystems in the region under

changing climatic conditions.

• Zoning reform. Land-use conflicts may occur as a more dispersed settlement pattern develops and as competition among various landuses changes with changing climate. Policies,

such as land-use planning and/or “sprawl” taxes,

might be used to minimize land-use conflicts.

However, it must first be understood how and

why the current strategies are failing. For example, attempts to minimize sprawl (e.g., Subdivision Control Act, zoning) in the past have

not met with great success. The political costs

of abridging land ownership rights in the region

could be high.

• Facilitate adaptation. The migrations of

plant species with the shifting of ecological

zones should be facilitated where possible. The

establishment of migration corridors was suggested as a possible mechanism to reduce the

effects of fragmentation. However, maintaining

a corridor may not be successful if flowering is

limited due to climatic changes. For certain

birds and for wolves, preservation corridors are

working, but they may not work for some plant

species. Following harvest, tree species that are

better suited to a changed climate might be

planted to encourage adaptation of the ecosystem. Species and genetic diversity should

also be encouraged to improve natural adaptive

capacity.

• Genetic manipulation. In some industries,

selective breeding and/or genetic engineering

may provide an option to improve adaptation.

These strategies are probably more likely to be

successful in high-value agriculture crops (e.g.,
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

36

fruit production in Michigan) than in the

forestry industry.

• Management. Existing fire and pest management strategies may need to be reevaluated

for a changing climate. Incorporation of integrated pest management and prescribed burning may reduce the indirect effects of these disturbances with a changing climate.

• Education. Finally, and most importantly, a

public education program regarding the potential risks and consequences associated with rapid

changes in climate should be in place. For example, the potential for increasing fire danger

associated with warmer and drier conditions

should be communicated to homeowners in high

fire-risk ecosystems. The increased potential for

flooding with an increase in the frequency of

heavy rain events should be communicated to

flood plain landowners. With better information,

the residents of the region will be better prepared to respond to a more variable and less

certain climate.
 AGRICULTURE SECTOR

37

AGRICULTURE

SECTOR REPORT

Session Chairs: Jeff Andresen and H. H. Cheng

Rapporteur: Colleen Garritty

INTRODUCTION

The Agriculture breakout group included participants from academia, state and federal government, and agribusiness. The results of discussions, centered around the U.S. Global

Change Research Program Level 1 assessment

framework, are summarized below. The group

considered the dependence of regional agriculture on climate and the potential impacts caused

by climate change, assuming a warmer climate

than that currently, and with both increasing and

decreasing levels of precipitation and degrees

of climatological variability. In general, the potential impacts of a changing climate on agricultural activities in the region are viewed as

potentially serious in the long term (i.e. decadal

time scale), but at least partially manageable

through technological adaptations, and, in general, of lesser importance than the economic and

regulatory pressures, which the sector currently

faces.

The discussion group was expected to interpret

the four questions broadly in an effort to reduce

the chance that significant issues would be overlooked. Because this was an initial effort, failing to include potentially critical issues was

considered a greater mistake than including issues that, upon further study, turn out to be relatively unimportant. The participants were not

asked to make quantitative assessments of the

impacts that they discussed.

THE 4 QUESTIONS ADDRESSED

1. What are the current concerns?

Of the many concerns identified by the working group, first and foremost was the problem

of economic viability, based heavily on issues

such as low commodity prices, high input prices,

and domestic/ international competition. Major concerns were categorized as economic, environmental, regulatory, and societal, which are

listed below. Specific climatological concerns

were considered separately.

Economic Concerns

The most important economic concerns that

were identified included:

• Low commodity prices and high price

volatility. In recent times, prices for many

commodities have been near or below the costs

of production. In addition, commodity price

swings and market volatility have made it difficult for producers to market their products and

to plan for the future. For some crops, the profit

that a producer may make one year has to last

five more years before there is another profitable year.

• Difficulty of producers obtaining finance capital.

Without finance, in the form of loans, there is

no way to physically produce the product in

a capital-intensive production system such

as ours.

• Domestic/international competition. Products from other regions in the U.S. and from

other countries are sold in the region at a lower

price, which reflects an abundance of cheaper

labor and overall lower production costs than

are possible in the U.S.

• High farm labor costs/labor availability. In

labor-intensive production, such as that for fruits

and vegetables, producers face prohibitively

high labor costs and a short supply of labor.

• Loss of industry infrastructure. The loss of

infrastructure is especially true for the produc-
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

38

tion of specialized agricultural crops. If there

are no processing facilities and other necessary

infrastructure for a product in a region, then the

cost of production increases by an amount proportional to the distance to the nearest processing plant.

• Economics of scale and corporate farming.

There has been a significant loss of small and

medium size farming operations because large

corporate farms are able to produce at a lower

cost than are small-to-medium-sized producers.

Those with higher costs of production are often

squeezed out of the market.

Environmental Concerns

The most important environmental factors that

were identified included:

• Soil degradation, erosion. After being in

production for decades, soils are often degraded

by water and wind erosion, necessitating more

fertilizers to retain their productive capacity and

reducing the value of the soil for agriculture.

• Livestock waste management. As livestock

production becomes more geographically concentrated, waste management concerns grow.

Ecosystems usually are not capable of accommodating the large amounts of livestock waste

that are produced in feedlots or confinement

operations. The application of a large amount

of waste to a small area can lead to surface and

groundwater contamination.

• Insect, disease, and weed pressure. Pests

and plant diseases threaten the health of crops

in the field, while weeds compete with crops

for soil nutrients, sunlight, and water resources.

Often, insects, disease, and weeds are controlled

by applications of pesticides and herbicides.

• Pesticides and fertilizers use. Application

of pesticides and fertilizers is often the most economical way to deal with pest pressures and

increase crop production. These pesticides and

fertilizers, when lost due to runoff or when

leached out of the soil, can contaminate surface

and groundwater resources and threaten human

and ecosystem health.

Regulatory Concerns

The most important regulatory concerns that

were identified included:

• Federal and state regulations. These regulations change the standards and alter the economics of the production system (e.g. Food

Quality Protection Act). For example, a pesticide banned for regulatory reasons may be a

grower’s only line of defense against a pest.

When new pesticides (or other control methodologies) are not immediately available, the crops

cannot be grown economically or to the standards expected by consumers.

Societal Concerns

• Land-use change. Loss of farmland, increasing land values, property taxes due to population shifts to rural areas, home construction, and

suburban sprawl. This reduces the viability of

agricultural practices in a region, both directly

by purchasing tillable acreage for housing

and indirectly by driving up property values so

that farmers can no longer afford property tax

payments.

• Increasing median age of farmers. Fewer

young people are entering into the business of

family-owned farming. The increasing median

age of farmers raises concerns about the future

of food production in the U.S. as well as

the value of farming as part of our national

heritage.

• Sustainability/Balance. One major concern,

which integrates a number of the categories,

is the balance between economic viability,

environmental constraints, and government
 AGRICULTURE SECTOR

39

regulation. This balance determines the long

term sustainability of the system.

Finally, the group considered the specific

climatological concerns associated with agriculture in the region.

Climatological Concerns

The most important climatological concerns that

were identified included:

• Precipitation extremes (drought, flooding).

Water, much of it in the form of naturally occurring precipitation, is the most important

single climatological variable that determines a

region’s agricultural production. Crops cannot

achieve their potential when they are under

stress from too little or too much water.

• Temperature extremes. Agricultural productivity potential can be reduced dramatically by

the occurrence of just one extreme temperature

event.

• Insufficient growing season length. Short

growing seasons limit the amount of time that

crops can produce biomass, thereby reducing

potential crop yields. An anomalously cold

summer coupled with a late spring and/or an

early fall can have a disastrous effect on regional

agriculture.

• Frequency of severe storms. Severe storms

with damaging winds and hail can cause major

crop catastrophes. More frequent occurrences

of these storms render agricultural operations

even riskier.

• Excessive cloudiness. Many plants are most

productive at high levels of sunlight. As cloudiness increases, the potential rate of photosynthesis and the productivity of the crop also generally decrease.

• Changes in variability of all of the above.

Increased variability of climatic parameters significantly increases production risks to farmers.

Agricultural technology can generally adapt to

shifts in the means of climatological elements,

but not nearly as well to increases in variability

of the elements (e.g. late spring freezes, growing season droughts).

2. How may climate change impact our lives?

Weather and climate remain among the most

important uncontrollable variables involved in

agricultural production systems. Future stresses

will likely be largely dependent on the nature

of climatic trends, especially with respect to

variability. The group discussed some recent

climate trends for the region and considered

their recent effects on agriculture.

Climatologically, the most significant observed

trend in the Great Lakes region during the past

century is an increase in precipitation, especially

during the summer and fall months (Boden et

al., 1994). This increase is associated with significant increases in the number of wet days,

multiple wet day events, and a general increase

in cloudiness.

Mean temperatures in the region have also

changed, increasing somewhat during the past

20 years, but increases remain within the

observed variations of the past century.

Assuming a warmer and wetter climate, some

potential direct and indirect impacts discussed

by the group are as follows:

Direct impacts

• Carbon dioxide enrichment. For crops that

benefit from carbon dioxide enrichment, the

increasing atmospheric concentrations of

carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in

biomass accumulation and in water use efficiency, ultimately leading to higher yields and

potential productivity.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

40

• Soil limitations. Expansion of agricultural

activities northward with a warming climate will

be limited by soils that are unsuitable for agriculture.

• Water regulation. If evapotranspiration rates

increase significantly in a warmer climate, then

the Great Lakes could become a major source

of irrigation water, which would also likely necessitate regulations dealing with water rights

and usage.

• Climate variability. If future changes in climate are characterized by gradual changes in

the means, then there is a good chance that

changes in agricultural technology could keep

pace. However, if the changes are accompanied by increases in variability such as the frequency of extreme events, then it would likely

be much more difficult to adapt to the impacts.

Indirect Impacts

• Dairy. Expected changes could lead to less

production per cow because of a longer season

for forage production, lower forage nutrient

quality, greater potential for herd sickness/disease, more pest pressure for forages, and significant economic investment for modification

or reconstruction of dairy barns (necessitated

by a changing warm season climate).

• Field crops. With a longer frost free growing season, potential crop productivity should

in general be higher. There will also likely be

greater pest/weed/disease pressure, some possibly caused by organisms that are not currently

problems in the region. Combined, these trends

suggest an overall increase in potential productivity for most crops, with reductions in water

stress playing a major role.

3. What additional information do we need?

This group discussed a wide range of information needs, from better climate models, to more

collaborative research, to improved farming

practices. Some of the highest priority needs

included:

• Improved General Circulation Models.

Given the current problems with General

Circulation Model (GCM) performance at the

regional level, The Upper Great Lakes region

could experience changes that differ significantly from GCM predictions. The need to

improve GCM climate modeling capabilities,

especially at the regional level, is a high priority. Because of their importance in describing

the present day climate, the Great Lakes need

to be included in the models (i.e. parameterized

as large bodies of water).

• Improved agricultural production models.

Characterization and realistic simulation of

agricultural production systems, from the production level to the market level, are needed.

These activities would help facilitate research

on farm/agricultural management in the context

of climate change and help identify technological/management options for the producer (e.g.

diversification, new crops).

• More collaborative research. Trans-disciplinary research is needed to investigate production practices and policies that are ecologically sensible/congruent with environmental

goals (e.g. “agro-eco-region management”).

This type of research may also help determine

the potential impacts of environmental and/or

other regulations before they are implemented.

• More education. Exchange of information

about climate change should take place between

different agricultural sectors. Many people in

the industry do not even believe that climate

change is a real possibility.

• Improved farming techniques. Research

in no-till farming practices, aimed at carbon

sequestration, is needed.
 AGRICULTURE SECTOR

41

• Maintaining the cooperative observer network.

Agriculture, as an economic pillar of the American landscape, is dependent on weather events

and requires a significant commitment by the

government to maintain and enhance weatherand climate-monitoring capabilities.Serious

concerns were expressed about the degradation

of the nation’s Cooperative Climatological Network, which is an integral part of the monitoring and understanding of long term climate

change. Environmental monitoring of other

climate related variables is also essential.

4. How do we cope with climate change?

The ability to adapt to any future changes in

climate will strongly depend on the nature of

the change. Should future changes in climate

be characterized by gradual shifts of the means,

there is the likelihood that changes in agricultural technology could keep pace. However,

changes such as increases in variability pose

many potential problems for agriculture.

Among the possible adaptations that were

discussed are:

• Diversification. The ability for any one

farmer to grow a variety of crops will be beneficial for sustaining farmers through dry/wet/

hot years.

• Increasing use of irrigation. A warmer

growing season combined with irrigation would

increase potential productivity.

• New policies. Government policy could help

facilitate adaptation to climate change. Producers will need assistance as climate changes occur, and tax policy and incentives for crop insurance may need to be implemented to get

farmers through difficult years and to ensure

continuity of the industry. The government

could also underwrite the higher risks involved

in climate change by subsidizing crop insurance.

• Flexible infrastructure. An agricultural

infrastructure flexible enough to adapt to shifting crop regions would facilitate coping with

climate change.

• Education. Education is vital for understanding the effects of climate change on agriculture

and for solving current and future problems in

our food production systems. The Cooperative

Extension Service can and must play an integral role in this effort.

• Reduce tillage. Depending on the type of

tillage practice, organic matter in the soil may

become either a source of carbon dioxide or a

sink. Increased use of reduced tillage systems

across this region could provide the potential

for significant carbon sequestration as well as

the benefits of improved tilth, soil fertility, and

water holding capacity.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

42
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

101

1900

Precipitation (mm)

1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

800

Temperature (oC)

1000

1200

Great Lakes/

St.Lawrence

Northeastern

Forest

NortheasternForest

Year

Temperature (oC

Great Lakes/St.Lawrence

2.0

0.0

-2.0

2.0

0.0

-2.0

REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE

AND FRESH WATER ECOLOGY1

John J. Magnuson

University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI

Dr. John Magnuson, Director of the Center for Limnology at the University of

Wisconsin at Madison, Wisconsin

talked about the potential impacts of climate

change on lakes in the Great Lakes region.

Below is a summary of his talk.

Dr. Magnuson first noted the importance of the

ecology in the region. Besides the Great Lakes

themselves, which have a surface area of

244,160 km2 and a volume of 23 x 1015 liters,

the region has numerous other (smaller) lakes

and streams. For example, Wisconsin alone, has

12,500 lakes covering 14,000 ha, 2,000,000 ha

of wetlands, and 53,000 km of streams. The region includes the Laurentian Great Lakes and a

diverse collection of smaller glacial lakes,

streams and wetlands located south of permanent permafrost and extending towards the

southern extent of Wisconsin glaciation.

Dr. Magnuson then described briefly the

paleoclimate of the region, in order to set the

stage for a description of the current climate and

future climate scenarios. He noted that the region was mainly drier than present, except for a

brief period around 9,000 YBP (years before

present). Between 12,000 and 7,000 YBP, the

region was cooler by up to 7 °C. Between 7,000

and 3,000 YBP, the region was up to 3 °C

warmer. Since then, the climate has been less

than 2 °C cooler than present.

Overall, the region is warmer and wetter now

than it has been over most of the last 12,000

years. More recently, specifically since 1911,

observed air temperatures have increased by

about 0.11 oC per decade in spring and 0.06 oC

in winter; annual precipitation has increased by

about 2.1% per decade (cf.Figure 1 and 2). Additionally, ice thaw phenologies since the 1850s

indicate a late winter warming of about 2.5 oC.

Dr. Magnuson described in some detail the

climate change scenarios that were used in a

recent study (cf. Magnuson, et. al 1997). Four

general circulation models (listed in Table 1)

1 Much of this summary is extracted from a recent paper, Potential Effects of Climate Changes on Aquatic Systems: Laurentian

Great Lakes and Precambrian Shield Region, J.J. Magnuson, K.E. Webster, R.A. Assel, C.J. Bowser, P.J. Dillon, J.G. Eaton, H.E.

Evans, E.J. Fee, R.I.Hall, L.R. Mortsch, D.W. Schindler and F.H. Quinn. Hydrological Processes, Vol.11,825-871 (1997).

