U.S. Climate Action Report – 2002

Third National Communication of the United States of America 

Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
U.S. Climate Action Report – 2002

Third National Communication of the United States of America 

Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

You may electronically download this document from the following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Web site:

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html. 

To purchase copies of this report, visit the U.S. Government Printing Office Web site at http://bookstore.gpo.gov. 

Phone orders may be submitted at 1-866-512-1800 (toll-free) or 1-202-512-1800 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time.

This document may be cited as follows: U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report 2002, Washington, D.C., May 2002.
Introduction and Overview 2

National Circumstances: The U.S. Context 4

Greenhouse Gas Inventory 5

Policies and Measures 5

Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions 6

Impacts and Adaptation 6

Financial Resources and Transfer of Technology 6

Research and Systematic Observation 6

Education, Training, and Outreach 7

National Circumstances 8

Climate Profile 9

Geographic Profile 9

Population Profile 10

Government Structure 11

Federal Departments and Agencies 12

The U.S. Congress 12

States, Tribes, and Local Governments 12

The U.S. Court System 13

Economic Profile 13

Government and the Market Economy 13

Composition and Growth 13

Energy Production and Consumption 14

Resources 15

Production 16

Electricity Market Restructuring 17

Consumption 18

Sectoral Activities 18

Industry 18

Residential and Commercial Buildings 19

Transportation 20

Government 22

Waste 22

Agriculture 23

Grazing Land 23

Agricultural Land 23

Forests 24

Other Natural Resources 24

Wetlands 24

Wildlife 25

Water 25

Greenhouse Gas Inventory 26

Recent Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 28

Global Warming Potentials 32

Carbon Dioxide Emissions 37

Energy 38

Industrial Processes 41

Land-Use Change and Forestry 42

Waste 42

1

2

3
Methane Emissions 42

Landfills 43

Natural Gas and Petroleum Systems 43

Coal Mining 44

Agriculture 44

Other Sources 44

Nitrous Oxide Emissions 45

Agricultural Soil Management 45

Fuel Combustion 45

Nitric Acid Production 45

Manure Management 46

Adipic Acid Production 46

Other Sources 46

HFC, PFC, and SF6 Emissions 46

Substitution of Ozone-Depleting Substances 46

Other Industrial Sources 46

Emissions of Ozone-Depleting Substances 46

Criteria Pollutant Emissions 48

Policies and Measures 50

National Policymaking Process 51

Federal Policies and Measures 52

Energy: Residential and Commercial 53

Energy: Industrial 54

Energy: Supply 55

Transportation 56

Industry (Non-CO2) 58

Agriculture 59

Forestry 60

Waste Management 60

Cross-sectoral 61

Nonfederal Policies and Measures 61

State Initiatives 61

Local Initiatives 62

Private-Sector and NGO Initiatives 62

Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions 70

The NEMS Model and Policies Coverage 71

Assumptions Used to Estimate Future CO2 Emissions 71

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2000–2020 72

Net U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2000–2020 73

CO2 Emissions 74

Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 76

Carbon Sequestration 78

Adjustments to Greenhouse Gas Emissions 78

Future of the President’s February 2002 Climate Change Initiative 78

Key Uncertainties Affecting Projections 79

Technology Development (+ or -) 79

Regulatory or Statutory Changes (+ or -) 80

Energy Prices (+ or -) 80

Economic Growth (+ or -) 80

Weather (+ or -) 80

4

5
Impacts and Adaptation 81

Summary of the National Assessment 81

Introduction 83

Weather and Climate Context 84

Projected Changes in the Mean Climate 84

Projected Changes in Climate Variability 87

Potential Consequences of and Adaptation to Climate Change 88

Potential Interactions with Land Cover 89

Potential Interactions with Agriculture 92

Potential Interactions with Forests 96

Potential Interactions with Water Resources 99

Potential Interactions with Coastal Areas and Marine Resources 103

Potential Interactions with Human Health 106

Potential Impacts in Various U.S. Regions 109

Federal Research Activities 109

Interagency Research Subcommittees 110

Individual Agency Research Activities 111

Other Research Activities 112

Financial Resources and Transfer of Technology 113

Types and Sources of U.S. Assistance 114

U.S. Government Assistance 115

NGO Assistance 116

Private-Sector Assistance 117

Major U.S. Government Initiatives 117

U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation 117

U.S. Country Studies Program 118

Climate Change Initiative 118

Public–Private Partnership Activities 119

Technology Cooperation Agreement Pilot Project 119

Climate Technology Initiative 120

U.S.–Asia Environmental Partnership 120

EcoLinks 121

Energy Partnership Program 121

Forest Conservation Partnerships 122

U.S. Government Assistance Addressing Vulnerability and Adaptation 122

U.S. Financial Flow Information, 1997–2000 123

Financial Contributions to the Global Environment Facility 123

Financial Contributions to Multilateral Institutions and Programs 123

Bilateral and Regional Financial Contributions 124

Summary of Financial Flow Information for 1997–2000 125

Funding Types 125

Regional Trends 126

Mitigation Activities 127

Adaptation Activities 131

Other Global Climate Change Activities 136

6

7
Research and Systematic Observation 137

Research 139

U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative 139

Ongoing Broader Agenda for U.S. Research 139

National Climate Change Technology Initiative 139

Human Effects on and Responses to Environmental Changes 141

International Research Cooperation 141

Systematic Observation 144

Documentation of U.S. Climate Observations 144

In-situ Climate Observation 145

Satellite Observation Programs 146

Global Change Data and Information System 147

Education, Training, and Outreach 148

U.S. Global Climate Research Program Education and Outreach 149

Regional Outreach 149

National Outreach 149

Federal Agency Education Initiatives 150

Department of Energy 150

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 150

Partnerships 150

Federal Agency Outreach 152

Department of Energy 152

Environmental Protection Agency 152

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 153

National Park Service 154

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 154

Smithsonian Institution 155

Partnerships 155

A: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends 156

B: Policies and Measures—Program Descriptions 163

C: Part 1—Selected Technology Transfer Activities 224

Part 2—Table 7.3: U.S. Direct Financial Contributions 232

and Commercial Sales Related to Implementation of

the UNFCCC

D: Climate Change Science: An Analysis of 249

Some Key Questions

E: Bibliography 256

8

9

Appendices
Chapter 1 

Introduction

and Overview

W

ith this pledge, President Bush 

reiterated the seriousness of climate

change and ordered a Cabinet-level

review of U.S. climate change policy. He

requested working groups to develop

innovative approaches that would: (1) be

consistent with the goal of stabilizing

greenhouse gas concentrations in the

atmosphere; (2) be sufficiently flexible to

allow for new findings; (3) support continued economic growth and prosperity;

(4) provide market-based incentives; (5)

incorporate technological advances; and

(6) promote global participation. 

The President’s decision to take a

deeper look at climate change policy

arose from the recognition that the international dialogue begun to date lacked

the requisite participatory breadth for a

global response to climate change. At

the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro,

the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

was adopted, with the ultimate objective

of providing a higher quality of life 

“The Earth’s well-being is ... an issue important to America—

and it’s an issue that should be important to every nation and

in every part of the world. My Administration is committed to

a leadership role on the issue of climate change. We recognize

our responsibility, and we will meet it—at home, in our hemisphere, and in the world.”—George W. Bush, June 2001
Introduction and Overview ■ 3

for future generations. Signatories

pledged to: 

achieve...stabilization of greenhouse gas

concentrations in the atmosphere at a level

that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

Such a level should be achieved within a

timeframe sufficient to allow ecosystems to

adapt naturally to climate change, to

ensure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to

proceed in a sustainable manner.

In Rio, ambitious plans were set in

motion to address climate change.

However, participation in constructing

measures for adapting to and mitigating

the effects of climate change fell short

of the breadth necessary to confront a

problem that President Bush recently

said has “the potential to impact every

corner of the world.” A global problem

demands a truly participatory global

response, while at the same time taking

near-term action that would reduce projected growth in emissions cost-effectively and enhance our ability to cope

with climate change impacts.

Based on his Cabinet’s review and

recommendation, President Bush recently announced a commitment to

reduce greenhouse gas intensity in the

United States by 18 percent over the

next decade through a combination of

voluntary, incentive-based, and existing

mandatory measures. This represents a

4.5 percent reduction from forecast

emissions in 2012, a serious, sensible,

and science-based response to this

global problem—despite the remaining

uncertainties concerning the precise

magnitude, timing, and regional patterns of climate change. The President’s

commitment also emphasized the need

for partners in this endeavor. All countries must actively work together to

achieve the long-term goal of stabilizing

greenhouse gas concentrations at a level

that will prevent dangerous interference

with the climate system.