Figure 1: Departure from 1951-1980 average temperature (solid

line) and linear trends (dashed lines) for (a) Great Lakes basin/

St. Lawrence lowlands, and (b) Northeastern Forest, (c) Annual

precipitation (9 year running mean) amount for these two

regions. Source: Magnuson et al. 1997.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

102

were examined. All showed temperature increases from 2-5 oC (summer) to 4-8 oC (winter). All showed precipitation changes from -20

to +10% in summer and -10 to +20% in winter

(cf. Magnuson, et al 1997). Additionally, climate change scenarios were created by transposing climates from areas which represent now

what the Great Lakes region climate is expected

to be in the future (cf. Table 1).

Such changes in climate have altered and would

further alter hydrological and other physical features of lakes. Warmer climates, i.e., 2 x CO2

Table 1: Average, annual, steady-state Great Lakes basin hydrology under base (1XCO2), transposition and 2 X CO2 scenarios

Values in italics are the percentages change form the the base case.

climates, are expected to lower net basin water

supplies, stream flows, and water levels owing

to increased evaporation in excess of precipitation. Lake levels are expected to drop 0.5-2.5

m. Reductions in lake levels would be most dramatic where increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation are greatest – in the

southern half of the basin. Small inland lakes

may completely disappear or at best shrink so

much that salinities and nutrient and pollution

concentrations increase to dangerous levels.

Figure 3 shows the observed 20-year trend for

inland lakes in northwestern Ontario (lake 240

basin). Note that decreasing precipitation and

increasing evapotranspiration (ET) have led to

dramatic decreases in basin discharge.

Additionally, a warmer climate would decrease

the spatial extent of ice cover on the Great Lakes.

Ice-on dates would come later in the fall or winter season and ice-on dates would come earlier

in the winter or spring season. Such changes

have already been observed. Ice-off dates for

Lake Mendota, Wisconsin and Grand Traverse

Bay, Michigan have increased by 8 and 12 days,

respectively, since the late 1800s.

1900

TEMPERATURE (oC)

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

2

8

4

6

Figure 2: Annual temperatures for the Great Lakes basin (1960-

1990). Source: Magnuson et al. 1997.

Scenario Overland Evapotranspiration Basin Over lake Over lake Net basin

precipitation (m3/s) runoff precipitation evaporation supply

(m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s)

1 X CO2 (Base case) 13855 7814 6206 6554 4958 7803

Transposition scenarios:

#1 6oS x 10oW 14643 +6% 10201 +31% 4674 -25% 6767 +3% 7394 +49% 4048 -48%

#2 6oS x 0oW 17167 +24% 11198 +43% 6154 -1% 8169 +25% 6615 +33% 7708 -1%

#3 10oS x 11oW 16236 +17% 11563 +48% 4877 -21% 7379 +13% 8699 +75% 3556 -54%

#4 10oS x 5oW 20095 +45% 13907 +78% 6308 +2% 9482 +45% 8364 +69% 7426 -5%

2 X CO2

CCC* 13637 -2% 7727 +22% 6090 -32% 6499 0% 5352 +32% 7237 -46%

GISS† 13871 +2% 9317 +21% 4658 -24% 6747 +4% 6821 +27% 4584 -37%

GFDLø 13725 +1% 9176 +19% 4714 -23% 6501 0% 7685 +44% 3530 -31%

OSU¶ 14438 +6% 9204 +19% 5438 -11% 6903 +6% 6745 +26% 5596 -23%

* Canadian Climate Center GCM (Croley, 1993)

† Goddard Institute for Space Studies GCM (Croley, 1990)

ø Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory GCM (Croley, 1990)

¶ Oregon State University GCM (Croley, 1990)
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

103

Ice-off dates have decreased by 14 and 20 days

respectively at these two sites. Small lakes,

especially those to the south, would no longer

freeze over every year. Simulations using output from several general circulation models

show that stratified lakes are 1-7 oC warmer for

surface waters, and 6 oC cooler to 8 oC warmer

for deep waters (cf. Figure 4). Thermocline

depth would change (4 m shallower to 3.5 m

deeper). A decreased thermocline depth would

occur from the temperature changes alone,

which would stabilize the surface layer and

reduce mixing. An increased thermocline depth,

however might occur owing to increases in light

penetration which would occur because of the

reduced input of dissolved organic carbon

(DOC). Dissolved oxygen would increase

below the thermocline.

These physical changes would in turn affect the

phytoplankton zooplankton benthos and fishes.

Annual phytoplankton production may increase

but many complex reactions of the phytoplankton community from altered temperatures, thermocline depths, light penetrations and nutrient

inputs would be expected. Zooplankton biomass would increase, but, again, many complex

interactions would be expected. Generally, the

thermal habitat for warm-, cool-, and even coldwater fishes would increase in size in deep

stratified lakes, but would decrease in shallow

unstratisfied lakes and in streams. Less dissolved

oxygen below the thermocline of lakes would

further degrade stratified lakes for cold water fishes.

Figure 4: Simulated temperature isotherms (oC) for Lake

Michigan under base and 2 X CO2 scenarios from three global

climate models (modified from McCormick, 1990). Source:

Magnuson et al. 1997.

Figure 3: Hydrological changes observed for the lake 240 basin

during the 20-year period of warmer and drier conditions at

ELA (Experimental Lakes Area in northern Ontario). Adapted

from Schindler et al., 1996a). Source: Magnuson et al. 1997.

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

Basin Discharge

Evapotranspiration (ET)

Precipitation

0

250

500

750

1000 mm Water
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

104

Figure 5: Tertiary watersheds in Ontario where 0-8, 9-16 and

17-24 of the 33 freshwater fish species with temperaturedetermined boundaries are predicted to be able to invade

following climate warming of 4.5-5.5 oC (modified from Minns

and Moore, 1995). Source: Magnuson et al. 1996.

Growth and production would increase for fishes

that are now in thermal environments that are

cooler than their optimum, but decrease for those

that are at or above their optimum, provided they

cannot move to a deeper or headwater thermal

refuge. The zoogeographical boundary for fish

species could move north by 500-600 km; invasions of warmer water fishes and extirpations

of colder water fishes should increase. Assuming a 5 oC temperature increase, approximately

three new species would inhabit inland lakes in

Ontario, nearly doubling in some cases, the varieties of fish in any given lake. The largest increase in variety would occur midway between

the north and south boundaries of tertiary watersheds (cf. Figure 5). Limitations along the

northern boundary would still be temperature

limited, while limitations along the southern

boundary would exist because there are already

a large variety of species.

Dr. Magnuson emphasized it is important that

aquatic ecosystems across the region will not

necessarily exhibit coherent responses to climate

changes and variability, even if they are in close

proximity. Lakes,wetlands, and streams will respond differently, as will lakes of different depth

or productivity. Differences in hydrology and

the position in the hydrological flow system, in

terrestrial vegetation and land use, in base climates and in the aquatic biota can all cause different responses. Additional complications will

occur because climate change effects interact

strongly with effects of other human-caused

stresses such as eutrophication, acid precipitation, toxic chemicals, and the spread of exotic

organisms. Additionaly, aquatic ecological systems in the region are sensitive to climate change

and variation.

In closing, Dr. Magnuson highlighted some of

the expected impacts related to water resources

as a result of climate change. Changes in lake

levels, recently observed or simulated in 2 X

CO2 scenarios, exceed those observed or simulated for sea level changes. Human responses

to such large changes would be costly, particularly those related to shipping, dredging, and

replacement or refurbishing of shoreline structures in the Great Lakes. Changes in ice cover

also influence shipping costs. In addition, higher

demand and usage of water from the Laurentian

Great Lakes would probably occur following a

decrease in net basin water supplies.

For shipping at simulated water levels 0.5-1.5

m lower than base levels, dredging costs would

be incurred or ships would have to carry lighter

loads . If lighter loads are carried, then the costs

per ton transported in 2 X CO2

 scenarios will

increase from 1.6 to 33% depending on the harbor (Duluth/Superior, Two Harbors, and Whitefish Bay on Lake Superior, and Toledo, Cleveland, and Buffalo on Lake Erie) and the scenario (GISS, GFDL and OSU). Cargoes would

have to be reduced by 1.6-2.7% to get into the

harbors without additional dredging. Dredging

costs can be as high as $ 31 million per harbor

0-8 fish species

9-16 fish species

17-24 fish species

No data
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

105

not including the costs associated with shippingrelated facilities. For the 101 km Illinois shoreline of Lake Michigan including Chicago, $138-

312 million would be needed over a 50-year

period for dredging harbors to compensate for

a 1.25-2.5 m decline in lake level. The cost of

sheeting, and bulkheads slips, and docks was

estimated at an additional $113-203 million.

Taken together, these shipping costs for the

Illinois shoreline total $251-515 million over a

50-year period. Increased dredging activities

would also have implications for destruction of

benthic habitats and resuspension of toxics in

harbor sediments.

Even with lighter loads, the same amount of

goods could be shipped over a season if the icefree season were longer (see section on ice, below). For Buffalo, an increase in the shipping

season of 99 days would be sufficient to compensate for the need for lighter loads with a 1.5

m decline in water level; simulated increases in

the ice-free period more than compensated for

the need for lighter loads in two (GISS and

OSU) of the three climate scenarios. For Lake

Superior ports, a slightly shorter increase in the

ice-free season would be sufficient based on all

GCM scenarios. The bottom line projection for

shipping costs for ports on Lakes Superior and

Erie, as a consequence of reduced water levels

plus the longer shipping season apparent in 2 X

CO2 scenarios, was 1-7.5% above present costs

or about one half of the increases in costs from

water level reductions taken alone.

Additional costs, unrelated to shipping, have

been estimated for the Illinois shoreline of Lake

Michigan by Changnon et al. (1989) for 2 X

CO2 scenarios. These included costs to extend

water intake structures for city water supplies

($16-17 million), to relocate beach facilities

($1-2 million) and to extend and modify storm

water outfalls ($2-4 million). These costs are

less than those associated with shipping. Historical responses to lower water in the Chicago

area include relocation and encroachment to

take advantage of the new beach areas.

Damage to these structures was extensive when

water levels returned to higher levels.

Generation of electricity from hydroelectric

facilities in the Great Lakes Basin would also

be reduced in a drier and warmer climate. Presently, the capacity of the Great Lakes electric

generation system is about 3.2 million kW for

Ontario, 1.7 million kW for Quebec and 3.1

million kW for New York. The costs of replacing the hydroelectric power generated at Niagara

and along the St. Lawrence River following a

0.6 m decline in water level in Lakes Erie and

Ontario is high. Long-term annual costs of

replacing this capacity with nuclear or fossil fuel

plants were estimated to be in the range of U.S.

$169 million in 1988 for New York and Canadian $1 billion for Ontario. The combined

output from these hydropower facilities is of the

same magnitude as that of the Tennessee Valley

Authority.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

106
 INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR

43

INFRASTRUCTURE

SECTOR REPORT

Session Chairs: George Albercook and Werner Braun

Rapporteur: Diana Stralberg

INTRODUCTION

The Infrastructure breakout group included participants from industry (i.e. chemical manufacturing, automobile and electric utilities),

academia (i.e. atmospheric sciences and social

sciences), environmental organizations, and

Native American groups. The group met four

times during the workshop to discuss the potential impacts of climate change and climate

variability on various infrastructure components

in the Upper Great Lakes region.

The group interpreted infrastructure components

to mean primarily fixed, durable goods with

long lifetimes that are important in maintaining

a functioning society. Other non-fixed distribution networks were also considered. Several

infrastructure sectors were identified:

• Energy – including the generation, transmission, and distribution of oil, gas, and electric

power

• Transportation – including primary and

secondary roads, bridges, rail lines, managed

waterways, and airports

• Telecommunication – including cable and

satellite transmission of information

• Buildings – including commercial, industrial,

and residential structures

• Waste management – including sewer and

storm drain systems, landfills, and other disposal

facilities

• Food – storage and distribution

• Health – delivery systems

Due to their mobility, motor vehicles, although

important to many of the above-listed sectors,

were only tangentially considered by this

workgroup. It was assumed that climate change

impacts related to motor vehicles were adequately addressed by the Industry workgroup.

SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS

The following ideas and themes emerged as

significant overall findings of our breakout

sessions.

• Limits of current infrastructure. Current infrastructure systems are large, rigid, and largely

based on 19th century engineering and scientific understanding. They were constructed

under certain assumptions about climate that

now appear to be changing. Many of these systems are not designed to withstand extreme

events, and their failure or malfunction could

actually amplify the impacts of climate change

and variability on humans.

• Climate extremes. In terms of impacts on

infrastructure, changes in climate extremes are

likely to be more important than changes in

climate means.

• Inefficiencies. Current inefficiencies in energy generation and consumption represent a

potential for capturing lost (e.g., waste) heat and

alternative forms of generating energy (e.g.,

water, wind, and solar).

• Policy matters. Power generation is

extremely sensitive to policy changes, especially

under deregulation scenarios. Economic

incentives can change quickly, and aren’t necessarily related to the true costs (i.e. impact)

of production.

• Small vs. Large. Large infrastructure

projects, with large capital costs and long

payback times, may be a thing of the past.

Efficiency and flexibility should be important
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

44

considerations for new infrastructure projects.

Several smaller energy projects (e.g., small

hydropower, photovoltaics, and gas turbines)

provide more flexibility and adaptability to

climate change.

• Globalization. Increasingly integrated

economies, globalization of trade, and deregulation of energy markets may help or hinder our

ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

• “No regrets” strategies. The uncertainty and

variability of climate change impacts supports

the implementation of “no regrets” policies (e.g.,

increased energy and material efficiency) that

make sense under any climate change scenario.

• Life-cycle analysis. In order to efficiently

and effectively achieve reductions in greenhouse

gas emissions, life-cycle analyses must be conducted, and produced goods must be reassessed

in terms of desired services (e.g. warm, well-lit

houses), rather than desired products (e.g. electricity and gas).

• Better metrics. Economic indicators must

become more sophisticated than Gross Domestic Product (GDP), so that costs may be assigned

to environmental degradation, health effects,

quality of life, and other values that are not

traditionally quantified. Value should be placed

on consuming better rather than consuming

more.

THE 4 QUESTIONS

1. What are the current concerns? & 2. How

may climate change impact our lives?

The first two questions were addressed simultaneously over two breakout sessions. Current

regional concerns were discussed, potential

climate change scenarios, direct impacts and

indirect impacts, such as policy and market

responses to climate change and variability. The

direct climate change influences that were

considered included increased mean temperatures, increased frequency of temperature

extremes, extreme weather events, water level

changes, and altered freeze/thaw cycles. The

indirect influences that were considered

included the effects of energy conservation and

efficiency measures, and increased costs and

regulations in each of the infrastructure sectors.

For each sector, both the sensitivity and adaptability of various infrastructure components

were considered. Most of the infrastructure sectors were deemed more sensitive to changes in

climate extremes than to changes in means.

Although adaptability was considered to be primarily determined by cost, it was concluded that

the costs of adaptation depend on the types of

policies instituted and how they are implemented (including the rate and predictability of

policy changes). It was also acknowledged that

public perceptions about climate change maybe

just as important as actual changes in determining private and public sector responses and in

turn the rate and hence the cost of those changes.

Direct impacts

Energy

• Peak Loads. Extreme high temperatures create increases in peak power loads. It is expected

that climate change will result in more extremely

hot days and greater peak loads.

• Power line damage. Snow, ice, frost, and

temperature extremes all place an undue stress

on power lines (e.g., the recent ice storm in the

northeast). It is expected that climate change

will result in greater weather extremes, both

warm and cold, which will likely increase damage to power lines.

Transportation

• Lake levels. Low water levels on the Great

Lakes require ships to transport lighter loads or

increased dredging of harbors and channels. It
 INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR

45

is expected that climate change will lead

to higher temperatures, increased evaporation,

decreased lake levels, and a greater stress on

shipping on the Great Lakes.

• Road damage. Freeze/thaw cycles reek havoc

with paved roads, rail lines, and bridges. It is

expected that climate change will result in

increased interannual variability and greater

weather extremes, which will increase the stress

on maintaining smoothly paved or railed

surfaces.

• Erosion and mudslides. Heavy precipitation

(flash floods) and freeze/thaw cycles accelerate deterioration of roads, rail lines, bridges and

lakeshore property. It is expected that climate

change will result in increased interannual variability and greater weather extremes, which will

increase erosion.

• Corrosion. Heavy snow events are typically

treated with copious amounts of salt that corrode bridges and other elements of the infrastructure. It is expected that climate change will

result in decreased snowfall that would decrease

salt use and hence corrosion.

• Air travel. Fog, ice storms, heavy snow, and

thunderstorms can all disrupt airline schedules.

It is expected that climate change will result

in more frequent and more intense weather extremes, which would increase these disruptions.

Telecommunication

• Damage. Ice storms and other extreme

weather events can cause significant damage to

power and communication equipment. It is

expected that climate change will result in more

frequent and more intense weather extremes,

which would increase the likelihood of

damage.

Buildings

• Flooding. Existing structures in proximity of

flood plains are susceptible to flooding from

heavy precipitation events. It is expected that

climate change will result in more frequent and

more intense weather extremes, which would

increase the likelihood of flooding.

• Fire. Existing structures in proximity of fireprone areas are susceptible to damage from fires

that develop from drought and/or lightning

strikes. It is expected that climate change will

result in more dry periods followed by more

intense convective precipitation events, which

may increase the likelihood of lightning strikes

and fires.

Waste Management

• Sewage. Heavy rains can cause overflows of

combined storm and sewage drain systems, resulting in releases of untreated sewage into

waterways. It is expected that climate change

will result in more frequent and more intense

heavy precipitation events, which would

increase the likelihood of sewage overflows.

• Landfill leakage. Areas near landfills that

are close to the water table are at risk for leaking. It is expected that climate change will

result in increased precipitation, which may

increase the likelihood of landfill leakage.

Food

• Storage and distribution. Greater agricultural yields require more storage. It is expected

that climate change will result in warmer conditions, which could result in larger harvests and

increased problems with storage and distribution of these larger harvests.

• Pests. Warm conditions tend to support larger

(agricultural) pest populations. It is expected that

climate change will result in warmer conditions,

which could result in larger populations of

agricultural pests.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

46

Health

• Medical facilities. Hot conditions and other

extreme conditions are a stress to the medical

infrastructure. It is expected that climate change

will result in more frequent and more intense

heat waves and other weather extremes, along

with the possibility of increased vector-borne

diseases, which would increase the stress on the

existing medical infrastructure.

Indirect impacts

Unlike direct costs, indirect costs are mitigated

by societal actions. These include tax and regulatory decisions to deal with both prevention and

adaptation. Behaviors like consumption patterns and fears about the future may also have

indirect impacts.

Possible consequences of energy

conservation and efficiency measures:

• Energy taxes. Several policy strategies to

reduce the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere have already been proposed, including taxes on the amount of carbon released.

• Increased energy costs related to infrastructure changes. Switching to less vulnerable systems or systems that produce less carbon requires the expenditure of money and possibly

the retirement of capital equipment before the

end of its useful lifetime.

• Shifts in economy affecting energy-intensive industries. Full-cost accounting, tax shifting, or other methods that attempt to incorporate the impacts of producing a product or

service into the price of that product or service

will put enormous pressure on energy intensive

industries.

• Trade-offs between reliable and inexpensive.

Consumers may be able, as they are now in some

pilot programs, to choose less reliable power in

return for a lower cost.

• Increases in building energy efficient measures. Part of a portfolio of energy options may

include increased efficiency in the heating, cooling, and lighting of buildings. The payoffs from

these types of improvements are equivalent to

finding an alternative energy source that releases

no CO2

.

• Increased localization of energy production.

Gas turbine and fuel cell technologies both provide cogeneration options. This provides tremendous reduction in the total carbon released.

• Pressure to aggregate energy supply/purchase. Consumers may form buying cooperatives to make bulk energy purchases.

• Selling energy back to the grid. Increases

in the amount of electricity generated by consumers through alternative energy sources like

fuel cells, solar roofs, and combined heat and

power will lead to increases in the amount of

electricity sold back to the power grid.

Possible consequences of infrastructure

adaptations and regulations:

• Increased capital investment in new infrastructure: It may be necessary to build new

infrastructure or to repair existing components

more frequently.

• Increased inspection and maintenance

costs. Enforcing regulations and market-driven

certifications (e.g. the ISO 9000 standard) cost

time and money.

• Higher insurance costs / inability to get insurance. If climate change is gradual, then it

will probably be possible to get insurance to

protect property. But if patterns and predictions

worsen, then insurance may increase in cost or

even cease to be available in some cases.

• Decreased convenience and predictability

(e.g. easily disrupted transportation schedules).
 INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR

47

3. What additional information do we need?

Based on questions and uncertainties raised in

the previous breakout sessions, the group easily identified several priority data needs, which

are summarized below:

• Better extreme event data. There has been

some debate regarding whether the frequency

of extreme events has increased recently. A better database and an analysis of that database is

needed.

• Better accounting. The GDP overlooks

external costs of environmental degradation,

health impacts, etc. Full-cost accounting /

credible quantification of externalities are

needed to more accurately reflect the impacts

of weather and climate on various infrastructure components.

• Better documentation. Currently there is no

consolidated, integrated information on infrastructure characteristics. A systematic, integrated

GIS database on infrastructure characteristics

is needed.

• Better climate models. Current climate

models are inadequate in terms of their physical parameterizations and resolutions. Some

models do not even include the Great Lakes

because they are so coarse. Better General Circulation Models (GCMs) and (nested) regional

climate models (RCMs) are needed.

• Better urban data. Much about cities is unknown. For the most part, records of human

population, employment, movement of goods,

water usage, etc. are of poor quality. Concrete

measurements of fundamental human systems

and their sustainability are needed.

• Better risk analysis. Climate change impacts

are uncertain, but they are likely to include

increased variability in many systems. More

in-depth strategic, acute and chronic risk analysis; and sensitivity analysis are needed.

• Better understanding of climate interactions. Climate change will likely involve synergistic effects, and nonlinear / threshold events.

More research on the effects of interacting

factors (e.g. UVB, SO2

, ozone, precipitation,

nitrogen fertilization, habitat fragmentation)

is needed.

• Better understanding of the rate of climate

change. Industry operates with set timelines.

The timelines for climate change is not necessarily known, so the timing of appropriate action is hard to gauge. A better understanding of

how rapidly climate change will occur is needed.

• Better life-cycle analysis. The (long-term)

impacts of many products and chemicals are unknown. A better understanding of these impacts

(e.g., a better life-cycle analysis) is needed.

• Better demographic information. Population

is stratified with respect to infrastructure use and

vulnerability to climate change. Better information about infrastructure use by various population segments is needed.

• Better cost/benefit analyses. There are two

types of infrastructure: public and private. More

appropriate cost/benefit analyses of the different policy options for each of these types is

needed.

4. How do we cope with climate change?

In addressing this question, coping was interpreted to mean prevention and mitigation of climate change, as well as adaptation and response

to climate change. With respect to prevention

and mitigation, the primary focus was on energy conservation and efficiency measures that

may help slow global warming by reducing

greenhouse gas emissions. The listings of

appropriate adaptations and responses addressed
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

48

both direct and indirect consequences of climate change. Many of the recommendations

for energy conservation and efficiency were

technology-based or policy-based.

Technology-Based

• Increasing use of cogeneration technologies. In cogeneration, electricity and heat are

produced in the location where they are

needed. Transmission losses are eliminated

and heat, which is otherwise wasted, is

utilized.

• Improved power plant efficiency. Cleaner

burning coal- and oil-fired power plants will

go a long way towards reducing carbon emissions in the region.

• Improved vehicle technology. More efficient cars, alternate fuel cars, and GPS navigation systems are just some examples of how

automobiles can be designed so that less

carbon is put into the atmosphere in going

from point A to B.

• Increased use of mobile energy sources.

Such energy sources could effectively power

transportation vehicles, for example. A fuel

cell in a car can be recharged at home during

night and at work during the day.

• Increased telecommuting. Working from

home via computer not only saves employees

from lengthy commutes, but also saves fuel

and reduces carbon emissions.

• Technology-assisted home energy audits.

This could include the use of integrated

energy and climate databases to find inefficient homes, as well as technology to find

wasted heat energy.

• Adopting existing energy technology.

Looking to other (e.g. warmer, drier) regions

for existing energy-efficient technologies will

go a long way towards reducing the amount

of carbon that the many coal- and oil-fired power

plants in the region now produce.

Policy-Based

• Investing in latest technology. Investing in

“leap frog”, rather than incremental technology

advances (e.g., much of the world is “leapfrogging” right past land-based telecommunication systems to cellular systems) will be more

beneficial in the long run.

• Investing in mass transportation. Greater

use of mass transportation systems – not necessarily conventional public transportation

systems like busses, trolleys, and subways;

but, on a less massive scale, car sharing, large

taxies and public bicycles – will reduce carbon

emissions.

• Investing in alternate energy. Implementing

alternate-energy power plants and developing

alternate-fuel automobiles are just two examples

of how alternative energy use could reduce

carbon emissions.

• Improved product labeling. More stringent

labeling requirements and global product standards (e.g., standardized full-cost accounting

could lead to labels that include the amount of

carbon released by the manufacture of the item)

would facilitate full-cost accounting efforts.

• More energy conservation incentives. Providing rate-based incentives for the public and

for industry to shift energy use to off-peak hours

would help to alleviate power overloads –

especially during heavy-use situations.

• More tax incentives. Providing incentives in

the form of reduced taxes or tax rebates for

energy conservation may motivate people to use

less energy and to reduce carbon emissions.

The general consensus, however, was that major lifestyle changes and paradigm shifts would

be necessary to significantly alter the current
 INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR

49

global warming trajectory. Some examples

included:

• Reductions in energy consumption. People

need to learn how to live using less energy.

• Reduced suburban sprawl. Changes in

human settlement patterns (e.g. densification,

cluster development) to retard suburban sprawl

could lead to reduced commuting, reduced

traffic congestion, and reduced pollution.

• Increased use of mass transit. Changes in

commuting and driving patterns (e.g., greater

reliance on public transportation) would lead to

fewer driven miles and reduced traffic congestion and pollution.

• Better-designed power plants. If the energy

generation infrastructure were designed to supply the average need, then it might be much

more efficient but it would not be able to handle

large peak loads.

• Better lake-ice forecasts. Improved forecasting and monitoring of lake-ice (e.g., sophisticated docks) would allow shipping schedules

to be more efficient.

• Increased use of high speed rail systems.

Airports have become increasingly congested.

Providing another high-speed alternative will

help to reduce the travel burdens from airports.

• Switching to electronic communication media.

Increased use of email and electronic video

conferencing, for example, will also help to

reduce the burden on the transportation and shipping infrastructure segments.

• Interruptible power supplies during peak

load hours. During peak demand on hot days,

customers allow the power company to shut off

their air conditioning in return for lower rates.

• Separation of storm and sewer systems. This

separation will help to reduce contamination

during heavy rain or melting events.

Some general suggestions for coping with

climate change impacts on infrastructure systems included:

• Assessing existing (old) infrastructure

elements. Improved assessment of and attention

to old infrastructure elements will help people

to decide more carefully whether replacement

or repair is a better option.

• Increased maintenance of infrastructure

systems. Better monitoring and maintenance of

existing infrastructure elements

Finally, the breakout group recognized that a

host of external factors may complicate the

implementation of recommended coping

strategies. The following key issues should be

considered:

• Barriers. Legislative, regulatory and political barriers impede the implementation of

climate change coping strategies. Interest groups

and government institutions may be resistant

to change.

• Scale. Other significant barriers to change

include the longevity and size of most infrastructure components. The magnitude of investment

needed to overcome these barriers is significant.

• Interactions. In responding to climate

change, the interactions between climate change

and other human-induced factors, including increases in UVB, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen, ozone,

and precipitation, as well as population growth,

urbanization and habitat fragmentation, must be

considered.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

50

• Global scope. Due to increasing globalization of economies and markets, climate change

impacts of other regions of the U.S., as well

as in other countries, will indirectly affect the

Upper Great Lakes region. These impacts need

additional attention.

• Deregulation. The deregulation of electric

utilities and other energy sectors is already

occurring, resulting in greater individual purchasing control but less central control of energy generation, transmission and distribution.

It is unclear what interaction will occur between

deregulation and climate change.

• Better measures. Our current national

accounting system (GDP) does not incorporate

the external costs of degrading the environment,

human health, quality of life, etc., that are difficult to quantify. More sophisticated economic

indicators are needed to provide market incentives for energy conservation.
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

107

GLOBAL WARMING IN MINNESOTA:

PLAYING WITH FIRE

Michael Noble

Minnesotans for an Energy Efficient Economy

Minneapolis, Minnesota

I

t is a great honor to be invited to speak at

this regional conference of the global

change research program. I am the director

and the prime organizer behind a Minnesota

coalition called Minnesotans for an Energy

Efficient Economy. My governing Board represents 13 groups with primary interests in energy

conservation, sustainable development, neighborhood and rural environment issues and

renewable energy. I brought a fistful of brochures

that describe our policy and research programs

in renewable energy, environmental tax reform,

electric industry restructuring and more recently,

a public education campaign on climate.

We do not debate whether global warming is

real. Like John Browne, chief executive of British Petroleum, we recognize that the reality of

global warming is backed by “effective consensus among the world’s leading scientists and

serious and well-informed people.” We recognize that human-induced global climate change

is almost certainly here now, and that its effects

on our state could prove disastrous. The main

uncertainty at this point is how rapidly global

warming will proceed and whether we can slow

it enough to allow ourselves and nature a chance

to adapt.

And so, we pose two questions: What does this

mean for Minnesota’s environment and

economy? What must we do now?

We hold the optimistic view that Minnesotans

and all Americans can respond to this opportunity to invest in a cleaner, more efficient energy

future. A nation capable of hurling a telescope

around Jupiter is certainly equal to the challenge

of reducing its dependence on fossil fuels.

Our organization’s first involvement in global

warming issues began in 1991, when we helped

pass legislation that required our utility regulators in MN to make a best effort at estimating

the societal costs of electricity generation. The

public interest community and state agencies in

Minnesota worked together in a contested administrative proceeding against a coalition representing the State of North Dakota, the coal

industry and all Minnesota utilities. The goal

was to reach an estimated economic quantification of the costs of environmental damages

from electricity generation.

In a December 1996 decision described as conservative by the Minnesota Public Utilities

Commission, the cost of current emissions from

Minnesota alone leaves our children a debt in

environmental damages of between $1 billion

and $6.5 billion each year (see Environmental

Costs Web Page at http://www.me3.org/

projects/costs). In the end, activists realized that

many of the risks of climate change were not

readily quantifiable in market terms. For example, how do you value a potential for species

extinction, as habitats and ecological communities are torn apart by rising temperatures or

declining precipitation? What cost estimate

should be applied to damage to Minnesota’s own

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and

Voyagers National Park that may suffer massive deaths of the spruce and conifer forests,

because these biological systems are at the

southernmost edge of their ecological range.

Warming is expected to begin moving the

boundary of these boreal forests northward,

within our lifetime, and according to Daniel

Botkin, a prominent forest scientist who consults with the timber industry, the changes could

begin within the coming decade.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

108

Our group has just begun to talk about these

ecological issues, in part to communicate with

a wider audience like habitat conservation

groups and hunting and fishing lobbies. We’ve

jointly sponsored events with senior or religious

groups. We’re taking our message into the

schools.

Unlike traditional environmental groups focused

on preservation and wilderness, our message is

one of radical technological transformation. We

believe that markets can be transformed and the

old technology swept out. In a way, we are more

pro-development and proinvestment than your

average entrepreneur or stockbroker – we want

a rapid and sustained orderly development of

new efficiency and renewable technologies.