For our part, the United States

intends to continue to be a constructive

and active Party to the Framework Convention. We are leading global research

efforts to enhance the understanding of

the science of climate change, as called

for under the Framework Convention.

We lead the world in investment in climate science and in recent years have

spent $1.7 billion on federal research

annually. Since 1990, the United States

has provided over $18 billion for climate

system research—more resources than

any other country. In June 2001, President Bush announced a new Climate

Change Research Initiative to focus on

key remaining gaps in our understanding

of anthropogenic climate change and its

potential impacts.

As envisioned by the Framework

Convention, we are helping to develop

technologies to address climate change.

The President has pledged to reprioritize

research budgets under the National Climate Change Technology Initiative so

that funds will be available to develop

advanced energy and sequestration technologies. Energy policies improve efficiency and substitute cleaner fuels, while

sequestration technologies will promote

economic and environmentally sound

methods for the capture and storage of

greenhouse gases.

We plan to increase bilateral support

for climate observation systems and to

finance even more demonstration projects of advanced energy technologies in

developing countries. President Bush’s

Western Hemisphere Initiative—created

to enhance climate change cooperation

with developing countries in the Americas and elsewhere—will also strengthen

implementation of our Framework Convention commitments. In line with those

commitments, we have provided over 

$1 billion in climate change-related assistance to developing countries over the

last five years. All of this is just the beginning: we intend to strengthen our cooperation on climate science and advanced

technologies around the world whenever

and wherever possible. 

We continue to make progress in limiting U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases

by becoming more energy efficient. In

the last decade, we have seen tremendous U.S. economic growth, and our

level of emissions per unit of economic

output has declined significantly. The

President has committed the United

States to continue this improvement and

reduce intensity beyond forecast levels

through enhanced voluntary measures.

The United States is a world leader in

addressing and adapting to a variety of

national and global scientific problems

that could be exacerbated by climate

change, including malaria, hunger, malnourishment, property losses due to

extreme weather events, and habitat loss

and other threats to biological diversity.

Climate change is a long-term problem, decades in the making, that cannot

be solved overnight. A real solution must

be durable, science-based, and economically sustainable. In particular, we seek

an environmentally sound approach that

will not harm the U.S. economy, which

remains a critically important engine of

global prosperity. We believe that economic development is key to protecting

the global environment. In the real

world, no one will forego meeting basic

family needs to protect the global commons. Environmental protection is neither achievable nor sustainable without

opportunities for continued development and greater prosperity. Our objective is to ensure a long-term solution that

is environmentally effective, economically efficient and sustainable, and

appropriate in terms of addressing the

urgent problems of today while enhancing our ability to deal with future problems. Protecting the global environment

is too important a responsibility for anything less.

In this U.S. Climate Action Report, we

provide our third formal national communication under the Framework 

Convention, as envisioned under Articles 4 and 12 of the Convention. We

describe our national circumstances,

identify existing and planned policies

and measures, indicate future trends in

greenhouse gas emissions, outline

expected impacts and adaptation measures, and provide information on financial resources, technology transfer,

research, and systematic observations.1

1 Some sections of this report (e.g., the projections in Chapter 5) are included, despite the absence of a binding requirement to do so under the Convention. Note that these projections do not include the impact of the President’s climate

change initiative announced in February 2002, nor do they include the effects of measures in the National Energy Policy that have not yet been implemented.
4 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

G

reenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities,

causing global mean surface air temperature and subsurface ocean temperature to rise.

While the changes observed over the last several decades are likely due mostly to human

activities, we cannot rule out that some significant part is also a reflection of natural variability.

Reducing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current model predictions will require

major advances in understanding and modeling of the factors that determine atmospheric

concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and the feedback processes that determine the sensitivity of the climate system. Specifically, this will involve reducing uncertainty regarding: 

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

• the fraction of the future fossil fuel carbon that will remain in the atmosphere and provide radiative forcing versus exchange with the oceans or net exchange with the land

biosphere,

• the feedbacks in the climate system that determine both the magnitude of the change

and the rate of energy uptake by the oceans,

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

• the nature and causes of the natural variability of climate and its interactions with

forced changes, and

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

Knowledge of the climate system and of projections about the future climate is derived

from fundamental physics, chemistry, and observations. Data are then incorporated in

global circulation models. However, model projections are limited by the paucity of data

available to evaluate the ability of coupled models to simulate important aspects of climate. To overcome these limitations, it is essential to ensure the existence of a long-term

observing system and to make more comprehensive regional measurements of greenhouse gases. 

Evidence is also emerging that black carbon aerosols (soot), which are formed by incomplete combustion, may be a significant contributor to global warming, although their relative importance is difficult to quantify at this point. These aerosols have significant

negative health impacts, particularly in developing countries.

While current analyses are unable to predict with confidence the timing, magnitude, or

regional distribution of climate change, the best scientific information indicates that if

greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, changes are likely to occur. The U.S.

National Research Council has cautioned, however, that “because there is considerable

uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts

to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of

future warmings should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either

upward or downward).” Moreover, there is perhaps even greater uncertainty regarding

the social, environmental, and economic consequences of changes in climate. 

Source: NRC 2001a.

The Science

The remainder of this chapter provides

a brief description of the climate system

science that sets the context for U.S.

action, as well as an overview of the U.S.

program that is the focus of this report.

NATIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES:

THE U.S. CONTEXT

The perspective of the United States

on climate change is informed by our

economic prosperity, the rich diversity

of our climate conditions and natural

resources, and the demographic trends

of over 280 million residents. Because

of our diverse climatic zones, climate

change will not affect the country uniformly. This diversity will also enhance

our economy’s resilience to future climate change.

Higher anthropogenic greenhouse

gas emissions are a consequence of robust

economic growth: higher incomes traditionally promote increased expenditures

of energy. During the 1990s, investments in technology led to increases in

energy efficiency, which partly offset the

increases in greenhouse gas emissions

that would normally attend strong economic growth. In addition, much of the

economic growth in the United States

has occurred in less energy-intensive

sectors (e.g., computer technologies).

Consequently, in the 1990s the direct

and proportionate correlation between

economic growth and greenhouse gas

emissions was altered. 

While the United States is the world’s

largest consumer of energy, it is also the

world’s largest producer of energy, with

vast reserves of coal, natural gas, and

crude oil. Nevertheless, our energy use

per unit of output—i.e., the energy

intensity of our economy—compares

relatively well with the rest of the world.

The President’s new National Energy Policy

(NEP) includes recommendations that

would reduce greenhouse gas emissions

by expanded use of both existing and

developing technologies (NEPD Group

2001). The NEP’s recommendations

address expanded nuclear power generation; improved energy efficiency for

vehicles, buildings, appliances, and

industry; development of hydrogen fuels

and renewable technologies; increased

access to federal lands and expedited

licensing practices; and expanded use of

cleaner fuels, including initiatives for

coal and natural gas. Tax incentives recommended in the NEP and the President’s FY 2003 Budget will promote use

of renewable energy forms and combined heat-and-power systems and will

encourage technology development.

The nation’s response to climate

change—our vulnerability and our 
Introduction and Overview ■ 5

ability to adapt—is also influenced by

U.S. governmental, economic, and

social structures, as well as by the concerns of U.S. citizens. The political and

institutional systems participating in the

development and protection of environmental and natural resources in the

United States are as diverse as the

resources themselves. 

President Bush said last year that

technology offers great promise to 

significantly and cost-effectively reduce

emissions in the long term. Our

national circumstances—our prosperity

and our diversity—may shape our

response to climate change, but our

commitment to invest in innovative

technologies and research will ensure

the success of our response.

GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY

This report presents U.S. anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission trends

from 1990 through 1999 and fulfills the

U.S. commitment for 2001 for an

annual inventory report to the

UNFCCC. To ensure that the U.S.

emissions inventory is comparable to

those of other UNFCCC signatory

countries, the emission estimates were

calculated using methodologies consistent with those recommended in the

Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National

Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC/UNEP/

OECD/IEA 1997). 

Naturally occurring greenhouse

gases—that is, gases that trap heat—

include water vapor, carbon dioxide

(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide

(N2O), and ozone (O3). Several classes

of halogenated substances that contain

fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are also

greenhouse gases, but for the most part,

they are solely a product of industrial

activities. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs),

and bromofluorocarbons (halons) are

stratospheric ozone-depleting substances covered under the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone

Layer and, hence, are not included in

national greenhouse gas inventories.