For example, we are watching with enthusiasm

the development of a half billion dollar Minnesota wind industry, with almost 200 utility-scale

wind turbines rising on a ridge in southwestern

Minnesota as we speak. We impatiently await

the Toyota Prius next year, a sedan that will get

an honest 70 miles per gallon. We await their

American competitors – the fuel cell cars, or

hybrid cars or electric cars – that pollute a

fraction as much as today’s cars, or not at all.

So will global warming prompt the public

demand this kind of technology overhaul in their

choice of electricity sources and in their cars?

Will the market direct these changes, or will

policy makers set the course? Is the public even

tuning in?

The director of the NASA’s Goddard Institute,

James Hansen said in Newsweek in January

1996 “the climate system is being pushed hard

enough that change will become obvious to the

man on the street within the decade.” When I

read that statement, I called Robert Watson, who

was then the White House Science Policy Advisor and is now the chair of the International

Panel on Climate Change. I asked Watson if he

thought that Hansen’s statement was reasonable.

He said that Hansen is within the mainstream

of climate science and that he may well be right.

I often quote this statement, not for what it says

about the climate, but what it says about the

potential for public opinion snapping into focus that we have a big problem on our hands.

James Hansen appears to have been right: the

people of Minnesota may be slowly catching

on that something is already amiss with the climate. One year ago, all of America watched on

the nightly news the destruction of one of the

economic hubs of the State of North Dakota,

the city of Grand Forks by what was called offhandedly a 500 year flood. Fargo had received

about ten feet of snow that winter, breaking the

all-time record of seven and a half feet, and

smashing the average annual snowfall of a little

more than three feet.

No single weather event is directly attributable

to a warming climate, of course, but global

warming means increased weather catastrophes.

The increasing frequency of freakish storms is

becoming apparent to the public.

Last July 1, over 3 inches of rain fell in the Twin

Cities in an hour, sweeping several houses off

their foundations in neighborhoods with no

seeming risk of flooding. Three of the past four

winters set top-ten snowfall records in Duluth,

Figure 1: A view of Enron’s Minnesota wind farm. Each turbine

will generate enough electricity to suply 200-250 homes. They

grace the rural landscape along the Buffalo Ridge north of Lake

Benton, MN. Source: http://www.me3.org/, Photo: Mark

Frederickson, Down River Alliance.
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

109

Minnesota. In July 1995, a freak windstorm

swept through northern Minnesota and destroyed 6.5 million trees. The Minnesota DNR

estimated the economic worth of the downed

trees at a third of a billion dollars. This spring

Minnesota suffered a Texas-style F4 tornado,

cutting a swath of destruction a mile and a half

wide and 65 miles long. The public may not

understand the huge uncertainties in the connection of severe weather events and the

changing climate, but they are well aware of a

constant stream of new weather records. At a

gut level the public is growing to understand

what the pioneer Wallace Broecker of Columbia tells us: “climate is an angry beast and we

are poking it with sticks.”

As of last summer, our polls show that two thirds

of Minnesotans thought that global warming is

a serious or very serious problem. Since then,

news of Kyoto has inundated the papers; the

linkage to El Niño is cautiously discussed; the

Twin Cities most popular weatherman became

an outspoken convert; 1997 edged out 1995 as

the warmest year on record. This year began

with the strongest El Niño, the warmest February ever, the earliest ice-out on northern lakes,

and in most people’s minds, spring came a

month early (it’s tough to be against that, let me

tell you.)

April 1998 finds global warming stories on the

cover of National Geographic, the Atlantic, the

New Republic, and Audubon Magazine. In

Audubon Magazine, environmental writer Bill

McKibben writes of Kyoto and the “strong sense

that the tide had turned; for all their money and

power, the oil companies and coal barons were

now on the defensive... How long that moment

lasts will depend, more than anything, on the

weather... Another nasty summer, another

spasm of storms, another round of reports about

increased precipitation and changing seasons...

those might be enough to cement this new

politics into place.”

In Playing with Fire: Global Warming in Minnesota, we argue the idea that Minnesota is at

greater risk than many other states. Recognizing large uncertainties, we talk about the work

of scientists who study how global warming will

affect our farms, forests, waters, and prairies.

We gathered the distinguished work of

Minnesota’s ecologists and agricultural economists who are thinking about the issue, and try

to present their work with an advocacy voice,

a call to action, while still respecting the uncertainties and the tentative nature of scientific

inquiry.

The climate modelers often predict greater

warming at higher latitudes, and our early review of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration’s “best of the best” Minnesota

temperature records appear to bear that out. So

what could this mean for Minnesota?

A vegetation map of North America shows that

in Minnesota the vast prairies of the western

states meet the hardwood forests of the eastern

U.S. and the mixed conifer hardwood forests of

the north. In the furthest northern edge,

Minnesota’s wildernesses have the spruce, tamarack and cedars that typify boreal forests stretching all the way to Hudson Bay. Our state is the

only place on the continent where these various

ecosystems meet. This dynamic mix provides

us with a remarkable natural diversity. If, as

scientists are suggesting, the earth warms by

3-7 °F over the next fifty to one hundred years,

and warming is in fact greater at northernmost

latitudes, that diversity will be threatened.

Of greatest concern is the pace of global warming. Margaret Davis, a University of Minnesota

Regents’ Professor and a member of the National Academy of Sciences is here with us

tonight. She has for many years researched the

migration of tree species in North America, and

concludes that many tree species may not be

able to extend their ranges northward fast
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

110

enough to keep up with the change in climate.

According to Professor. Davis, “If the change

occurs too rapidly for colonization..., population sizes may fall to critical levels, and extinction will occur.” In other words, entire forests

could die, unable to adapt to new conditions.

Another University of Minnesota ecologist John

Tester presented a slide show to a roomful of

Minnesota legislators meeting at Lake Itasca,

the headwaters of the Mississippi. Only a 5 °F

difference in average annual temperature between the climate enjoyed by the stately pines

of Itasca State Park, and the prairie lands that

stretch westward to the Rockies beginning only

40 miles away. Itasca State Park is the crown

jewel of a great Minnesota State park system.

Some computer models forecast warming for

that region possibly much higher than 5 °F. If

that happens, the forests of Itasca could disappear. Indications that northern latitudes would

warm faster would put Minnesota north woods

and lake country at a deeper risk than southern

farmland. This is doubly unfortunate, because

these resources are the most vulnerable, and represent the greatest biological diversity.

Forest ecologist Daniel Botkin has also studied

the impact of global warming on the forests of

the Great Lakes region. He has predicted that

drier, warmer conditions will reduce soil moisFigure 2: North shore of Lake Superior. Source: Minnesota

Extension Service, Dave Hensen, Septemer, 1992.

ture, contributing to increased plant pests and

diseases and forest fires. “The dominant species [will] shift from those with commercial

value to those of little commercial value,” he

writes.

Some scientists and economists have projected

that increased carbon dioxide would fertilize

trees and boost their growth, and that productivity could increase in commercial tree farms.

James Teeri from the University of Michigan

has studied the impact of increased CO2 on aspen trees and has found that, in the long run,

though aspens grow faster and larger, the quality of their wood is reduced, and the effects on

the surrounding ecosystem are negative.

We also summarize the enormous uncertainties

associated with agriculture in a changing Minnesota climate. Longer growing seasons are attractive on their face to farmers, but to temper

farmer enthusiasm for a warmer climate, we cite

Cynthia Rosenzweig, a research agronomist at

NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and

Daniel Hillel, professor emeritus of plant and

soil sciences at the University of Massachusetts.

They have looked extensively at yield and costs

associated with increased pests and weeds and

drought. Their new book Climate Change and

the Global Harvest published just last month

by Oxford University Press.

We argue that Minnesota’s agriculture is too important to take a big gamble. In 1996, our agricultural exports totaled $3 billion and ranked

seventh in the nation. Many of our communities depend on agriculture for economic and

social survival. Our coalition has worked in

Minnesota to get farmers involved in opportunities with renewable energy sources such as

wind power and biomass.

Minnesota’s 12,000 lakes are a gift to us from

glacial retreat and a climate cool and wet enough

to maintain them. Our lakes are tourist destinations and our sport fishing industry brings in
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

111

Figure 3: Great Blue Heron. Source: Don Breneman, Visualizing the Great

Lakes, http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/image.

about $1 billion a year. One quarter of all Minnesotans, over a million people, are expected to

be on a lake for this Saturday’s fishing opener.

Since way before a Minnesota Governor held

up a northern pike on the cover of Time Magazine in 1973, lakes and streams have been synonymous with the good life in Minnesota.

Rising levels of greenhouse gases will create a

warmer, drier climate that could severely affect

our lakes and streams. If drier conditions are

expected to accompany global warming, it will

result in lower lake levels and river flows,

warmer water and reduced water quality, and

the deterioration of fish habitat in many areas.

Lakes in northern Minnesota could see ice out

four to five weeks earlier and ice and snow

thickness reduced by 50 %, endangering ice

fisherman and snowmobilers.

Again, northern lakes may be more severely

harmed than southern Minnesota lakes. David

Schindler, a limnologist at the University of

Alberta, studied a group of lakes in Ontario just

120 miles north of the Boundary Waters Canoe

Area (BWCA). The boreal freshwater ecosystems he examined are similar to those of the BWCA.

Schindler’s study showed that

during a 20-year period, the

mean annual water temperature increased 3.6°F. Drying

caused declines of over 50 percenoff and led to fires in the

area. Such changes in temperature and precipitation would

have devastating effects on the

ecosystems of the BWCA and

Voyagers National Park.

Elevated water temperatures

may reduce trout habitat in

50% of northern Minnesota

lakes. With warming at the upper bounds of estimates from a carbon dioxide doubling, in all

likelihood, trout would disappear from southeast Minnesota streams and North Shore rivers.

Minnesota’s prairies once had 7 million acres

of wetlands. Today, only 20% of those acres remain. Prairie wetlands depend on reliable precipitation and consistent temperatures, both of

which global warming would threaten. The

mallards, pintails, and blue-winged teals that

breed in wetlands would be severely affected

by the higher temperatures predicted by global

models.

The danger to wetlands would come from dryness as well as heat. W. Carter Johnson, professor of ecology South Dakota State University,

found that if temperatures increase 3.6° to 7°F,

precipitation would have to increase 10 to 25%

just to maintain the current status of prairie wetlands. But that sort of precipitation increase may

not happen under global warming. Some models show a loss of 50% or more in soil moisture. Johnson expects wetlands to be choked

with cattails, which would reduce the habitat
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

112

quality and number of ducks. Many wetlands

might be lost completely.

Eville Gorham, a prestigious University of Minnesota ecologist, has also pointed out that

warmer, drier conditions pose the threat of

peatlands increasing their emissions of CO2

.

Peatlands are waterlogged lands made of dead

reed cattails, sedges, and sphagnum moss. They

hold huge amounts of carbon that would be released into the atmosphere if the water tables

fall as the result of higher temperatures and

greater dryness. The carbon dioxide given off

would exacerbate global warming.

He also points out that while peatlands naturally burn, drier conditions could produced sustained burning of peat underground for years.

He likened such fires to a “Kuwait of the North.”

This worst-case scenario could enormously increase CO2 emissions, through a massive and

uncontrolled burning of what is essentially a

fossil fuel.

What Can We Do to Make a Difference? Early

and Decisive Domestic Action Is the Answer.

Last year, an internal debate raged within the

Clinton Administration whether we could reduce our global warming emissions without

hurting the economy. Economic predictions of

the impact on the U.S. economy from reductions in greenhouse gas emissions vary widely

as a result of the differing assumptions built into

the economic models.

Models based on worst case assumptions predict a reduction in GDP growth, while others

based on best-case assumptions predict stimulated economic growth. Generally, I agree with

Dan Lashof, the top climate guy at the Natural

Resources Defense Council that if you torture

an economic model long enough, it will confess to anything.

Last year the group Redefining Progress in San

Francisco found five prestigious economists to

propose a simple statement on climate. The

group succeeded in collecting 2500 additional

signatories (including several Nobel Laureates)

of the Economists’ Statement on Climate

Change. If you think it is hard to get scientists

to agree on something, try economists. But more

economists agreed on this statement than any

other petition previously circulated. In part, it

says “For the U.S. in particular, sound economic

analysis shows that there are policy options that

would slow climate change without harming

American living standards, and these measures

may improve U.S. productivity in the long run.”

One example of these analyses was completed

last year in May, the Energy Innovations report

by five major environmental organizations.

They found that with policies targeted at the

electricity sector and the auto sector, emissions

could be reduced 30-40% by 2010 and save the

economy money. Largely, this is true because

efficiency is cheaper than waste.

The Panel on Energy Research and Development of the President’s Committee of Advisors

on Science and Technology has pointed out that

many of the improvements in energy technology that would slow global warming would have

additional benefits. These include reducing dependence on imported oil, expanding U.S. technology exports, reducing air and water pollution, fostering sustainable economic development, and strengthening U.S. leadership in science and technology. In other words, even if

there was no climate problem, we would be

advocating for energy efficiency, clean energy,

and better transit and land use.

If we move forward toward this future, we can

enjoy cleaner more breathable air, fewer cases

of asthma, more comfortable and economical

homes, quieter and more livable neighborhoods,

new markets for environmental technologies,
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

113

convenient transportation, and diversified rural

economies through wind energy and biomass

energy. So if we are very lucky, and it turns out

that the warming at the lowest end of the estimates, what have we lost by cutting emissions?

The IPCC estimates that benefits such as reduced air pollution could offset between 30 and

100% of climate abatement costs.

Every time humankind has switched from an

existing fuel to a newer one - from wood to coal,

coal to oil, oil to natural gas - the switch has

been associated with economic progress. The

same is true for alternative fuels. States and

nations who lead the transition to alternative

energy will enjoy an economic advantage. As

the world demands energy-efficient technologies and environmentally safe fuels, upper Midwest states should seize the opportunity to incubate these industries of the future. Visit our

web site at http://www.me3.org/ to learn about

pro-renewable and pro-efficiency policies that

can be implemented with the restructuring of

the electric industry, or about a national movement in the states to shift part of existing tax

burdens onto pollution.

The emphasis for the United States must be on

domestic action to reduce its emissions, not trading for the unused emission credits of a collapsed Russian economy. Complex equity issues arise when Senators and the President prevent the U.S. from reducing its emissions until

international negotiations achieve “meaningful

participation” by key developing nations. Currently the richest 10% of American annually

emits 11 tons of carbon dioxide each, whereas

the poor people of the world emit (on average)

a tenth of a ton, even if the clearing of forests

and burning of grasslands are all attributed to

underdeveloped nations.

On the other side of this debate, the Energy Information Administration released a report in

April predicting that, without major economic

or technical changes, world emissions will surpass 1990 emissions by 80% by the year 2020.

Contrast that increase with the call by the International Panel on Climate Change for a 60

to 80% reduction in emissions to stabilize the

climate.

Most of the increase in emissions come from

developing nations, so it is a deep and troubling

problem to balance the fairness arguments of

the developing nations against the climate imperative to reduce emissions by two-thirds or

more. So worldwide, do not expect changes in

population and technology and lifestyle to come

easily. A Kyoto delegate asks why Americans

expect to ride two to a car, while counting on

developing nations to reduce riding the bus.

Apparently he has not enjoyed watching the onramp at rush hour in any major American city.

If the rich western nations do not lead with

low- or zero-emission transportation and energy

systems, who will?

Following the Kyoto agreement, my hopes

soured a bit that the tide had turned, that the oil

and coal interests were set back, and the world

would be moving toward sensible reductions.

Since then the national rhetoric has been anything but reassuring, with anti-Kyoto resolutions

percolating up in legislatures in several states.

When it comes time to do our part, we seek the

easy road. This past month, the President announced his agenda for restructuring the electric industry, and missed the easy opportunity

to make a big step toward his own emissions

goals for 2010. He should have called for Congress to require that all coal-fired power plant

that are exempt from the Clean Air Act Amendments be required to meet modern standards.