Some other halogenated substances—

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride

(SF6)—do not deplete stratospheric

ozone but are potent greenhouse gases

and are accounted for in national greenhouse gas inventories.

Although CO2, CH4, and N2O occur

naturally in the atmosphere, their atmospheric concentrations have been affected

by human activities. Since pre-industrial

time (i.e., since about 1750), concentrations of these greenhouse gases have

increased by 31, 151, and 17 percent,

respectively (IPCC 2001d). This

increase has altered the chemical composition of the Earth’s atmosphere and

has likely affected the global climate

system.

In 1999, total U.S. greenhouse gas

emissions were about 12 percent above

emissions in 1990. A somewhat lower

(0.9 percent) than average (1.2 percent)

annual increase in emissions, especially

given the robust economic growth 

during this period, was primarily attributable to the following factors: warmer

than average summer and winter conditions, increased output from nuclear

power plants, reduced CH4 emissions

from coal mines, and reduced HFC-23

by-product emissions from the chemical

manufacture of HCFC-22. 

As the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, CO2 accounted for

82 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas

emissions in 1999. Carbon dioxide from

fossil fuel combustion was the dominant

contributor. Emissions from this source

category grew by 13 percent between

1990 and 1999. 

Methane accounted for 9 percent of

total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in

1999. Landfills, livestock operations, and

natural gas systems were the source of 75

percent of total CH4 emissions. Nitrous

oxide accounted for 6 percent of total

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 1999,

and agricultural soil management represented 69 percent of total N2O emissions. The main anthropogenic activities

producing N2O in the United States

were agricultural soil management, fuel

combustion in motor vehicles, and

adipic and nitric acid production

processes. HFCs, PFCs, and SF6

accounted for 2 percent of total U.S.

greenhouse gas emissions in 1999, and

substitutes for ozone-depleting substances comprised 42 percent of all

HFC, PFC, and SF6 emissions.

Evidence is also emerging that black

carbon aerosols (soot), which are formed

by incomplete combustion, may be a significant anthropogenic agent. Although

the U.S. greenhouse gas inventory does

not cover emissions of these particles,

we anticipate that U.S. research will

focus more on them in coming years.

POLICIES AND MEASURES

U.S. climate change programs

reduced the growth of greenhouse gas

emissions by an estimated 240 teragrams

(million metric tons) of CO2 equivalent

in 2000 alone. This reduction helped to

significantly lower (17 percent since

1990) greenhouse gases emitted per unit

of gross domestic product (GDP), and

thus ranks as a step forward in addressing

climate change. 

However, the U.S. effort was given a

potentially greater boost in June 2001,

when President Bush announced major

new initiatives to advance climate

change science and technology. These

initiatives came about after government

consultation with industry leaders, the

scientific community, and environmental advocacy groups indicated that more

could and should be done to address

scientific uncertainties and encourage

technological innovation.

In February 2002, the President

announced a new U.S. approach to the

challenge of global climate change.

This approach contains policies that

will harness the power of markets and

technology to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions. It will also create new partnerships with the developing world to

reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of

both the U.S. economy and economies

worldwide through policies that support the economic growth that makes

technological progress possible.

The U.S. plan will reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the U.S. economy by 18 percent in ten years. This

reduction exceeds the 14 percent projected reduction in greenhouse gas

intensity in the absence of the additional proposed policies and measures.
6 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

The new measures include an enhanced

emission reduction registry; creation of

transferable credits for emission reduction; tax incentives for investment in

low-emission energy equipment; support for research for energy efficiency

and sequestration technology; emission

reduction agreements with specific

industrial sectors, with particular 

attention to reducing transportation

emissions; international outreach, in

tandem with funding, to promote 

climate research globally; carbon

sequestration on farms and forests; and,

most important, review of progress in

2012 to determine if additional steps

may be needed—as the science justifies—to achieve further reductions in

our national greenhouse gas emission

intensity.

The above strategies are expected to

achieve emission reductions comparable to the average reductions prescribed by the Kyoto agreement, but

without the threats to economic

growth that rigid national emission limits would bring. The registry structure

for voluntary participation of U.S.

industry in reducing emissions will seek

compatibility with emerging domestic

and international approaches and practices, and will include provisions to

ensure that early responders are not

penalized in future climate actions. Furthermore, the President’s approach provides a model for developing nations,

setting targets that reduce greenhouse

gas emissions without compromising

economic growth. 

PROJECTED GREENHOUSE 

GAS EMISSIONS

Forecasts of economic growth,

energy prices, program funding, and

regulatory developments were integrated to project greenhouse gas emissions levels in 2005, 2010, 2015, and

2020. When sequestration is accounted

for, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions

are projected to increase by 43 percent

between 2000 and 2020. This increased

growth in absolute emissions will be

accompanied by a decline in emissions

per unit of GDP. Note that these forecasts exclude the impact of the 

President’s climate change initiative

announced in February 2002.

Despite best efforts, the uncertainties associated with the projected levels

of greenhouse gas emissions are primarily associated with forecast methodology, meteorological variations, and

rates of economic growth and technological development. In addition, since

the model used to generate these 

projections does not completely incorporate all current and future policies

and measures to address greenhouse gas

emissions, these measures, as well as

legislative or regulatory actions not yet

in force, add another layer of uncertainty to these projections.

IMPACTS AND ADAPTATION

One of the weakest links in our

knowledge is the connection between

global and regional projections of climate change. The National Research

Council’s response to the President’s

request for a review of climate change

policy specifically noted that fundamental scientific questions remain

regarding the specifics of regional and

local projections (NRC 2001a). Predicting the potential impacts of climate

change is compounded by a lack of

understanding of the sensitivity of

many environmental systems and

resources—both managed and unmanaged—to climate change.

Chapter 6 provides an overview of

potential negative and positive impacts

and possible response options, based

primarily on Climate Change Impacts on the

United States: The Potential Consequences of

Climate Variability and Change (NAST

2000). This assessment used historical

records, model simulations, and sensitivity analyses to explore our potential

vulnerability to climate change and

highlighted gaps in our knowledge. 

The United States is engaged in

many efforts that will help our nation

and the rest of the world—particularly

the developing world—reduce vulnerability and adapt to climate change. By

and large these efforts address public

health and environmental problems

that are of urgent concern today and

that may be exacerbated by climate

change. Examples include reducing the

spread of malaria, increasing agricultural and forest productivity, reducing

the damages from extreme weather

events, and improving methods to forecast their timings and locations. Besides

benefiting society in the short term,

these efforts will enhance our ability to

adapt to climate change in the longer

term.

Challenges associated with climate

change will most likely increase during

the 21st century. Although changes in

the environment will surely occur, our

nation’s economy should continue to

provide the means for successful adaptation to climate changes.

FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND

TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY

To address climate change effectively, developed and developing countries must meet environmental

challenges together. The United States

is committed to helping developing

countries and countries with economies

in transition meet these challenges in

ways that promote economic wellbeing and protect natural resources.

This commitment has involved many

players, ranging from government to

the private sector, who have contributed significant resources to developing countries. As recognized in the

UNFCCC guidelines, this assistance

can take the form of hard and/or soft

technology transfer.

Projects targeting hard technology

transfer, such as equipment to control

emissions and increase energy efficiency, can be particularly effective in

reducing emissions. And projects that

target the transfer of soft technologies,

such as capacity building and institution strengthening through the sharing

of technical expertise, can help countries reduce their vulnerability to the

impacts of climate change. But whether

hard or soft, technology transfer programs are most effective when they are

approached collaboratively and are

congruent with the development objectives and established legal framework of

the target country. To this end, the

United States works closely with 
Introduction and Overview ■ 7

beneficiary countries to ensure a good

fit between the resources it provides

and the country’s needs.

RESEARCH AND SYSTEMATIC

OBSERVATION

The United States leads the world

in research on climate and other 

global environmental changes, funding

approximately half of the world’s 

climate change research expenditures.

We intend to continue funding research

in order to ensure vigorous, ongoing

programs aimed at narrowing the uncertainties in our knowledge of climate

change. These research programs will

help advance the understanding of climate change. 

The President’s major new initiatives

directed at addressing climate change

are informed by a wealth of input and

are intended to result in significant

improvements in climate modeling,

observation, and research efforts. The

long-term vision embraced by the new

initiatives is to help government, the

private sector, and communities make

informed management decisions regarding climate change in light of persistent

uncertainties.

EDUCATION, TRAINING, 

AND OUTREACH

The United States undertakes and

supports a broad range of activities

aimed at enhancing public understanding and awareness of climate change.

These activities range from educational

initiatives sponsored by federal agencies to cooperation with independent

research and academic organizations.

Nongovernmental organizations, industry, and the press also play active

roles in increasing public awareness

and interest in climate change. 

The goal of all of these endeavors—

education, training, and public awareness—is to create an informed

populace. The United States is committed to providing citizens with access to

the information necessary to critically

evaluate the consequences of policy

options to address climate change in a

cost-effective manner that is sustainable

and effective in achieving the Framework Convention’s long-term goal. 
Chapter 2 

National

Circumstances

D

uring the 1990s, greenhouse gas

emissions per unit of gross domestic

product (GDP) declined steadily

due to continued investments in new

energy-efficient technologies and an

increase in the portion of GDP attributable to the nonmanufacturing and less

energy-intensive manufacturing sectors.

However, aggregate U.S. greenhouse

gas emissions have continued to

increase over the past few years, primarily as a result of economic growth and

the accompanying rise in demand for

energy.

U.S. energy needs and, hence, emissions of greenhouse gases are also heavily influenced by a number of other

factors, including climate, geography,

land use, resource base, and population

growth. How the nation responds to

the issue of climate change is affected

by U.S. governmental, economic, and

social structures, as well as by the availability of technologies and wealth,

which allows such technologies to be
National Circumstances ■ 9

FIGURE 2-1 Climatic Diversity in the Contiguous U.S.

Regions of the country with cooler climates may benefit from climate change through reduced demand for heating, while energy consumption

for cooling may increase in warmer regions, which could result in higher emissions of greenhouse gases.

Notes: 

• Cooling and heating degree-days represent the number of degrees that the daily average temperature is above (cooling) or below (heating) 65°F. The daily average temperature is the

mean of the maximum and minimum temperatures for a 24-hour period. For example, a weather station recording a mean daily temperature of 40°F would report 25 heating degreedays.

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

• Data for the Pacific region exclude Alaska and Hawaii.

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

New

England

South

Atlantic

East

South

Central

West

South

Central

West

North

Central

Pacific

Middle

Atlantic

East North

Central

Mountain

Degree-Days

421

New England

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

West North Central

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

Mountain

Pacific

United States

Heating Degree-Days, 

30-Year Normals

Cooling Degree-Days, 

30-Year Normals

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

6,621

5,839

6,421 6,635

2,895

3,589

2,306

5,321

3,245

4,576

675 736 981

1,565

2,460

1,174

694

1,193

1,926

employed. All of these factors also

affect the nation’s vulnerability to climate change and its ability to adapt to

a changing natural environment. 

Global climate change presents

unique challenges and opportunities for

the United States. This chapter

describes U.S. national circumstances

as they relate to climate change: historical developments, current conditions,

and trends in those conditions.

CLIMATE PROFILE

The diverse U.S. climate zones,

topography, and soils support many

ecological communities and supply

renewable resources for many human

uses. The nature and distribution of

these resources have played a critical

role in the development of the U.S.

economy, thus influencing the pattern

of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. 

U.S. climate conditions are representative of all the major regions of the

world, except the ice cap. Average

annual temperatures range from –1 to

+4°C (30–40°F) in the North to

21–27°C (70–80°F) in the South, and

have significant implications for energy

demand across the country. In the

North, heating needs dominate cooling

needs, while the reverse is true in the

South. The number of heating and

cooling degree-days across U.S. regions

illustrates this climatic diversity (Figure

2-1). Because of this diversity of climate

and ecological zones, describing the

effects of climate change on the nation

as either positive or negative overall is

an oversimplification. 

U.S. baseline rainfall levels also vary

significantly by region, with most of

the western states being arid. Although

the eastern states only rarely experience

severe drought, they are increasingly

vulnerable to flooding and storm surges

as sea level rises, particularly in increasingly densely populated coastal areas.

In recent years, although deaths due to

tornadoes, floods, and tropical storms

have declined substantially, insurance

losses have increased. If extreme

weather events of this kind were to

occur with greater frequency or intensity (which may or may not happen),

damages could be extensive. 

GEOGRAPHIC PROFILE 

The federal government owns slightly

more than 20 percent of the total U.S. land

area of nearly 920 million hectares (over 2

billion acres). By contrast, the federal government owns over 65 percent of Alaska’s

nearly 150 million hectares (370 million

acres), the state government owns nearly

25 percent, private ownership accounts for

about 10 percent, and lands held in trust by

the Bureau of Indian Affairs account only

for about one-third of 1 percent. 

The private sector plays a primary role

in developing and managing U.S. natural

resources. However, federal, state, and

local governments also manage and protect these resources through regulation,

economic incentives, and education. Governments and private interests also manage

lands set aside for forests, parks, wildlife

reserves, special research areas, recreational areas, and suburban and urban open

spaces. Table 2-1 and Figure 2-2 illustrate

the composition and share of the individual components of U.S. land resources in

1997. This snapshot is discussed in greater

detail later in this chapter.
10 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

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

Land Use Hectares Acres 

(in millions)

Urban Land 25 65

Residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional land. Also includes land for construction sites; sanitary landfills; sewage treatment plants; water control structures and spillways; and airports, highways,

railroads, and other transportation facilities.

Forest-Use Land 260 640 

At least 10 percent stocked by single-stemmed forest trees of any size, which will be at least 4 meters 

(13 feet) tall at maturity. When viewed vertically, canopy cover is 25 percent or greater.

Cropland Used for Crops 140 350 

Areas used for the production of adapted crops for harvest.

Cropland Idled, including Conservation Reserve Program 15 40

Includes land in cover and soil improvement crops, and completely idle cropland. Some cropland is idle

each year for various physical and economic reasons. Acreage diverted from crops to soil-conserving

uses under federal farm programs is included in this component. For example, cropland enrolled in the

Federal Conservation Reserve Program is included.

Cropland Used for Pasture 30 70

Generally considered as being tilled, planted in field crops, and then reseeded to pasture at varying intervals. However, some cropland pasture is marginal for crop uses and may remain in pasture indefinitely.

Also includes some land that was used for pasture before crops reached maturity and some land that

could have been cropped without additional improvement.

Grassland Pasture and Range 235 580

Principally native grasses, grasslike plants, forbs or shrubs suitable for grazing and browsing, and introduced forage species that are managed with little or no chemicals or fertilizer being applied. Examples

include grasslands, savannas, many wetlands, some deserts, and tundra.

Special Uses 115 285

Includes national and state parks and wildlife areas, defense installations, and rural transportation.

Miscellaneous Other Land 95 235

Includes rural residential, marshes, open swamps, deserts, tundra, and other areas not inventoried.

TOTAL LAND, 50 STATES 915 2,265

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

Cropland Idled, including CRP – 2%

Grassland, Pasture, and Range – 26%

Forest-Use Land – 28%

Cropland Used for Crops – 15%

Special Uses – 13%

Miscellaneous Other Land – 10% Urban Land – 3%

Cropland Used for Pasture – 3%

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

Source: USDA/NRCS 2001.

POPULATION PROFILE

Population levels and growth rates

drive a nation’s consumption of energy

and other resources, as more people

require more energy services. The population dispersion in the United States

increases the need for transportation

services, and population density and

household size influence housing sizes.

Settlement patterns and population density also affect the availability of land for

various uses. 

With a population of just over 280

million in 2000, the United States is the

third most populous country in the

world, after China and India. U.S. population density, however, is relatively low

(Figure 2-3). Population density also

varies widely within the United States,

and those patterns are changing as people move not only from rural to metropolitan areas, but also from denser city

cores to surrounding suburbs. In addition, populations in the warmer parts of

the country—the Sunbelt in the South

and Southwest—are growing more rapidly than in other parts, showing a preference for warmer climates. 

Overall, the annual rate of U.S. population growth has fallen from slightly

over 1 percent in 1990 to about 1 percent in 2000. But this is still high by the

standards of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD)—about five times the rate in

Japan, and more than three times the
National Circumstances ■ 11

rate in the European Union. Among the

OECD countries, the United States has

been and continues to be one of the

largest recipients of immigrants (in

absolute terms). Net immigration contributes about one-third of the total

annual population growth, and natural

increase (births minus deaths) contributes the remaining two-thirds. 