Often I am told that the climate problem is indeed global, and Minnesota’s emissions are

small by comparison. My one Midwestern state

represents 2% of U.S. emissions, and since the

U.S. represents 25% of the world’s, Minnesota
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

114

120

100

80

60

40

20

MINNESOTA'S CO EMISSIONS

from FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION

2

Millions of Tons of CO2

Agriculture

Commercial

Residential

Industrial

Electric Util

Transportatio

1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

Figure 4: Minnesota’s CO2 Emissions from fossil fuel Combustion;

Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

is responsible for about 1/2% of the global

total. That is more than many countries, such as

Iraq or Ecuador, so if countries should plan for

reductions, why shouldn’t states? There are six

midwestern states well represented at this conference. I haven’t checked emissions from each,

but I expect some are a little more than

Minnesota’s and some a little less. Using MN

as an average, these midwestern states represent more than 3% of the world’s total outputmaybe as much as 5% considering Michigan’s

and Illinois economy. If forward-looking, welleducated citizens from Wisconsin Michigan and

Indiana and Minnesota won’t lead, then who?

If automotive and utility strongholds like

Chicago and Ohio and Detroit won’t lead,

then who?

Our group released our report this spring at the

Minnesota Science Teachers annual convention,

and we have spent time talking to middle school

children about the problem. When they ask me

why I spend time in schools, instead of talking

to adults, I give them three reasons: first, adults

are too busy working, paying bills and raising

children to focus on this-they should study it

themselves and explain it to their parents, I tell

them. Second, adults sense that things will be

as they have been, and they have a hard time

imagining the changing climate is upon us, and

that we have an option to reduce its impact by

early action. Kids, on the other hand, have great

imaginations and can easily envision switching

to cars and power plants that don’t pollute.

Lastly, I tell them that the problem will be more

theirs than ours. I quote them Tom Karl, now

head of the National Climatic Data Center –

where by the way, you can get the “best of the

best” data sets for temperature changes at various sites in your state. Tom Karl says: “If you

look out your window, part of what you see in

terms of weather is produced by ourselves. If

you look out the window fifty years from now,

we’re going to be responsible for more of it.”

When I ask them why we called our report Playing with Fire, they are silent for a minute. Then

they offer that global warming is mostly caused

by burning fossil fuels – and that this is a very

risky time. I remind them that playing with fire

can quickly get out of control in surprising and

unexpected ways.
 ECONOMIC SECTOR

51

ECONOMY

SECTOR REPORT

Session Chairs: George Kuper and Karel Rogers

Rapporteur: Bruce L. Dinda II

INTRODUCTION

The Economic breakout group included participants from the Council of Great Lakes Industries, General Motors, Global R & D Operations,

Port of Milwaukee, Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, and several sectors of the

scientific community.

The Great Lakes region is one of the most intensive industrial regions in the United States

today. Less than 1.5% of earned income derives

from agricultural services, forestry, and fisheries, whereas 25-39% derives from construction

and manufacturing. Industry is the third largest

employer in the Great Lakes States (behind services and wholesale and retail).

Participants agreed that, except for tourism and

agriculture, industry/manufacturing in the Great

Lakes region is not vulnerable to the direct effects of the predicted changes in temperature,

precipitation, or weather variability associated

with climate change. Nevertheless, the

economy and commerce of the region are highly

vulnerable to the secondary effects of climate

change. That is, public opinion has the potential to vastly change markets and altered

governmental policies have the potential, if not

carefully designed, to devastate Great Lakes

industries.

Industries in the Great Lakes region have the

potential to address greenhouse gas emissions

and other environmental concerns in a timely

way if the transition from new technologies and

techniques is done in a careful manner that

provides a predictable environment in which

businesses can plan for the future. A key to

effective and swift change is propagation of

technologies/techniques that serve a dual role

of addressing the threat of climate change while

simultaneously improving efficiency and profit

margins. In addition, the timing of transitions

must be staged to allow a return on investment

of current capital stock while stimulating investment in innovative technologies that are ready

for market.

THE 4 QUESTIONS ADDRESSED

1. What are the current concerns?

The stresses on the economy that are secondarily related to climate change were divided into

three groups: the historical tensions between

economy and environment, economic realities

that exist for business, and the impacts of

social factors.

• Historical tensions between economy and

environment. Federal regulation of industrial

pollution was almost nonexistent until the US

Congress passed the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, which committed government to take an active role in protecting the environment. The next year, the Envirornmental

Protection Agency (EPA) was established to coordinate and oversee this effort. A series of federal acts following that one progressively placed

increasingly stringent restrictions on industrial

and commercial activities that might result in

the pollution, degradation, or contamination of

land, air, water, food, and the workplace. The

main mechanism for control was a top-down

regulatory paradigm that ignored the possibility of cooperation and collaboration of industrial leaders to achieve these worthy goals.

Because the regulations imposed costly (but not

necessarily the most economical or efficient)

solutions on industries, people in the highly

industrial Great Lakes region now regularly assume environmental protection and economic
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

52

well-being are in opposition to one another, i.e.,

that as one benefits, the other must be harmed.

This assumption is currently being disproved

by leading companies in a number of Great

Lakes region industries that are experiencing

significant environmental accomplishments

while reducing costs. However, moves to protect global climate from the harmful effects of

greenhouse gases have been seen by some members who were present at the discussion as a

means to transfer wealth from the Great Lakes

industries to other factions within the US and

to other, less-developed countries. Even with

this negative background, industrial leaders are

concerned about the ecological footprint of their

industries and there is a strong commitment to

minimize the environmental impact of industrial activities. While regulation is seen as

necessary, it was suggested that faster and more

effective solutions to environmental threats

(especially ones as severe and far-reaching as

climate change) can be found through collaboration with the industrial sector.

To understand this, one must be acutely aware

that industry is in business to make money, not

to pollute. If economical, money-saving, effective, competitive methods to avoid pollution are

available, then those mechanisms will be instituted as soon as it is profitable to do so. In the

current anti-collaborative climate, many environmentally-friendly innovations have occurred

and are continuing to occur, but these innovations are frequently hidden because of fear that

the innovation will become the next regulatory

standard and because hiding proprietary technologies can increase profit margin. For

example, one major company in the Great Lakes

region has experienced an annual 22% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over the past

five years but refuses to discuss it in public

for fear these accomplishments will become

the baseline for even deeper cuts when new standards are set by the government.

Environmental regulations that ignore the economic realities of doing business in the modern, global marketplace create a setting that discourages substantive progress toward critical

environmental goals.

• Economic realities that exist for businesses.

The foremost economic reality of industry is that

unless a profit on capital investment is made

the capital is lost and the business will cease to

exist. To make a profit, investments must be

allowed to mature. A corollary reality is that

making a product is not sufficient to ensure a

profit; consumers willing to buy the product

must exist and it has to be sold for more than it

costs to produce.

• Impacts of social factors. The public’s willingness to buy can change rapidly and most

consumers are not willing to be the first to try

new, unproven, innovative commodities. In

addition, new technologies must start out small

and gain a market share. High-risk investment

capital for moderate and small business ventures

is extremely rare in the Great Lakes region. To

move from a great idea to mass production and

mass marketing requires sufficient time to ensure maximal safety of invested capital and also

requires a relatively stable policy environment.

Infrastructure to support the new product must

be developed before consumers are willing to

buy. For example, photovoltaic shingles to collect clean, renewable energy for houses have

tremendous potential to help greenhouse emissions but the reality of moving this technology

from the “great idea” stage to the “mass production and common usage” stage will require

vast amounts of investment capital, a work force

trained to produce, install, and maintain the technology, and a public willing to buy it.

In addition to a public willing to buy, a key social factor is the availability of a trained work

force with the ability to transition as needed in

response to the threat of climate change. Coordinated effort and incentives on the part of all
 ECONOMIC SECTOR

53

segments of the region will be necessary to

implement change.

2. How may climate change impact our lives?

The majority of industry/commerce (excluding

tourism, agriculture, construction, fisheries, and

the pulp/paper industry) in the Great Lakes region is not directly threatened by the predicted

effects of climate change. Nevertheless, nearly

all industries in the region are highly vulnerable to the secondary impacts of global climate

change. That is, industry/commerce can be severely damaged by rapid, unpredictable changes

in economic/environmental policy or in consumer opinions and desires. For example, the

WEFA report projects disproportionate loss of

jobs and industrial activity in the Great Lakes

region if the U.S. response to the Kyoto Protocol is the institution of a carbon tax or permit

fee of $200 per metric ton. Additional secondary impacts may occur as a result of impacts on

other regions because of the global interdependence of industry, commerce, and markets. For

example, if compliance costs are lower for European nations or Japan than for Great Lakes

industries, this disparity will be reflected in the

cost of goods and resultant market share in the

international marketplace.

3. What additional information do we need?

Extensive economic modeling with a wide variety of possible policy responses is needed in

order for industry to best adapt to potential

changes. Education of the general public in both

the primary and secondary impacts of climate

change is needed. A part of that education

should include an understanding of the constraints under which industry/commerce operate. In addition, business people from all industries (including the smallest) need education

on the potential impacts of climate change, both

primary and secondary.

Multiple government-scientist-industry partnerships are needed to facilitate communication and

information exchange. The media should have

reliable information sources that are not slanted

toward scare tactics. Climate change (and the

potential economic disaster resulting from an

improper response) is far too dangerous both

environmentally and economically to use an

adversarial “court of public opinion” to decide

the issue. Consensus building, with industry as

full partners in the discussion, is critical to an

effective response.

4. How do we cope with climate change?

The key tools that can facilitate the adaptation

of industry/commerce to climate change are the

implementation of policies that set an economic

environment, and the removal of barriers that

impede change, and the promotion of consumer

markets. All responses to climate change should

be tested for dual benefit. That is, their ability

to impact the threat of climate change as well

as their ability to stimulate desirable economic

growth and economic opportunity, energy (and

other) efficiency, and innovation, should be

evaluated. Following is a series of suggestions

for the implementation of climate change strategies and policies.

Strategies

• Emissions trading. Establish emissions trading. For example, as in the case of sulfur emissions, if companies could reduce their emissions

below their allotment, then they could sell their

unused emissions. This helped to harnessed

market competition to improve air quality.

• Desirable markets. Use market incentives

to stimulate the type economic activity that is

desired.

• Investment capital. Stimulate investment

capital for both medium and small business in

the region that is responsive to climate change.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

54

• Technology Development. Help the orderly

development of innovative technology to a level

where it is ready for production and marketing.

• Market opportunities. The Annex I emissions problem (i.e. the lack of emissions standards in the Kyoto Protocol for nations that are

currently underdeveloped) might be mitigated

by economic incentives and trading policies that

develop markets, for example in China or elsewhere for clean, renewable energy sources

(leapfrog technology). Helping China to develop

solar and wind energy rather than to continue

developing their coal burning facilities would

open a market for these new technologies, decrease global greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality and human health in China,

and promote economic development in this

populous country.

Implementation

Implementation of changes is critical to a successful transition. Rather than uniform, regulatory responses that have the strong potential

to harm the economy, an orderly transition that

takes advantage of all beneficial (i.e. dual benefits as outlined above) opportunities should be

implemented. A series of suggestions follows:

• Short-term, quick-response. Industries

should take advantage of situations where the

technology exists and it is proven. For example,

the cement industry is a sizeable industry in the

Great Lakes area, which is a significant contributor to CO2

 emissions (one ton CO2 is released for each ton of Portland cement manufactured). A low CO2

 cement exists and it is

stronger than Portland cement. This new cement

can use current infrastructure and is made with

waste from another industry, but cannot be marketed because of building codes. With the removal of governmental barriers, huge carbon

emissions and economic benefits could result.

– Use systematic methods to educate industry

in the existence of already-proven alternatives

to the status quo technology. Such alternatives should cost the same (or less) than

current technology but should also help the

carbon emissions problem.

 – Stimulate energy efficiency in all new construction of industrial plants, homes, and

renovations.

– Facilitate growth of markets for these quickresponse items through incentives and trade

policies.

• Medium-term responses. Longer time to

implementation would be needed for technology that is promising but not ready to

market yet.

– Stimulate speed of development, discourage

or remove market barriers, and facilitate

dissemination.

– Set-up a government-sponsored development

fund.

– Facilitate growth of markets through incentives and trade policies.

• Long-term responses. This is a sweepstakes

race for big money in the future. For example,

the car company that develops the next generation of vehicles will be highly successful.

– This process cannot be rushed because implementation requires vast changes in infrastructure and markets.

– The costs of errors in this arena are huge.

Consumers are not forgiving if they have

bought a technology that does not work well

for them. Thus, care must be taken to fully

test innovations before whole factories are

modified for production. Such transitions

will require huge amounts of investment capital that will be available as this generation of

capital matures with a profit.
 ECONOMIC SECTOR

55

– These responses must be done in an orderly

manner and with sufficient time to ensure the

safety of investments

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the consensus from the breakout

group is that the response to the threat of

climate change must recognize, value, and partner with the realities of industry/commerce.

Industry cannot be viewed as a source of money

to solve the world’s problems. It should be

viewed as a partner whose activities can help

develop new wealth, sustainability, and a stable

climate for earth.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

56
 HEALTH SECTOR

57

HUMAN HEALTH

SECTOR REPORT

Session Chairs: Joel Scheraga and Brett Hulsey

Rapporteur: Janet Burke

INTRODUCTION

The Human Health breakout group included

participants from academia (researchers from

public health, meteorology and geography);

government environmental agencies (i.e., the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and

Environment Canada); and the Sierra Club).

The discussion group was expected to interpret

the four questions broadly in an effort to reduce

the chance that significant issues would be overlooked. Because this was an initial effort, failing to include potentially critical issues was

considered a greater mistake than including issues that, upon further study, turn out to be relatively unimportant. The participants were not

asked to make quantitative assessments of the

impacts that they discussed.

The level(s) of confidence that the group had in

these decisions were used to identify areas

where more information or research is needed.

Lastly, the group suggested strategies for

coping with climate change and variability,

which included both mitigation and adaptation

strategies.

THE 4 QUESTIONS ADDRESSED

1. What are the current concerns?

Participants grouped current stresses on human

health into the three main categories of public

health: healthcare, environment, and lifestyle.

The stresses for each of these categories were

first suggested and then considered implicitly

regarding their importance with respect to the

Upper Great Lakes region. Participants then

discussed and decided whether climate change/

variability would exacerbate or ameliorate each

of the current stresses.

Health care system

The most important stresses that were identified for the health care system were:

• Limited access to health care. A large segment of the population, including the unemployed and those in jobs without many health

benefits have no or insufficient health insurance.

This limitation results in a segment of the population requiring costly treatments instead of

more cost-effective preventative care.

• Rationed health care. Besides there existing a segment of the population that is uninsured and underinsured, doctors, hospitals and

other health care facilities make decisions on

how to treat people based on skyrocketing costs

of procedures, surgeries, medications, and

reduced resources.

• Aging population. This segment of the population has been growing because of many

factors including better health habits and better

health care. This segment therefore has required

increased health care, particularly for treatment

of “geriatric” diseases. Because this segment

usually consists of retired people who are

on fixed incomes, their insurance coverage is

limited.

Environment

Environmental factors that were identified as

current stresses to human health included:

• Severe weather events. Severe thunderstorms, tornado outbreaks, and lake effect snowstorms can cause instantaneous injury and death.

Also, extended heat waves, particularly in

urban areas (e.g., Chicago during the summer

of 1995), can contribute to deaths of elderly

people who are unable to get relief from the heat.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

58

• Reduced air quality. High ozone and particulate matter levels in the ambient air from

industrial emissions, motor vehicles, and residences cause breathing discomfort. Several

segments of the population that are at risk include people who exercise outdoors, bicyclists

(commuters), the elderly, and people who suffer from asthma and other respiratory ailments.

• Reduced water quality. Pollution from industrial sources, people with a disregard for the

environment, and increased outdoor recreational

activity have all contributed to reduced water

quality. Infectious agents, such as cryptosporidium, have also contributed to reduced

water quality. A large segment of the population, especially that which relies on the Great

Lakes for recreation of one form or another, is

at risk.

• Exotic species. International trade practices

result in reduced environmental diversity (e.g.,

the impact of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes)

and provide opportunities for disease transmission across national borders.

Lifestyle

A number of lifestyle issues were identified as

current stresses on human health, including:

• Poor diet. Lack of nutrition is known to contribute to certain diseases.

• Lack of exercise. Lack of exercise is known

to contribute to reduced heart and lung function and to increase the risk of disease and

potentially death (e.g., cardiac disease).

• Smoking. There is a well established link

between smoking and deaths from both lung

cancer and cardiac disease. Of particular concern is the increase in teenage smoking (more

than 60% in the last 10 years) which will translate into future health problems.

• Substance abuse. Alcohol and drug abuse

continue to be an issue of concern with regard

to human health.

• Stress. The demands of family life and

careers can contribute to stress-related illnesses.

2. How may climate change impact our lives?

Climate change was determined to have both

direct and indirect impacts on the stresses that

already exist for human health. Impacts were

classified as direct if it was thought that human

health would be directly affected by the climate

change, and as indirect when human health

effects would be a secondary result of climate

change. Many of the impacts that were identified could exacerbate the current stresses on

human health in the region.

Direct impacts

• Severe weather. Possible increases in the frequency of and/or a change in the timing or the

location of severe weather events (e.g., tornadoes, lightning, and flash floods) could lead

to increased injury and mortality. The tornado

outbreak that occurred across southern lower

Michigan during the summer of 1997 was

suggested as a scenario that might occur more

frequently.

• Heat waves. Over 500 people died from the

heat wave in Chicago during the summer of

1995. This event was suggested as a scenario

that might occur more frequently in the region

due to climate change. Urban areas in the

midwest do not necessarily have the infrastructure to deal with extended heat waves.

• Lake-effect snow. Possible changes in lakeeffect snowstorms due to climate change were

discussed, but it was not clear to the participants

how climate change would impact lake-effect

storms. If fewer lake-effect snowstorms

occurred due to higher temperatures, then the
 HEALTH SECTOR

59

impact on human health would be reduced.

However, only slightly warmer conditions may

lead to increased lake-effect ice-storms, which

could pose a serious health hazard from the

standpoint of more traffic fatalities and extended

power outages.

• Fog. Although the impact of climate change

on meteorological phenomena such as fog formation are unknown, small increases in the

mean temperature or changes in flow patterns

could have significant impacts on the specific

humidity and hence on fog formation. Increased

fog formation could pose a serious health

hazard from the standpoint of more traffic

fatalities.

• Cloudiness. Possible increases in cloudiness

downwind of the Great Lakes (e.g., over Michigan), especially during late fall and winter, could

lead to increased incidence of seasonal-affected

disorder (SAD).

• Atmospheric pressure. Possible increases in

atmospheric pressure (gradients) may aggravate certain maladies such as migraines and

arthritis.

Indirect impacts

• Air quality. Possible increases in the duration of heat/cold waves may result in higher levels of air pollutants (e.g., ozone, particulate matter) particularly if air stagnation episodes occur

with these weather conditions. Increased energy production during these extended heat/cold

waves could also contribute to elevated levels

of air pollutants. Increased air pollutant concentrations could lead to increased morbidity

and mortality.

• Water quality. Possible changes in the frequency and the intensity of heavy rains and

flooding could lead to reduced water quality

(e.g., cryptosporidium) and increased morbidity and mortality.

• Health care. Possible changes in the frequency and the intensity of severe weather

events (as well as other aspects of the weather

as mentioned above) could place an increased

demand on the health care system. For example,

increases in heat stress could exacerbate an

existing stress on health care access, leading to

further rationing of health care.

• Vector-borne diseases. A possible increase

in the mean winter temperature and precipitation could lead to an increased survival of

vector-borne pathogens and to increased Lyme

disease, for example.

• Pest infestations. Possible increases in insect

and pest infestations as a result of regional

climate change could result in greater use of

pesticides, which could lead to higher levels of

toxins in food and water, and increased morbidity and mortality.

• Exotic species. Possible changes in regional

climate could lead to increased survival of exotic species that enter the region from international trade practices and to greater transmission of diseases from other areas of the world.

• Accidents. Possible decreased participation

in winter sports due to climate change may ameliorate some recreation-related accidents. However, increases in warmer weather (outdoor)

activities may exacerbate other recreationrelated accidents.

• Allergies. Possible reductions in seasonality (the differences in weather conditions between seasons) could lead to increased levels

of allergens (e.g., pollen, spores) and longer

allergy seasons.

3. What additional information do we need?

The level(s) of confidence that the group had in

these decisions were used to identify areas

where more information or research is needed.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

60

• High resolution models. Better regional or

nested general circulation models are needed to

evaluate the regional-scale implications of climate change/variability (e.g., for the Upper

Great Lakes region). For example, it is necessary to know how climate change and variability will (do) impact heat wave frequency and

intensity, storm (e.g., rain/snow) frequency and

intensity, and water levels and water quality.

• Risk assessment. High risk areas, sensitive

populations, and important socioeconomic factors need to be identified so that public health

methods can be developed and implemented to

prevent or reduce the health impacts of climate

change.

• Warnings. Location-specific extreme

weather warnings need to be developed to prevent or reduce the health impacts of severe

weather events (e.g., a heat-index based on

health indicators).

• Impacts assessments. Information on the potential impacts of climate change/variability on

the health care system is needed. To this end,

an evaluation of the impacts of the Chicago heat

wave and tornado outbreaks on the health care

infrastructure could be performed.

• Water quality modeling. The effect of precipitation variability and severe storms (flooding) on water quality needs to be investigated.

The group was uncertain as to whether potential deterioration of water quality would occur

and whether it would significantly impact

human health in the region.

• Socioeconomic projections. The potential

for population and demographic changes to become additional factors that exacerbate health

impacts needs to studied.

4. How do we cope with climate change?

Strategies for coping with or mitigating climate

change impacts were divided among mechanisms for the health care system, public health

objectives, and government responses.

Public health strategies

• Integrate warnings. Indices that quantify

health related weather hazards could alert people

more clearly and more convincingly about risks

on any given day. Such indices could complement existing indices like the UV and the Heat

Indices.

• Preventative measures. Vaccinations, pest

control, and behavioral/lifestyle changes could all

reduce the number of people that require more

costly acute and chronic treatments.

• Risk communication. The education of the

general public, health care professionals, and government officials about potential impacts of

climate change on human health should help

reduce impacts.

• Data collection. Improved surveillance and

monitoring systems to identify indirect health

impacts should help reduce impacts and should

help increase lead times for preparedness.

Strategies for the health care system

• Preparation. Response procedures should be

developed to prepare for extreme weather events.

• Education. Health care providers should be

educated to be able to identify health impacts of

climate change/variability.

Government/regulatory responses

• Relocation. People should be removed from

high-risk areas such as flood plains. Possible strategies that were mentioned included imposing tax

disincentives in flood prone areas.

• Reduce emissions. Emissions of criteria air

pollutants should be lowered to counter the growing number of respiratory illnesses that are being

reported.
 GOVERNANCE & EDUCATION SECTOR

61

GOVERNANCE & EDUCATION

SECTOR REPORT

Session Chairs: Perry Samson and Michael Donahue

Rapportuer: Brian Hornbuckle

INTRODUCTION

The Governance & Education breakout group

consisted of participants from environmental

organizations, academia, Native American

tribes, concerned citizens groups, and Canadian

government organizations. The Governance &

Education breakout group differed significantly

from the other workshop groups. Instead of considering climate change in relation to a single

subject, governance issues were debated on the

first day of the workshop, while on the second

day educational issues were discussed. The two

facilitators for this sector, one for governance

and the other for education, each developed their

own set of questions to pose to the group because the questions asked in the other breakout

groups did not directly apply to governance and

education.

The discussion group was expected to interpret

the workshop questions broadly in an effort to

reduce the chance that significant issues would

be overlooked. Because this was an initial effort, failing to include potentially critical issues

was considered a greater mistake than including issues that, upon further study, turn out to

be relatively unimportant. The participants were

not asked to make quantitative assessments of

the impacts that they discussed.

GOVERNANCE – SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS

Reactions to the role of government in addressing climate change and its impacts varied. One

group member suggested that governments

should simply get out of the way, stating that

the bureaucratic structure is simply too slow and

inefficient to facilitate the radical and innovative changes that may be needed to deal with

climate change. Other members of the group

disagreed with this radical approach and felt that

governments should provide strong international, domestic, and local leadership. Governments should continue to fund research programs in environmental science and renewable

energy resource development and communicate

the results of this research to the public in a

politically unbiased manner. Group members

also agreed that governments should participate

in voluntary partnerships with business and industry so that the two groups can work together,

instead of against each other, to modify industrial practices which have a negative impact on

the environment.

Several strengths and weaknesses of current

government efforts were discussed. Among the

strengths, group members noted the rising importance and visibility of climate change issues

on the local, state, national, and international

levels. Science research also continues to produce useful information about our changing

environment. This progress is due to the sizable

amount of money that has been allocated to

climate change research and the large number

of talented scientists at government agencies and

research universities. The fact that climate

change is becoming a political issue is both a

strength and a weakness. The conflicting

interpretations of research results were a large

concern to all members of the group. Other

weaknesses included the lack of coordination

and integration among different government

programs, the existence of antiquated energy

and land-use laws, which promote methods that

have a negative impact on the environment, and

the fact that governments listen too strongly

to economic, and not social and environmental

arguments.

Climate change issues have affected government

in the delivery of public services in several ways.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

62

The possibility of climate change has induced

more anticipatory work and the development of

adaptation strategies. Governments have been

spending more money on agencies and services

that deal with climate change issues. Governments have also begun to consider tax incentives as a way to encourage business and industry to modify practices that harm the environment.

Group members had several suggestions for actions that governments must take to address climate change impacts. The federal government

should create a rational and flexible energy

policy that can be adjusted to meet regional climate change concerns. Climate change initiatives should be tied to other regulatory programs

instead of creating specific carbon emission

regulations. The federal government should promote voluntary partnership programs with business and industry and establish positive and

negative economic incentives both for business

and industry and the general public. Governments should also review antiquated laws that

hinder the use and development of renewable

energy resources as well as revise construction

codes to prevent people from building or rebuilding on land that is particularly susceptible

to frequent natural disasters. It was suggested

that the federal government join with insurance

companies to develop strategies for dealing with

the possibility of the increasing frequency and

intensity of natural disasters. Determining

whether a public or private weather service will

best fit the nation’s needs for predicting and

monitoring extreme weather events was another

suggestion. Group members emphasized that the

public should be informed about climate change

impacts. Research and the dissemination of research should be funded by federal and state

governments. Federal and state governments

should also educate citizens and make special

efforts to educate the media. State and local governments should encourage use of climate

change issues in public school curricula.

THE 4 QUESTIONS ADDRESSED

Four questions were posed to the group by the

facilitator. The following format was used for

the discussion of each question. First, group

members silently generated ideas. Second, the

facilitator went around the table and gave each

member an opportunity to speak. Members

could either share an idea with the group or pass.

Group input was allowed as new ideas were expressed. Ideas were recorded on a chart by the

facilitator. We continued the round-robin discussion until every member had passed or time

was up. Finally, the group was given an opportunity to reconsider what had been recorded.

Members with strong objections to specific

ideas expressed their concerns. If the group

reached a consensus, then the idea was

modified.

1. What is the appropriate role of government

(at any level) in addressing issues associated

with climate change?

Governments should simply get out of the way.

The bureaucratic structure is too slow and inefficient to facilitate the radical and innovative

changes that may be needed to deal with

climate change.

Government at all levels (federal, state/tribal,

and local) should provide strong leadership and

be environmentally responsible (“walk the

talk”). All levels of government should inform

and involve the public and encourage them to

act politically and personally.

All levels of government, especially federal and

state governments, should provide research

funding, particularly in environmental science

and renewable energy resource development.

All levels of government should interact with

business and industry via a balance of regulatory and voluntary programs. While there is a

strong need for regulation, governments should
 GOVERNANCE & EDUCATION SECTOR

63

also participate in partnerships with business and

industry to help the private economic sector to

reach emissions and energy consumption goals.

Governments should also encourage the development of energy-efficient technology and

support innovative environmentally-responsible

industries.

The federal government must participate and

play a leadership role in international negotiations on greenhouse gas emission regulations

and targets. Instead of simply thinking globally

and acting locally, the federal government

should promote international action.

The federal government should steer the direction of country and state policy making, support technology transfer (conversion of new research results into usable technology) and the

creation of adaptation strategies, and promote

and enforce conservation of water and energy.

The federal government should facilitate the

communication of research results. It is important that the scientific community and the

general public receive factual and unbiased

information. All sides of the issues should be

presented and misrepresentation of information

for political purposes must be avoided. A federally-funded yet politically independent body

of scientists should exist to review and disseminate research.

State and tribal governments should interpret

federal policy in terms of what needs to be done

at a state or regional level.

State and tribal governments should not only

get the information about climate change to the

people, but also apply the research.

State and local governments should actively participate together in land-use planning.

Local governments should involve all members

of the community in strategic planning

activities related to climate change adaptation

strategies.

2. What are the strengths and weaknesses

associated with current government efforts?

Strengths

Climate change issues have been of rising importance and visibility on local, state, national,

and international levels.

The United States is participating in international discussions on climate change. The

United States has a large amount of international

influence that it could use to promote further

debate.

Vice President Al Gore has provided strong

leadership in environmental issues.

Some educational outreach programs have been

successful.

Scientific research continues to produce useful

information about our changing environment

and as a result our knowledge about the Earth

and its climate is increasing at a rapid rate.

A sizable amount of money has been allocated

to a large number of diverse organizations for

climate change research , although this amount

still pales in comparison to the funds the military receives from the federal government.

The partnership between the federal government

and research universities has been strong. The

United States has a large number of talented

scientists.

Weaknesses

There are conflicting interpretations of research

results. This is a result of the promotion of a

political agenda or due to the “de-contenting”

or “research brokering” that inevitably must

happen in order to communicate research
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

64

results to politicians, the general public, and

even scientists.

The influence of large companies and their lobbyists on the government was considered a

weakness.

The lack of coordination and integration among

different government programs, particularly

between federal and state governments has

hindered progress.

Some broad national policies miss regional

concerns completely.

The existence of antiquated energy and landuse laws promote methods that have a negative

impact on the environment and discourage the

development of new practices which have

smaller environmental footprints.

Government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have limited

authority, especially in terms of the ways in

which they can spend money on public outreach

and education.

Weakness: Governments listen too strongly to

the economic arguments. The social and environmental concerns are often ignored.

Weakness: The public is largely uninformed

and an uninformed public will not support the

legislation that is needed to slow climate change.

Strengths & Weaknesses

The climate change issue is becoming politicized.

A large number of oversight committees in the

House and Senate are involved with climate

change issues. Although this is evidence that

the level of concern is high, the sheer number

of the committees means that it is very difficult

to pass climate change legislation.

3. How are climate change issues affecting

government (at any level) in the delivery of

public services?

The possibility of climate change has induced

more anticipatory work and the development of

adaptation strategies. Governments have

begun to look forward to the future.

Governments have been spending more money

on agencies and services which to with climate

change issues, e.g. this workshop.

Weather and long-term climate prediction have

become priorities for the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

There has been an increase in expenditures for

natural disaster relief.

The federal government has begun to consider

tax incentives as a way to encourage business

and industry to modify practices that harm the

environment. There has been an emphasis on

alternative, creative responses as opposed to just

regulation.

4. What specific actions must government

(at any level) initiate to fulfill its role in

addressing climate change impacts?

All levels of government should take advantage

of the current positive political environment.

The federal government should recognize its

leadership role in the international community

and promote the development of climate change

policy by ratifying the Kyoto treaty or offering

a reasonable alternative.

The federal government should initiate discussions with Canada about climate change adaptation strategies in the Great Lakes region.

Strategies to limit emission of greenhouse gases

and to adapt to potential climate change should
 GOVERNANCE & EDUCATION SECTOR

65

be developed at all levels of government,

especially at the local level.

The federal government should create a rational

and flexible energy policy that can be adjusted

to meet regional climate change concerns and

develop national energy conservation goals.

The federal government should attempt to reduce

carbon emissions not with explicit regulations but

by tying climate change initiatives to other regulatory programs.