The U.S. population is aging. The

current median age is about 35 years,

compared to about 33 in 1990 and 28 in

1970. This change in median age has

been a result of both an increase in life

expectancy, which now stands at 77

years, and reduced fertility rates. Along

with an aging population, trends also

indicate a steady reduction in average

household size, as people marry later,

have fewer children, are more likely to

divorce, and are more likely to live

alone as they age. Thus, between 1970

and 2000, while the population has

grown by nearly 40 percent, the number of households has grown by over 65

percent. 

Although the average household

size has declined, the average size of

housing units has been increasing.

Between 1978 and 1997, the proportion of smaller housing units (with four

or fewer rooms) has decreased from

about 35 to 30 percent, and the proportion of large housing units (with seven

or more rooms) has increased from

about 20 to nearly 30 percent. In general, larger housing units result in

increased demands for heating, air conditioning, lighting, and other energyrelated needs.

The share of the total U.S. population living in metropolitan areas of at

least one million people has increased

to nearly 60 percent in 2000, up from

nearly 30 percent in 1950. This growth

has been concentrated in suburbs,

rather than in city centers. In fact, most

major cities have experienced declines

in population, as crime, congestion,

high taxes, and the desire for better

schools have led people to move to the

suburbs. As a result, population densities in the U.S. metropolitan areas are

far lower than in metropolitan areas

around the world, and they continue to

decline. For example, the ten largest

European cities, on average, have population densities four times greater than

the ten largest U.S. cities. The

increased concentration of the U.S

population in the suburbs has resulted

in both greater reliance on decentralized travel modes, such as the automobile, and relatively high per capita

energy use. 

Another factor leading to higher

emissions is the increasing mobility of

the U.S. population. The average U.S.

citizen tends to move more than ten

times in his or her lifetime. According to

the 1990 census, nearly 40 percent of

U.S. residents do not live in the state

where they were born, as compared to

about 30 percent in 1980 and about 25

percent in 1970. Families are often dispersed across the country for education,

career, or personal reasons. All of these

factors have led to an ever-growing need

for transportation services. 

GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE 

The U.S. political and institutional

systems participating in the development and protection of environmental

and natural resources are as varied as

the resources themselves. These systems span federal, state, and local government jurisdictions, and include

legislative, regulatory, judicial, and

executive institutions. 

The U.S. government is divided into

three separate branches: the executive

branch, which includes the Executive

FIGURE 2-3 U.S. Population Density: 2000

Though the United States is the third most populous country in the world, U.S. population density is relatively low. This combination tends to

have negative implications for energy and automobile use and, hence, emissions of greenhouse gases.

Population per

Square Kilometer

50+

25 – 50

0 – 25

Population per Square Kilometer

0

50

100

150

200

250 

300

350

400

10

30

135

235

335

Russia

United States

China

Germany

Japan

Note: International population density comparisons have been rounded.

Sources: U.S. DOC/Census 2000 and World Bank 2000.
12 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Office of the President, executive

departments, and independent agencies; the legislative branch (the U.S.

Congress); and the judicial branch 

(the U.S. court system). The distinct

separation of powers in this tripartite

system is quite different from parliamentary governments. 

Federal Departments 

and Agencies 

The executive branch is comprised

of 14 executive departments, 7 agencies, and a host of commissions, boards,

other independent establishments, and

government corporations. The traditional functions of a department or an

agency are to help the President propose legislation; to enact, administer,

and enforce regulations and rules implementing legislation; to implement Executive Orders; and to perform other

activities in support of the institution’s

mission, such as encouraging and funding the research, development, and

demonstration of new technologies. 

No single department, agency, or

level of government in the United

States has sole responsibility for the

panoply of issues associated with climate change. In many cases, the

responsibilities of federal agencies are

established by law, with limited administrative discretion. At the federal level,

U.S. climate change policy is determined by an interagency coordinating

committee, chaired from within the

Executive Office of the President, and

staffed with members of the executive

offices and officials from the relevant

departments and agencies, including

the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Justice, State,

Transportation, and Treasury, as well as

the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency and the U.S. Agency for International Development. 

The U.S. Congress

As the legislative branch of the U.S.

government, Congress also exercises

responsibility for climate change and

other environmental and natural

resource issues at the national level. 

It influences environmental policy

through two principal vehicles: creation

of laws and oversight of the federal executive branch. Thus, Congress can enact

laws establishing regulatory regimes for

environmental purposes, and can pass

bills to appropriate funds for environmental purposes. Under its constitutional authority, Congress ratifies

international treaties, such as the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 

The U.S. Congress comprises two

elected chambers—the Senate and the

House of Representatives—having generally equal functions in lawmaking.

The Senate has 100 members, elected

to six-year terms, with two representatives for each of the 50 states. The

House has 435 members, elected to

two-year terms, each of whom represents an electoral district of roughly

equal population. The less populated

but often resource-rich regions of the

country, therefore, have proportionately greater representation in the Senate than in the House. 

Environmental proposals, like most

other laws, may be initiated in either

chamber of the U.S. Congress. After

their introduction, proposals or “bills” are

referred to specialized committees and

subcommittees, which hold public hearings on the bills to receive testimony

from interested and expert parties. After

reviewing the testimony, the committees

and subcommittees deliberate and revise

the bills, and then submit them for

debate by the full membership of that

chamber. Differences between bills originating in either the House or the Senate

are resolved in a formal conference

between the two chambers. To become a

law, a bill must be approved by the

majorities of both chambers, and then

must be signed by the President. The

President may oppose and veto a bill, but

Congress may override a veto with a twothirds majority from each chamber. 

As a rule, spending bills must go

through this process twice. First, the

committee responsible for the relevant

issue must submit a bill to authorize the

expenditure. Then, once both chambers

pass the authorization bill, the Appropriations Committee, in a separate process,

must submit a bill appropriating funds

from the budget. The funds that are

actually appropriated often are less than

the authorized amount. 

States, Tribes, and 

Local Governments 

States, Native American tribal

organizations, localities, and even

regional associations also exert 

significant influence over the passage,

initiation, and administration of environmental, energy, natural resource,

and other climate-related programs.

For example, the authority to regulate

electricity production and distribution

lies with state and local public utility

commissions. In addition, the regulation of building codes—strongly tied

to the energy efficiency of buildings—

is also controlled at the state and local

levels. 

Although the federal government

promulgates and oversees environmental regulations at the national

level, the states and tribes often are

delegated the authority to implement

some federal laws by issuing permits

and monitoring compliance with 

regulatory standards. The states also

generally have the discretion to set

environmental standards that are more

stringent than the national standards.

Individual states also enjoy autonomy

in their approach to managing their

environmental resources that are not

subject to federal laws. In addition to

regulation, some states and localities

have developed voluntary and incentive programs that encourage energy

efficiency and conservation, and/or

mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. 

Local power to regulate land use is

derived from a state’s power to enact

legislation to promote the health,

safety, and welfare of its citizens. States

vary in the degree to which they delegate these “powers” to local governments, but land use is usually

controlled to a considerable extent by

local governments (county or city).

This control may take the form of

authority to adopt comprehensive

land-use plans to enact zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations or
National Circumstances ■ 13

accounting for over one-fourth of the

global economy. 

Government and the 

Market Economy 

A number of principles, institutions,

and technical factors have played a role

in the evolution of the U.S. market

economy. The first of these is the

respect for property rights, which

includes the right to own, use, and

transfer private property to one’s own

advantage. The U.S. economic system

is also underpinned by a reliance on

market forces, as opposed to tradition

or force, as the most efficient means of

organizing economic activity. In other

words, in a well-functioning market,

relative prices are the primary basis on

which economic agents within the U.S.

economy make decisions about production and consumption. Ideally, the price

system, combined with a system of

well-defined and well-protected private

property rights, allocates the resources

of an economy in a way that produces

the greatest possible economic welfare. 

However, in some cases, due to

imperfect information, lack of clearly

defined property rights for public

goods (such as air and water), and/or

other market imperfections, the production of goods and services creates

externalities (i.e., costs or benefits) that

are not borne directly by the producers

and consumers of those goods and services. For example, if the production of a

good has environmental costs that are

not borne by its producers or consumers, that product may be priced too

low, thereby stimulating excess demand

and pollution. Alternatively, research

and development (R&D) may produce

benefits to society beyond those that

accrue to the firm doing the research,

but if those benefits are not captured in

the price, firms will underinvest in

R&D. Under such circumstances, the

U.S. government intervenes to alter the

allocation of resources.