The federal government should promote voluntary partnership programs with business and

industry and establish positive and negative economic incentives in the form of tax breaks or tax

increases to encourage the use of renewable

energy resources.

Federal and state governments should review

antiquated laws that hinder the use and development of renewable energy resources.

Governments should revise construction codes

to prevent people from building or rebuilding on

land that is particularly susceptible to frequent

natural disasters.

The federal government should team with insurance companies and develop strategies for dealing with the possibility of the increasing

frequency and intensity of natural disasters.

The federal government should impose penalties

for purchasing cars that have low gas mileage

ratings and offer incentives for the purchase of

energy-efficient automobiles.

The federal government should continue to fund

the investigation of the use of nuclear-generated

power and the safe storage of nuclear wastes.

The federal government should determine

whether a public or private weather service will

best fit the nation’s needs for predicting and monitoring extreme weather events, the most likely

manifestation of climate change.

Governments should discourage the further

expansion of urban areas by promoting public

transportation.

All levels of government should continue to

fund research and the dissemination of research.

The federal government should create and support a politically independent consortium of scientists that would advise the government and

provide some sort of unbiased information

source.

Federal and state governments should educate

citizens about climate change impacts by conducting outreach activities, creating public

service announcements, and supporting the

development of resource materials for K-12

teachers. Special efforts should be made to

educate people in the media such as newspaper

editors and television news directors in order

to increase the amount of media coverage of

climate change issues.

State and local governments should encourage

the use of climate change issues in public school

curricula.

EDUCATION – SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS

Since global warming and other possible manifestations of climate change are slow and intangible processes, group members decided that

it is essential to be opportunists and distribute

information about the impacts of climate change

during severe weather events, major international conferences, and at other times when the

public’s attention is focused on climate. This

information would include a general description of the atmosphere and the greenhouse

effect. It would emphasize that although not all

things are known about climate change, the consequences of all possible climate change
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

66

scenarios must be considered. The public

should also understand that scientific data can

be interpreted in different ways in order to promote a specific point of view. Finally, it is important that people realize that the causes of climate change are directly linked to human behavior. The negative effects of climate change

can only be reduced by lifestyle modification.

Because the issues associated with climate

change involve science, math, and social studies, climate change education provides a unique

opportunity to build integrated, multi-disciplinary educational experiences. These experiences

can be used to promote team-teaching methods

and to generate student-centered activities that

use real-world examples to teach problem solving skills. This interdisciplinary approach would

avoid the extremely difficult task of changing

curriculum standards to include climate change

education objectives. Materials developed for

climate change education should target specific

educational proficiencies found on standardized

tests, take advantage of real-time weather information that can be provided by the internet,

and utilize other distance learning activities.

Producers of such educational materials should

design the curricula so that all school districts

can participate. Teachers must be trained not to

advocate particular agendas since the improper

discussion of politically sensitive issues can

jeopardize climate change education.

Informal methods of educating the public about

climate change impacts include museums, posters, and temporary information booths placed

in highly traveled areas. These sources of information should emphasize the personal actions that can be taken to help slow climate

change. Partnerships between government organizations and business and industry can also

be used to educate the general public. The refurbishing of public and private buildings with

energy-efficient and money-saving technology

are golden opportunities to educate people about

the causes of climate change. Religious organizations may provide a forum to address the issues of overpopulation and overconsumption

which contribute to climate change. Activities

are needed to make people think about the consequences of certain behaviors in terms of how

they may contribute to climate change. Televised public service announcements and national debates may also be an effective way to

inform the public. Finally, the issues of climate

change should be linked to the sustainability

movement.

THE 4 QUESTIONS ADDRESSED

The discussions were similar to brainstorming

sessions. The facilitator initiated each discussion by presenting four questions concerning the

methods, audience, concepts, and activities associated with climate change education, but the

topics gradually changed over the course of

time. Eventually the questions concerning

methods and audience were combined and a new

topic was created: problems encountered in climate change education.

1. What are the methods for fostering an

informed debate on climate change and what

are the ramifications and audiences these

methods would target?

All methods should be used. Additionally, it is

possible that there are no new methods left to

try: all methods may have already been used to

educate the public about climate change.

Museums, posters, and temporary information

booths should be placed in highly traveled

areas to educate the public.

Government should partner with business and

industry to educate the general public.

Information should be distributed and the public should be informed during the times when

climate issues are in the public eye (during

severe weather events or major international

conferences).
 GOVERNANCE & EDUCATION SECTOR

67

Materials should be distributed at national

teacher conferences.

Materials should be prepared about climate

change science which target specific educational

proficiencies found on standardized tests and

that help the teachers learn how to use them.

Teachers should be trained to address the wide

variety of political, economical, and ethical

issues that are associated with climate change

in a sensitive manner.

Curricula for school districts that exploit the interdisciplinary nature of climate change education should be prepared. In order to allow all

school districts to participate, curricula should

be designed so that only inexpensive materials,

which can be obtained locally are required. Climate change should be used as a case study to

integrate science, math, English, and social studies. A team-teaching approach to climate change

education should be promoted. Teacher-directed

yet student-centered hands-on learning experiences should be promoted that can be used to

teach students at all levels problem solving skills

and the general process of science.

Create courses on climate change impacts and

science should be created at the community

college level.

Materials should be produced that can be used

by religious, environmental, and civic groups

to inform the public about climate change

issues.

Distance learning and/or the internet should be

used more.

A national debate should be televised on the potential causes and manifestations of climate

change involving representatives from business

and industry, government, and academia to

inform the general public. Public service

announcements produced by government

agencies and environmental groups should also

be televised.

Public and private buildings should be refurbished with energy-efficient and money-saving

technology as opportunities to educate students

and the general public about the causes of

climate change.

Issues of climate change should be linked to the

sustainability movement.

Geographic information systems (GIS) software

should be used to produce if-then scenarios dealing with future changes in land-use due to

climate change.

2. What are the problems encountered when

educating people about climate change?

Environmental education is often seen as advocating a liberal agenda, which makes it an easy

target for politically conservative groups.

Changing curriculum standards to include

climate change education would be extremely

difficult.

A large gap is developing between science and

the media.

Getting climate change education into the classrooms of teachers who are not highly motivated

to change their curriculum.

Global warming and other possible scenarios

are slow, intangible, and uncertain processes

which makes it hard to motivate people to make

the changes that may be necessary to slow

climate change.

Atmospheric science, the centerpiece of climate

change, is often caught between other academic

subjects, and therefore very few students learn

about the atmosphere.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

68

Improper discussion of politically sensitive

issues such as overpopulation and overconsumption can jeopardize climate change education.

3. Which identify concepts should be presented as a necessary part of a climate change

curriculum?

There are inherent uncertainties in science.

There are things that are known about climate

change and things that are not known. The consequences of all possible manifestations of

climate change should be taught.

Scientific data can be interpreted in different

ways in order to promote a specific point of

view.

A general understanding of the atmosphere and

the greenhouse effect is crucial.

The causes of climate change are directly linked

to human issues such as overpopulation and

overconsumption. The negative effects of climate change can only be reduced by modifying

our lifestyles.

4. Which activities might best stimulate an

informed debate on climate change issues?

Several activities that were discussed include:

Activities which present unusual facts about the

Earth’s climate.

Interdisciplinary laboratory activities relating to

climate change, which require the integration

of several academic subjects in order to solve

problems.

Real time weather information over the internet

and the exchange of weather-related personal

experiences.

Activities that calculate the amount of carbon

dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are

added to the atmosphere by common everyday

practices such as taking a shower, driving to

work, washing the dishes, etc.

A “life skills” game that requires the players to

think about the consequences of certain

lifestyles in terms of how they may contribute

to climate change.

Posters that emphasize the personal actions that

the public can take, such as insulating the home,

carpooling, etc., to help slow climate change.
 APPENDIX 1: INVITED TALKS

69

INVITED TALKS

One of the main purposes of the workshop was to seek out the opinions and

concerns of stakeholders. Stakeholders include farmers, bankers, engineers,

insurance agents, academics, and people from nonprofit groups, non-government organizations, as well as local, state and federal government officials –

anyone who has a stake in the Great Lakes region. But since this was a diverse

group with various experiences, the workshop organizers selected a series of

keynote speakers to prepare the participants with some common background

knowledge of the region, climate change, and the plans for a National Assessment. The speakers themselves are from various walks of life and provide a

range of different points of view. They were chosen because of their knowledge and interest in climate change and in the Great Lakes region. Both

scientists and stakeholders were educated, as the speakers provided deep

insight into changes that were already evident in the region, and that could

likely become more intense in the near future.

The Invited Talks portion of the workshop supplied a foundation for understanding some of the complexities and issues of climate change and its potential impacts. In order to present a feeling of “being there,” and to allow you to

obtain the facts as they were presented at the workshop, the speakers were

recorded and then the recordings were transcribed. We were striving to present

you with a “snapshot in time” of unedited compilation of the talks, so that you

can experience the same information that was presented to the workshop participants on May 4-7, 1998. Of course, spoken words are not necessarily as

clean as those that the speakers would use in formal writing. But the conversational tones of the presentations were important to get the messages across to

the workshop participants at the time, and we feel, to the get the same messages across to the stakeholders who read this report afterwards. It should also

be noted that there were some talks, where technical difficulties during either

part or all of the presentation precluded clean recordings. In these instances,

after-the-fact summaries are instead provided.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

70
 APPENDIX 2: AGENDA

141

WORKSHOP AGENDA

MONDAY, MAY 4, 1998

8:00 PM Invited Talk: Benchmarks for Climatic Change

John Fraser Hart, University of Minnesota

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1998

8:00 AM Plenary: Introduction, Logistics, & Roadmap of the Workshop

Peter Sousounis, University of Michigan

8:15 AM Plenary: Working Towards a National Assessment

Robert Corell, National Science Foundation

9:00 AM Plenary: Global Climate Change and its Effects

Michael MacCracken, United States Global Change

Research Program

9:45 AM Plenary: Climate in the Great Lakes Region:

Past, Present & Future

Derek Winstanley, Illinois State Water Survey

11:00 AM Plenary: Making Sense of Climate Change Impacts

Otto C. Doering III, Purdue University

11:45 AM Charge to Breakout Groups

12:00 PM Lunch provided in Pendleton Room

Potential Influences on Aquatic Systems:

1995 versus 2000 Assessments

John Magnuson, University of Wisconsin

1:30 PM Breakout Session I - What are the Current Concerns?

Each breakout group discussion may begin with a 10 minute

presentation specific to that issue.

3:45 PM Breakout Session II - How may Climate Change Impact our Lives?
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

142

7:00 PM Reception at Rackham Graduate School

8:30 PM Global Warming in Minnesota: Playing With Fire

Michael Noble, Minnesotans for an Energy Efficient Economy

WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1998

8:00 AM Plenary: Summary of Breakout Sessions I and II

9:15 AM Plenary: Getting Additional Information

Linda Mortsch, University of Waterloo

10:00 AM Breakout Session III - What Additional Information is Needed?

Each breakout group discussion may begin with a 10 minute

presentation specific to that issue

11:15 AM Breakout Session III - (Continued)

12:15 PM Lunch - Provided in Ballroom

Global Climate: A Business Model Approach

Charles B. Kitz, Chrysler Corporation

2:00 PM Plenary: Coping with Climate Change

Joel Scheraga, EPA

2:45 PM Breakout Session IV - How do we Cope with Climate Change?

Each breakout group discussion may begin with a 10 minute

presentation specific to that issue.

4:00 PM Breakout Session IV - (Continued)

4:45 PM Breakout Session V - Summarizing the Breakout Sessions I-IV

THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1998

8:00 AM Plenary: Summaries of Breakout Groups (~15 minutes each)

10:30 AM Plenary: Summary of Breakout Groups (Continued)

11:30 AM Plenary: Closing Remarks

12:00 Noon Adjourn
APPENDIX 4: RAPPORTEURS & PARTICIPANTS

145

Upper Great Lakes Region

Workshop Participants

Robert H. Abrams, Professor at Law

Wayne State University

Detroit, MI 48202

Telephone: 313-577-3935

George Albercook

University of Michigan

Atmospheric, Oceanic & Space Sciences

1213 Space Research Building

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2143

Telephone: 734-936-7262

email: galber@umich.edu

David Allardice

Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Detroit Branch

160 West Fort Street

Detroit, MI 48226

Telephone: 313-964-6100

Jeffrey Alson

US EPA/ NVFEL/ OAR/ AAATSD

2565 Plymouth Road

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Henry A. Anderson

Wisconsin Division of Health- Madison

Madison, WI

Dr. Anders W. Andren

University of Wisconsin

1800 University Ave.

Madison, WI 53705-4094

Bill Andresen, Chairman Great Lakes Coalition

21 Cass Street

South Haven, MI 49090

Telephone: 616-637-5654

email: ht1shmi@aol.com

Jeff Andresen

Michigan State University

Department of Geography

Room 417 Natural Science Building

East Lansing, MI 48824

Telephone: 517-355-0231 x107

email: andresen@pilot.msu.edu

Rapporteurs

Michael J. Barlage Water Resources (WRES)

University of Michigan

Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences

1541 Space Research Building

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Telephone: 734-936-0503

email: mbar@engin.umich.edu

Janet Burke Human Health (HLTH)

College of Engineering

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Sheila Ruth Burris Land Ecology (LECO)

Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Michael A. Crimmins Climate (CLIM)

Western Michigan University

Telephone: 616-226-9331

Bruce L. Dinda Economy (ECON)

282 Village Green #201

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Colleen Garrity Agriculture (AGRI)

Arizona State University

Department of Geography

Tempe, AZ 85287-0104

Telephone: 480-421-2061

email: garrityc@asu.edu

Kimberly Hall Water Ecology (WECO)

University of Michigan

School of Natural Resources and Environment

2035 Dana Building 1115

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Brian Hornbuckle Governance & Educ. (GOVT)

University of Michigan

2525 Space Research Bldg.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2143

Diana Stralberg Infrastructure (INFR)

University of Michigan

School of Natural Resources and Environment
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

146

Robert Aron

Central Michigan University

Department of Geography

DOW 296A

Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859

Telephone: 517-774-3032

email: Robert.H.Aron@cmich.edu

Ray Assel

Great Lakes Enviromental Research Laboratory

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

2205 Commonwealth Boulevard

Ann Arbor , MI 48105

Telephone: 734-741-2268

email: assel@glerl.noaa.gov

Heather Auld

Atmoshperic Issues Division- Enviroment Canada

Telephone: 416-739-4258

Nancy Bacon

Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.

1675 W. Maple Road

Troy, MI 48084

Telephone: 248-280-1900

John Baker

University of Minnesota

Department of Soil, Water, and Climate

1991 Upper Circle

St. Paul, MN 55108

Bob Boehm

Michigan Farm Bureau

PO Box 30906

Lansing , MI 48909-8460

Lisa Bourget

International Joint Commission

United States Section

1250 23rd Street, NW, Suite 100

Washington, DC 20440

Telephone: 201-736-9201

email: bourgetl@ijc.achilles.net

Werner Braun

Council of Great Lakes Industries

P.O. Box 14006, 3600 Green Court

Ann Arbor, MI 48113-4006

Telephone: 734-663-1944

email: braunw@dow.com

Scott Bridgham

University of Notre Dame

Dept. of Biological Sciences

Notre Dame, IN 46556

Telephone: 219-631-4921

email: bridgham.1@nd.edu

Waltraud Brinkman

Central Michigan University

Dept. of Geography

383 Science Hall

Madison, WI 53706-1491

Arthur S. Brooks

University of Wisconsin-Milwaulkee

Center for Great Lakes Studies

600 East Greenfield Ave.

Milwaulkee, WI 53204

Telephone: 414-382-1704

email: abrooks@uwm.edu

Dan Brown

University of Michigan

Department of Natural Resources

Room 325 Natural Science Bldg.

Ann Arbor, MI

Telephone: 734-763-5803

email: dbrown@umich.edu

David Brubaker

GREEN

206 S. 5th Ave. Ste. 150

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Telephone: 734-761-8142

email: green@green.org

Lynne Carter

231 Congdon Hill Road

Saunderstown, RI 02874

Telephone: 401-268-3820

email: LCARTER231@aol.com

Stanley Changnon

Professor Emetrius

801 Buckthorn Circle

Mahomet, IL 61853

Telephone: 217-586-5691

email: changnon@uiuc.edu

H. H. Cheng

Department of Soil, Water, and Climate

University of Minnesota

435 Borlang Hall

1991 Upper Buford Circle

St. Paul, MN 55108

Phone: (612) 625-9734

email: hcheng@soils.umn.edu
APPENDIX 4: RAPPORTEURS & PARTICIPANTS

147

Dr. Daniel Coble

College of Natural Resources

University of Wisconsin

Stevens Point, WI 54481

Peter Colvin

ERIM

2225 Independence

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Telephone: 734-994-1200 ext. 243

email: colvin@erim.info.com

Alvin Compaan

University of Toledo

Department of Physics

Telephone: 419-530-4787

Robert J. Corell

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Blvd, Suite 705

Arlington, VA 22230

Telephone: 703-306-1500

email: rcorell@nsf.gov

Jeffrey Corney

Ohio State University

School of Natural Resources

2021 Coffey Rd.

Columbus, OH 43210-1085

Telephone: 614-292-1078

email: CORNEY.3@osu.edu

Tom Croley

Great Lakes Enviromental Research Lab

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin.

2205 Commonwealth Blvd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Telephone: 734-741-2238

email: croley@glerl.noaa.gov

Charles Cubbage

Michigan Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 30017

Lansing, MI 48909

Telephone: 517-373-9744

Doug Cuthbert

CCIW/ Water Issues Division

867 Lakeshore Road

Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6

Telephone: 905-336-4713

email: doug.cuthbert@cciw.ca

Noel Cutright

Environmental Dept.

Wisconsin Electric Power Company

333 W. Everett P.O. Box 2046

Milwaulkee, WI 43201

Telephone: 414-221-2345

Ellen Cutrim

Western Michigan University

Department of Geography

Kalamazoo, MI 49008

Telephone: 517-387-3418

email: ellen.cutrim@wmich.edu

Donna Daniel

Environmental Dept.

Wisconsin Electric Power Company

333 W. Everett P.O. Box 2046

Milwaulkee, WI 43201

Telephone: 414-221-2345

Kent Davis, Sr. Adv.,

Science, Envir. & Technology

Mackinc Center

119 Ashman Street

Midland, MI 48640

Margaret Davis

University of Minnesota

Dept. of Ecology. Evolution & Bahavior

1987 Upper Buford Circle

St. Paul, MN 55108

Telephone: 612-625-5717

email: mdavis@ecology.ecology.umn.edu

Dan Dessecker

Wildlife Society Wisconsin Chapter

P.O. Box 2

Rice River, WI 54868

Otto C. Doering III

Dept. of Agriculture

1145 Krannert Building

Purdue University

West Lafayette, IN 47907

Telephone: 765-494-4226

email: doering@agecon.purdue.edu

Michael Donahue

Executive Director

Great Lakes Commission

400 S. Fourth St. Argus II Building

Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Telephone: 734-665-9135

email: mdonahue@glc.org
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

148

David Edgington

Center for Great Lakes Studies

Telephone: 414-382-1704

email: dnedge@uwm.edu

Timothy Ehlinger

Dept. of Biological Sciences

University of Wisconsin

Madison, WI

Telephone: 414-229-4358

email: ehlinger@uwm.edu

Rick Foltman

Detroit Edison

2000 2nd Avenue 355-SB

Detroit, MI 48826

Telephone: 313-235-6185

email: foltmanr@detroitedison.com

Barbara Freese

Asst. Attorney General

NCL Tower Suite 900

445 Minnesota Street

St. Paul, MN 55101-2127

Telephone: 612-297-1075

email: barbf@lafb.ag.state.mn.us

Bob Gough

Intertribal Council On Utility Policy

P.O. Box 453

River Falls, WI 54022

Telephone: 715-426-1415

email: Rpwgough@aol.com

Normann Grannemann

Water Resouces Division

U.S. Geological Survey

Suite 5, 6520 Mercantile Way

Lansing, MI 48911

Telephone: 517-887-8919

email: nggranne@usgs.gov

Hans Gregerson

Dept. of Forest Resources,University of Minnesota

St. Paul, MN

Telephone: 612-624-6298

email: hgregers@mercury.forestry.umn.edu

Bettie Harriman

5188 Bittersweet Lane

Oshkosh, WI 54901

John Fraser Hart

University of Minnesota-Geography Department

St. Paul, MN 55108

Telephone: 612-625-4026

Warren Heilman

North Central Forest Exp. Station

U.S. Forest Service

220 Nisbet Building

East Lansing, MI 48824

Telephone: 517-355-7740

email: heilmanw@pilot.msu.edu

Ann Hockerman

Wisconsin Woodland Owners Association

P.O. Box 285

Stevens Point, MN 54481

Jim Holperin

Trees for Tomorrow

Natural Resources Education

P.O. Box 609

Eagle River, WI 54521

Judith L. Horowitz

New Jersey Legistlative

Office of Legislative Sciences

P.O. Box 068

Trenton, NJ 08625

Telephone: 609-292-7676

email: judith_l._horowitz@njleg.state.njus

Brett Hulsey

Sierra Club

214 North Nenery, Ste.203

Madison, WI 53703

Telephone: 608-257-4994

email: brett.hulsey@sierraclub.org

Judd Isebrands

North Central Forest Exp. Station

U.S. Forest Service

5985 Highway K

Rheinlander, WI 54501

Telephone: 715-362-1116

Emi Ito

Dept. of Geology & Geophysics, Univ. of MN

17 Pillsbury Hall

Minneapolis, MN 55455

Telephone: 612-624-7881

email: eito@maroon.tc.umn.edu

John Jackson

Great Lakes United

17 Major Street

Kitchener, Ont N2H 4R1

519-774-7503
APPENDIX 4: RAPPORTEURS & PARTICIPANTS

149

Thomas C. Johnson

Large Lakes Observatory

University of Minnesota-Duluth

Duluth, MN 55812

Telephone: 218-726-8128

Kerry Kelts

Dept of Geology & Geophysics

University of Minnesota

310 Pillsbury Drive

Minneapolis, MN 55455

Telephone: 612-624-0275

John Kermond

Office of Global Programs National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration

1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1225

Silver Spring, NY 20910

Telephone: 301-427-2089x22

email: kermond@ogp.noaa.gov

Katherine Klink

Univesity of Minnesota

Department of Geography

University of MInesota

MInneaplois, MN 55455

Telephone: 612-625-3452

email: klink@atlas.socsci.umn.edu

Kenneth Kunkel

Midwestern Climate Center

Illionois State Water Survey

2204 Griffith Drive

Champaign, IL 61820

Telephone: 217-244-1488

email: kunkel@uiuc.edu

George H. Kuper

President, Council of Great Lakes Industries

3600 Green Court, suite 710

Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105

Telephone: 734-663-1944

email: ghk@cgli.org

Robert J. Laverne

Davey Resource Group

1500 N. Mantua

Kent, OH 44240

Telephone: 800-447-1667 ext. 346

email: rjlaverne@davey.com

Deborah Lee

Great Lakes Enviromental Research Laboratory

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

2205 Commonwealth Blvd.

Ann Arbor , MI 48105

Telephone: 734-741-2148

email: lee@glerl.noaa.gov

John Lenters

University of Wisconsin

680 North Park St.

Madison, WI 53706-1492

Telephone: 608-265-8720

email: jlenters@facstaff.wisc.edu

Brent Lofgren

Great Lakes Enviromental Research Laboratory

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

2205 Commonwealth Blvd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Telephone: 734-741-2383

email: lofgren@glerl.noaa.gov

Kent Lokkesmoe

State of Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources

500 Lafayette Rd.

St. Paul, MN 55155-4001

Jim Ludwig

Applied Ecological Services

138 Road 2W

Kingsville, ONT N9Y2Z6

Telephone: 519-733-4691

email: acauston@mnsi.net

Michael MacCracken

U.S. Global Change Research Program

400 Virginia Ave., Suite 750

Wasington, DC 20024

Telephone: 202-314-2220

email: mmaccrac@usgcrp.gov

Julie Magee

USEPA-Region 5 (AE-17J)

77 W. Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604

Telephone: 312-886-6063

email: magee.julie@epamail.epa.gov

Prof. John Magnuson

Center for Limnology

University of Wisconsin

608 N. Park

Madison, WI 53706-1492

Telephone: 608-262-3014

email: jmagnuson@macc.wisc.edu
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

150

David Mason

MDEQ- Air Quality Division

Hollister Building

106 W. Allegan

Lansing, MI 48933

Katie Mastriani

JOSS, UCAR

1100 Wayne Ave., Suite 1225

Silver Spring , MD 20910

Telephone: 301-427-3069 ext. 510

G. Tracy Mehan III

Director, Office of the Great Lakes, Michigan DNR -

Hollister Building

PO Box 30473

Lansing, MI 48909-7973

Telephone: 517-335-4056

Philip A. Meyers

Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences

University of Michigan

3514A C C Little 1063

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Telephone: 734-764-0597

David Michaud

Environmental Department

Wisconsin Electric Power Company

333 W. Everett P.O. Box 2046

Milwaulkee, WI 43201

Telephone: 414-221-2345

Ken Miller

National Wildlife Federation

506 E. Liberty

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Telephone: 734-769-9970

email: midwest@nwf.org

Mike Moilanen

MIlle Bocs Band of Ojibwe

Telephone: 320-532-7438

Russell Moll

Michigan Sea Grant

Univeristy of Michigan-IST Bldg.

2200 Bonisteel Blvd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2099

Telephone: 734-763-1437

email: rmoll@umich.edu

Jim Moore

Citizens for a Better Enviroment

PO Box 120181

Anderson, IN 46012-0181

Lynn Mortensen

U.S. Global Change Research Program

U.S. Global Change Research Program

400 Virginia Avenue

Wasington, DC 20024

Telephone: 202-314-2231

Linda Mortsch

Enviromental Adaption Research Group

University of Waterloo

ESI- Room 338

Waterloo, ON L7R 4A6

Telephone: 519-888-4567 ext. 5495

email: linda.mortsch@ec.gc.ca

Burt Nelson

Central Michigan University

Telephone: 517-772-2377

Michael Noble

Executive Director

Minnesotans for an Energy-Efficient Economy

46 E. Fourth Street, Suite 600

Saint Paul, MN 5510

Telephone: 612-225-1133

email: noble@me3.org

John Norman

Dept. of Soil Science

University of Wisconsin-Madison

1525 Observatory Drive

Madison , WI 53706

John Pastor

Biology Dept.

University of Minnesota-Duluth

Duluth, MN 55812

Telephone: 218-726-6262

email: biol@d.umn.edu

Rick Piltz

US Gobal Change Research Program Office

400 Virginia Ave. S.W., Suite 750

Washington, DC 20024

Telephone: 202-314-2236

email: rpiltz@usgcrp.gov

Brian Potter

North Central Forest Exp. Station

U.S. Forest Service

220 Nisbet Buiding, 1407 S. Harrison Rd

East Lansing, MI 48824

Telephone: 517-355-7740 ext. 28

email: potterb@pilot.msu.edu
APPENDIX 4: RAPPORTEURS & PARTICIPANTS

151

Sandra Pytlinski

University of Michigan

1541 Space Research Building

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2143

Telephone: 734-936-0503

email: sanpyt@umich.edu

Frank Quinn

Physical Sciences Division

G.L. Envir. Research Laboratory

2205 Commonwealth Blvd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48105-1593

Telephone: 734-741-2235

email: quinn@glerl.noaa.gov

David Rea

University of Michigan

Department of Geography

Telephone: 734-936-0521

Mary Renwick

Hubert Humphrey Institute for Public Affairs

University of Minnesota-Twin Cities Campus

225 Humphrey Center

301 -19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455

Telephone: 612-626-2011

email: mrenwick@hhh.umn.edu

Richard Rockwell

Inter-Univ. Cons. for Pol. & Social Res.

University of Michigan

PO Box 1248

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1248

Telephone: 734-763-2178

email: richard@icpsr.umich.edu

Karel Rogers

Grand Valley State University

Telephone: 616-895-3097

 Monica Rogers

Associate Director

Center for Environmental Study

143 Bostwick NE

Grand Rapids, MI 49503

Terry Root

University of Michigan

School of Natural Resources

430 E. University

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Telephone: 734-763-5945

email: tlroot@umich.edu

Dr. Donald Rusch

USGS Dept. of Wildlife Ecology

226 Russell Laboratories

University of Wisconsin

Madison, WI 53706-1598

Perry Samson

University of Michigan

Dept. of Atmospheric, Oceanic & Space Sciences

1539 Space Research Building

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2143

Telephone: 734-763-6213

email: samson@umich.edu

Joel Scheraga

US EPA Adapation Branch

401 M. Street, SW, Room 2122

Washington, DC 20460

Telephone: 202-260-4029

email: scheraga.joel@epamail.epa.gov

Richard Skaggs

University of Minnesota

Department of Geography

414 Social Sciences Bldg.,

267 19th Ave. S.

Minneapolis, MN 55455

Telephone: 612-625-6643

email: skaggs@atlas.socsci.imn.edu

David Skole

Department of Geography

Room 315 Natural Science Building

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824

email: skole@pilot.msu.edu

Mike Slimak

Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street, MC 8623

Washington, DC 20460

202-260-5950 or 5957

email: slimak.michael@epamail.epa.gov

Jim Souby

Western Governor’s Association

600 17th St. #1705

Denver, CO 80202-5452

Telephone: 303-623-9378

email: jsouby@westgov.org

Peter Sousounis

University of Michigan

Dept of Atmoshperic Oceanic & Space Science

1541C Space Research Bldg.
UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WORKSHOP

152

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2143

Telephone: 734-936-0488

email: sousou@umich.edu

Chuck Southam

Enviroment for Canada

P.O. Box 5050

Ontario, CAN L7R 4AL

Telephone: 905-336-4955

email: Chuck_Southam@e.c.gc.ca

Patrick Spears

Intertribal Council on Utility Policy

PO Box 2890

Rapid City, SD 57709

Telephone: 605-343-6054

email: mnisose@rapidcity.com

Roger Street

Climate & Atmospheric Research

Atmospheric Environment Service

4905 Dufferin St.

Downsview, Ontario M3H 5T4

Telephone: 416-739-4271

email: Roger.Street@ec.gc.ca

Rick Sullivan

Center for Environmental Study

143 Bostwick NE

Grand Rapids, MI 49503

Telephone: 616-234-3938

email: ricksull@iserv.net

Thomas Wagner

ERIM

P.O. Box 134001

Ann Arbor, MI 48113-4001

Telephone: 734-994-1200

email: twagner@erim.org

James C. G. Walker, Professor

University of Michigan

Geology Department

Ann Arbor MI 48109-2029

Phone: 734-764-2466

Telephone: 734-764-5137

email: jcgw@umich.edu

Clauida Walters

Central Michigan University

Department of Geography

Department of Geography

Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859

Loel Watson

Wisconsin Waterfowl Association, W359

North 7660 Brown Street

Oconomowoe, WI 53066

Douglas Wilcox

USGS Great Lakes Science Center

1451 Green Rd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Telephone: 734-214-7256

email: douglas_wilcox@usgs.gov

Julie A. Winkler

Michigan State University

Department of Geography

315 Natural Science

East Lansing, MI 48824-1115

Telephone: 517-353-9186

email: winlker@pilot.msu.edu

Derek Winstanley

Illinois State Water Survey

Midwestern Climate Center

2204 Griffith Drive

Champaign, IL 61820

Telephone: 217-244-5459

email: dwinstan@uiuc.edu

Barbara Wrenn

Great Lakes Enviromental Research Laboratory

2205 Commonwealth Blvd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48105-1593

Telephone: 734-741-2255

bwrenn@glerl.noaa.gov

Donald Wuebbles

Univesity of Illinois, Atmospheric Sciences

email: jlenters@facstaff.wisc.edu