Government intervention may include limiting the physical quantity of

pollution that can be produced, or

charging polluters a fee for each unit of

pollution emitted. As a practical matter,

to restrict shoreline, floodplain, or wetland development. 

The U.S. Court System

The U.S. court system is also crucial

to the disposition of environmental

issues. Many environmental cases are

litigated in the federal courts. The role

of the courts is to settle disagreements

on how to interpret the law. The federal court system is three-tiered: the

district court level; the first appellate

(or circuit) court level; and the second

and final appellate level (the U.S.

Supreme Court). There are 94 federal

district courts, organized into federal

circuits, and 13 federal appeals courts. 

Cases usually enter the federal court

system at the district court level,

though some challenges to agency

actions are heard directly in appellate

courts, and disputes between states may

be brought directly before the U.S.

Supreme Court. Generally, any person

(regardless of citizenship) may file a

complaint alleging a grievance. In civil

enforcement cases, complaints are

brought on behalf of the government

by the U.S. attorney general and, in

some instances, may be filed by citizens

as well. 

Sanctions and relief in civil environmental cases may include monetary

penalties, awards of damages, and

injunctive and declaratory relief. Courts

may direct, for example, that pollution

be controlled, that contaminated sites

be cleaned up, or that environmental

impacts be assessed before a project is

initiated. Criminal cases under federal

environmental laws may be brought

only by the government—i.e., the

attorney general or state attorneys 

general. Criminal sanctions in environmental cases may include fines and

imprisonment.

ECONOMIC PROFILE 

The U.S. is endowed with a large

and dynamic population, bountiful land

and other natural resources, and vibrant

competition in a market economy.

These factors have contributed to making the U.S. economy (in terms of its

real GDP) the largest in the world,

however, accurately establishing the

cost of the externality to be internalized by a fee, a tax, or a regulation can

be very difficult. There is also a risk that

government intervention could have

other, unintended consequences. For

these reasons, the U.S. government

tends to be cautious in its interventions,

although it does take actions necessary

to protect the economy, the environment, human health, natural resources,

and national security. 

In addition, many government interventions are intended to correct market

imperfections and facilitate smooth

functioning of markets. By protecting

property rights, producing public goods

such as roads and other types of infrastructure, formulating policies that internalize external costs (e.g., environmental

policies), and enacting legislation to

ensure a minimum standard of living for

all of its citizens, the U.S. government

fosters an environment in which market

forces can function effectively. Finally,

the government inevitably influences

the economy through regulatory and fiscal processes, which in turn affect the

functioning of markets. 

Composition and Growth 

Robust economic growth typically

leads to higher greenhouse gas emissions and degradation of environmental

resources in general. Nonetheless, it is

often the case that as the health of the

economy improves and concerns about

unemployment and economic growth

lessen, greater emphasis is placed on

environmental issues. 

From 1960 to 2000, the U.S. economy grew at an average annual rate of

over 3 percent, raising real GDP from

about $2 trillion to over $9 trillion (in

1996 constant dollars). This implies

that, with population growth averaging

about 1 percent over the same period,

real GDP per capita has increased at an

average annual rate of over 2 percent to

about $32,800 in 2000 from nearly

$13,300 in 1960 (all in 1996 constant

dollars). 

Between 1960 and 2000, the labor

force more than doubled from slightly

over 65 million to about 135 million,
14 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

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

as the influx of women into the work

force raised the overall labor participation rate from nearly 60 percent to over

65 percent. The rapid growth in the size

of the labor force has been led by the

service sector (which includes communications, utilities, finance, insurance, and

real estate), as shown in Figure 2-4.

While the size of the service sector labor

force more than doubled between 1970

and 2000, its sectoral share in the U.S.

labor force increased by more than 40

percent over the same period. Employment in several other industries, such as

construction, trade, and finance also

increased significantly, along with their

sectoral shares in the U.S. labor force. In

contrast, employment in agriculture,

along with its sectoral share in the U.S.

labor force, declined during the same

period. 

From the latter part of 1991 through

2000, the United States experienced the

longest peacetime economic expansion

in history. The average annual U.S. economic growth (in terms of real GDP)

was about 3 percent per year between

1991 and 1995 and more than 4 percent

per year between 1996 and 2000. During the second half of 2000, the economy, nonetheless, showed signs of

moderating, with real annual GDP

growth registering at a little over 3 percent in 2000, relative to the previous

year. Overall, unemployment was

reduced to about 4 percent in 2000,

while producing healthy increases in real

wages and real disposable income. Both

personal consumption and industrial

production have increased as a result of

this economic growth and have, therefore, contributed to greater energy consumption and fossil fuel-related carbon

dioxide emissions. Much of this economic growth, however, has occurred in

sectors of the economy that are less

energy-intensive (e.g., computer technologies), which in turn has lowered the

energy intensity of the U.S. economy.

ENERGY PRODUCTION AND 

CONSUMPTION 

The United States continues to be

the world’s largest energy producer and

consumer. The nation’s patterns of

energy use are determined largely by its

economic and population growth, large

land area, climate regimes, population

dispersion, average size of household,

other population characteristics, and

availability of indigenous resources.

Much of the infrastructure of U.S. cities,

highways, and industries was developed

Between 1970 and 2000, employment rose most rapidly in the construction, trade, financial, utilities, and services sectors. The service sector is

by far the largest in the United States, employing more than one-third of the population.

Agriculture

Millions of People

Mining

Construction

Manufacturing

Transportation,

Communications, and 

Other Public Utilities

Trade

Financial

Services

Public

Administration

4

1

6

26

7

19

5

26

6

2

1970 2000

<0.5

7

15

7

21

7

37

4

0 10 20 30

Percent of Employment

40

1970

2000

3

3

1

1

5

9

21

20

5

10

15

28

20

50

4

9

4

6

Note: All numbers are rounded to the nearest integer.

Sources: U.S. DOC/Census 1999 and U.S. DOL/BLS 2000.
National Circumstances ■ 15

FIGURE 2-5 Energy Flow Through the U.S. Economy: 2000 (Quadrillion Btus)

The U.S. energy system is the largest in the world and is composed of multiple energy sources and end users. Most of the energy is produced

and consumed domestically, although imports constitute a significant portion, and a small fraction of energy is exported.

Coal

2

Other

3

Exports

4

Residential Use

20

Commercial and 

Industrial Use

51

Transportation Use

27

Total

Consumption

99

Fossil

Fuels

84

Coal

23

Natural Gas

20

Crude Oil

12

Nuclear 8

Crude Oil

and Products

24

Renewables 7

Adjustments 2

NGPL 3

Other 5

Coal

22

Total

Supply

103

Domestic

Production

72

Imported

Energy

29

Natural Gas

23

Petroleum

38

Nuclear 8

Renewables 7

Fossil

Fuels

57

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

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

in response to abundant and relatively

inexpensive energy resources. Figure 2-5

provides a comprehensive overview of

the energy flows through the U.S. economy in 2000. 

Different regions of the country rely

on different mixes of energy resources

(reflecting their diverse resource endowments) to generate power and meet

other energy needs. For example, the

Pacific Northwest and Tennessee Valley

have abundant hydropower resources,

while the Midwest relies heavily on coal

for power generation and industrial

energy needs. 

Resources

The vast fossil fuel resources of the

United States have contributed to low

prices and specialization in relatively

energy-intensive activities. Coal, which

has the highest emissions of greenhouse

gases per unit of energy, is particularly

abundant, with current domestic recoverable reserves estimated at nearly 460

billion metric tons (about 503 billion

short tons)—enough to last for over 460

years at current recovery rates. Recent

gains in mining productivity, coupled

with increased use of less-expensive

western coal made possible by railroad

deregulation, have led to a continual

decline in coal prices over the past two

decades. As a result, the low cost of coal

on a Btu basis has made it the preferred

fuel for power generation, supplying

over half of the energy consumed to

generate electricity. 

Proved domestic reserves of oil

(nearly 4 trillion liters or over 20 billion

barrels at the start of 2000) have been on

a downward trend ever since the addition of reserves under Alaska’s North

Slope in 1970. Restrictions on exploration in many promising but ecologically sensitive areas have constrained

additions to reserves. Reserves of natural

gas were nearly 5 trillion cubic meters

(nearly 170 trillion cubic feet) at the start

of 2000. The estimated natural gas

resources of nearly 37 trillion cubic

meters (nearly 1,300 trillion cubic feet)

are expected to last for more than 65

years at current rates of production. U.S.

energy resources also include over 120

million kg (about 270 million pounds) of

uranium oxide, recoverable at about $65

per kilogram ($30 per pound) or less (in

2000 current dollars). Hydroelectric

resources are abundant in certain areas of

the country, where they have already

largely been exploited. 
16 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

I

n May 2001, the Bush Administration published the National Energy Policy (NEP). This

long-term, comprehensive strategy was primarily designed to assist the private sector,

states, and local governments in promoting “dependable, affordable, and environmentally

sound production and distribution of energy for the future” (NEPD Group 2001). The NEP

seeks to promote new, environmentally friendly technologies to increase energy supplies

and to encourage cleaner, more efficient energy use. It also seeks to raise the living standards of Americans by fully integrating national energy, environmental, and economic policies. The following goals are the NEP’s guiding principles.

Modernize Conservation

This NEP goal seeks to increase energy efficiency by applying new technology, which is

expected to raise productivity, reduce waste, and trim costs. Some of the recommendations include: increased funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency research and

development programs; income tax credits for the purchase of hybrid and fuel cell vehicles; extension of the ENERGY STAR® efficiency program; and tax incentives and streamlined

permitting to promote clean combined heat and power (CHP) technology.

Modernize Energy Infrastructure

This NEP goal seeks to modernize and expand the national energy infrastructure such that

energy supplies can be safely, reliably, and affordably transported to homes and businesses. Some of the recommendations include: improving pipeline safety and expediting

pipeline permitting; expanding research and development on transmission reliability and

superconductivity; and enacting comprehensive electricity legislation that promotes competition, encourages new generation, protects consumers, enhances reliability, and promotes renewable energy. 

Increase Energy Supplies

This NEP goal seeks to increase and diversify the nation’s traditional and alternative fuel

sources so as to provide “families and businesses with reliable and affordable energy, to

enhance national security, and to improve the environment.” Some of the recommendations include: environmentally regulated exploration and production of oil using leadingedge technology in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); regulated increase in oil

and natural gas development on other federal lands; fiscal incentives for selected renewable power generation technologies; and streamlining the relicensing of hydropower and

nuclear facilities. 

Accelerate Protection and Improvement of the Environment

This NEP goal seeks to integrate long-term national energy policy with national environmental goals. Some of the recommendations include multi-pollutant legislation to establish

a flexible, market-based program to significantly reduce and cap emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury from electric power generators; land conservation

efforts; and new guidelines to reduce truck-idling emissions at truck stops. 

Increase Energy Security

This NEP goal seeks to lessen the impact of energy price volatility and supply uncertainty

on the American people. Some of the recommendations include increasing funding for the

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program; preparing the Federal Emergency

Management Administration for managing energy-related emergencies; and streamlining

and expediting permitting procedures to expand and accelerate cross-border energy

investment, oil and gas pipelines, and electricity grid connections with Mexico and

Canada.

National Energy Policy Goals Production

Coal, natural gas, and crude oil constitute the bulk of U.S. domestic energy

production. In 1960, these fossil fuels

accounted for nearly 95 percent of production. By 2000 their contribution had

fallen to about 80 percent, with the

nuclear electric power displacing some

of the fossil fuel production (Figure 2-6).

Further displacement will most likely be

limited, however, due to uncertainties

related to deregulation of the electric

industry, difficulty in siting new nuclear

facilities, and management of commercial spent fuel. Renewable resources contribute a small but growing share. 

Crude Oil

Before 1970, the United States

imported only a small amount of energy,

primarily in the form of petroleum.

Beginning in the early 1970s, however,

lower acquisition costs for imported

crude oil and rising costs of domestic

production put domestic U.S. oil producers at a comparative disadvantage,

leading to a divergence in trends of

energy production and consumption. In

2000, the United States produced over

70 quadrillion Btus of energy and

exported 4 quadrillion Btus, over 35 

percent of which was coal. Consumption

totaled nearly 100 quadrillion Btus,

requiring imports of nearly 30 quadrillion Btus. Domestic crude oil production

is projected to remain relatively stable

through 2003 as a result of a favorable

price environment and increased success

of offshore drilling. A decline in production is projected from 2004 through

2010, followed by another period of

projected stable production levels

through 2020 as a result of rising prices

and continuing improvements in technology. In 2020, the projected domestic

production level of slightly over 5 million barrels per day would be almost one

million barrels per day less than the 1999

level. In 2000, net imports of petroleum

accounted for over 60 percent of domestic petroleum consumption. Continued

dependence on petroleum imports is

projected, reaching about 65 percent in

2020. 
National Circumstances ■ 17

Europe, and Asia was primarily attributed to competition from lower-priced

coal from Australia, South Africa,

Columbia, and Venezuela. Coal exports

are projected to remain relatively stable, settling at slightly more than 50

million metric tons by 2020. 

Natural Gas

Regulatory and legislative changes in

the mid-1980s led to market pricing of

natural gas. These changes heightened

demand and boosted natural gas production, reversing the decline it had experienced in the 1970s and early 1980s. This

increased production is projected to

continue and even accelerate in the early

decades of the 21st century. Nonetheless, growth in consumption is expected

to outstrip that of production, leading 

to an increase in net imports, from 

the 1999 level of more than 85 billion

cubic meters (3 trillion cubic feet) to 

a projected level of nearly 170 

billion cubic meters (6 trillion cubic feet)

in 2020. 

Renewable Energy

Renewable sources currently constitute about 9 percent of U.S. energy

production, and hydropower contributes 4 percent. Projected growth in

renewable electricity generation is

expected from biomass (currently at

nearly 5 percent) and from solar, wind,

and geothermal energy (currently at

less than 1 percent). The largest

increase in renewable electricity generation is projected for biomass, from

more than 35 billion kilowatt hours in

1999 to over 65 billion in 2020. 

Electricity Market Restructuring 

The U.S. electric power generation

industry is evolving from a regulated to

a competitive industry. In many jurisdictions, wholesale markets have

already become competitive, while

retail markets have been slow to follow.

Where power generation was once

dominated by vertically integrated

investor-owned utilities (IOUs) that

owned most of the generation capacity,

transmission, and distribution facilities,

the electric power industry now has

Coal

Coal is the largest source of domestically produced energy. As the only fossil

fuel for which domestic production

exceeds consumption, coal assumed a

particularly important role in the wake

of the oil shocks in the 1970s. Between

1991 and 2000, U.S coal production

increased by about 8 percent. However,

more recently (between 1998 and 2000),

coal production has declined by nearly 4

percent from slightly over one billion

metric tons in 1998. This decline was

primarily attributed to a large drop in

coal exports and a smaller than usual

growth in coal consumption for power

generation. 

From 1996 to 2000, U.S. coal

exports have declined by about 35 

percent. In particular, they declined

sharply between 1998 and 2000, from

over 70 million metric tons (over 77

million short tons) to nearly 55 million

metric tons (nearly 61 million short

tons). U.S. coal exports declined in

almost every major world region. The

decline in coal exports to Canada,

many new companies that generate and

trade electricity. Although vertically

integrated IOUs still produce most of

the country’s electrical power today,

this situation is rapidly changing. 

Competition in wholesale power

sales received a boost from the Energy

Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), which

expanded the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) authority

to order vertically integrated IOUs to

allow nonutility power producers

access to the transmission grid to sell

power. In 1996, the FERC issued its

Orders 888 and 889, which established

a regime for nondiscriminatory access

by all wholesale buyers and sellers to

transmission facilities. More recently, in

December 1999, FERC issued Order

2000, calling for the creation of

regional transmission organizations

(RTOs)—independent entities that will

control and operate the transmission

grid free of any discriminatory practices. Electric utilities were required to

submit proposals to form RTOs by 

January 2001. 

In addition to wholesale competition, for the first time in the history of

the industry, retail customers in some

states have been given a choice of electricity suppliers. As of July 1, 2000, 24

states and the District of Columbia had

passed laws or regulatory orders to

implement retail competition, and more

are expected to follow. The introduction of wholesale and retail competition

to the electric power industry has produced and will continue to produce significant changes in the industry.

In 2000, coal-fired power plants

generated more than 50 percent of electricity produced in the United States,

followed by nuclear power (nearly 20

percent), natural gas (a little over 15

percent), conventional hydropower

(nearly 10 percent), petroleum (3 percent), and other fuels and renewables (2

percent). Over the past few years, and in

near-term projections, natural gas has

been the fuel of choice for new electricitygenerating capacity. The restructuring 

of the electric power industry may 

accelerate this trend, due to the fact that

natural gas generation is less capitalFIGURE 2-6 U.S. Domestic Energy 

Production: 1970–2000

Coal is the largest source of domestic energy,

followed by natural gas and oil. Since 1970,

the production of coal, nuclear, and renewables has risen to offset the decline in oil and

natural gas production. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Coal 32%

Natural Gas 31%

Oil 17%

Nuclear 11%

Hydroelectric 4%

Other Renewables 1%

Biomass 5%

Quadrillion Btus

Notes: Fuel share estimates correspond to

2000 data. Shares may not sum to 100

percent due to rounding

Source: U.S. DOE/EIA 2000a.
18 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

S

everal titles of the U.S. Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1992 continue to be

extremely important to the overall U.S. strategy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Important provisions of this Act were reauthorized in the Energy Conservation

Reauthorization Act of 1998. Relevant titles of the original Act are summarized below.

Title I—Energy Efficiency

This title establishes energy efficiency standards, promotes electric utility energy management programs and dissemination of energy-saving information, and provides incentives to

state and local authorities to promote energy efficiency. 

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

These titles provide monetary incentives, establish federal requirements, and support the

research, design, and development of fuels and vehicles that can reduce oil use and, in

some cases, carbon emissions as well. 

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

Environment, and Energy and Economic Growth

These titles promote increased research, development, production, and use of renewable

energy sources and more energy-efficient technologies.

Title XVI—Global Climate Change

This title provides for the collection, analysis, and reporting of information pertaining to

global climate change, including a voluntary reporting program to recognize electric utility

and industry efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Title XXIV—Hydroelectric Facilities

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

Title XXVIII—Nuclear Plant Licensing 

This title streamlines licensing for nuclear plants. 

The U.S. Energy Policy and Conservation Act

intensive than other technologies, and

the cost of capital to the industry is

expected to increase.

Consumption 

On the consumption side, rapid economic and population growth, combined with the increasing energy

demands of the transportation and

buildings sectors, resulted in an 80 percent increase in energy demand from

1960 to 1979. Most of the increased

demand was met by oil imports and by

increased consumption of coal and natural gas. Total energy demand dampened during and after the international

oil price shocks in 1973–74 and

1979–80, and overall energy consumption actually fell through the early

1980s. Energy consumption resumed its

upward trend in the latter half of the

1980s, in response to declining oil and

gas prices and renewed economic

growth. 

Another lingering effect of the oil

price shocks was a shift in consumption

away from oil. Power generation shifted

toward natural gas, coal, and nuclear

power, and space heating became more

dependent on natural gas and electricity. Most of the shift away from oil to

natural gas, however, occurred after the

second oil price shock. 

From 1949 to 2000, while the U.S.

population expanded by nearly 90 percent, the amount of electricity sold by

utilities grew by over 1,200 percent.

Average per capita consumption of electricity in 2000 was seven times as high

as in 1949. The growth in the economy,

population, and distances traveled has

contributed to increased U.S energy

consumption. However, by 2000,

energy use per dollar of GDP (or

energy intensity) had decreased by

nearly 45 percent from its peak in 

1970. Most of these energy intensity

improvements are due to an increase in

the less energy-intensive industries and

a decrease in the more energy-intensive

industries. The household and the

transportation sectors also experienced

significant gains in efficiency. Today

U.S. energy intensity is just slightly

above OECD’s average energy intensity

(at 0.43 kg of oil equivalent per dollar

of GDP, versus 0.41 kg for the OECD).

SECTORAL ACTIVITIES 

In 2000, end users consumed about

75 quadrillion Btus (quads) of energy

directly, including over 10 quads of electricity. In addition, about 25 quads of

energy were used in the generation,

transmission, and distribution of electricity. Industry and transportation consumed three-quarters of this direct

energy, while the residential and commercial sectors used one-quarter. 

However, because most electricity is

delivered to residential and commercial

users, total primary energy consumption

of nearly 100 quads is distributed fairly

evenly among final users (Figure 2-7).

The remainder of this section discusses energy use by and emissions

from industry, residential and commercial buildings, transportation, and the

U.S. government, as well as waste.

Agricultural and forest practices are

addressed elsewhere in this chapter. 

Industry 

Comprised of manufacturing, construction, agriculture, and mining, the

industrial sector accounted for more

than 35 percent of total U.S. energy use

in 2000 and slightly over 30 percent of

total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Industry’s energy consumption rose

steadily until the early 1970s, and then

dropped markedly, particularly in the

early 1980s, following the second oil

shock. Since the late 1980s, industrial

energy consumption has resumed a gradual upward trend. 

Similarly, from 1978 to 1999, industrial energy intensity (energy consumed

by the individual sector per unit of
National Circumstances ■ 19

Figure 2-7 Energy Consumption by 

Sector: 1970–2000

0

20

40

60

80

100

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Buildings 36%

Industrial 38%

Transportation 26%

Quadrillion Btus

Notes: Sectoral share estimates correspond

to 2000 data. Shares may not sum to

100 percent due to rounding.

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

Energy consumption is divided fairly evenly

among the three sectors, with industrial

being the largest and the buildings sector

close behind. The rate of growth in energy

consumption since 1970 has been highest in

the buildings and transportation sectors.

industrial output) fell by about 25 percent. Approximately two-thirds of this

decline is attributable to structural shifts,

such as the changing array of products

that industry produced during the

period, while roughly one-third is attributable to efficiency improvements. 

Over 80 percent of the energy consumed in the industrial sector is used for

manufacturing (including feedstocks),

with the remainder of the energy consumed by mining, construction, agriculture, fisheries, and forestry. In 1998, 

fuel consumption for manufacturing

amounted to nearly 25 quadrillion Btus,

an increase of nearly 10 percent since

1994. Of this, four subsectors accounted

for nearly 80 percent of the total manufacturing fuel consumption: chemicals

and allied products (25 percent), petroleum and coal products (over 30 percent), paper and allied products (over 10

percent), and primary metal industries

(over 10 percent). Natural gas was the

most commonly consumed energy

source in manufacturing. 

Natural gas and electricity together

comprised nearly 45 percent of all

energy sources (in terms of Btus). Over

the past two decades energy intensity in

the manufacturing sector has declined,

although the rate of decline has slowed

since energy prices fell in 1985. Of the

20 major energy-consuming industry

groups in the manufacturing sector, most

continued to reduce their energy intensity between 1985 and 1994. 

Residential and 

Commercial Buildings 

The number, size, and geographic

distribution of residential and commercial buildings, as well as the market penetration of heating and cooling

technologies and major appliances, all

combine to influence the energy consumption and greenhouse gases associated with residential and commercial

activities. 

Residential and commercial buildings

together account for roughly 35 percent

of the U.S. carbon emissions associated

with energy consumption. Commercial

buildings—which encompass all nonresidential, privately owned, and public

buildings—account for slightly over 15

percent of U.S. carbon emissions. Total

energy use in the buildings sector has

been increasing gradually, rising from

more than 20 quadrillion Btus in 1970 to

nearly 35 quadrillion Btus in 1998. The

sector’s share of total energy consumption relative to other end-use sectors 

has remained roughly stable over this

period. 

In 1997 the United States had more

than 100 million households, approximately half of which lived in detached,

single-family dwellings. Demographic

changes have led to a steep decline in

the average number of people per residence—from 3.3 in 1960 to 2.6 in

1990—and the sizes of houses have also

increased. Since then, that number has

remained fairly stable through 1996.

The average heated space per person

had increased to nearly 65 square meters

(nearly 680 square feet) in 1990, compared to nearly 60 square meters (nearly

630 square feet) in 1980. 

In addition, major energy-consuming

appliances and equipment came into

widespread use during this period. By

1990, essentially all U.S. households had

space and water heating, refrigeration

and cooking appliances, and color television sets. In 1997, over 70 percent of the

households had some form of air conditioning, over 75 percent had clothes

washers, over 70 percent had clothes

dryers, and about 50 percent had dishwashers (Figure 2-8). 

New products have continued to penetrate the market. For example, in 1978,

only 8 percent of U.S. households had a

microwave oven; by 1997, nearly 85 percent had a microwave oven. Similarly,

household survey data on personal computers were first collected in 1990, when

slightly over 15 percent of households

owned one or more PCs. By 1997 that

share had more than doubled to 35 percent.

Despite this growth in appliances,

products, and per capita heating and

cooling space, large gains in the energy

efficiency of appliances and building

shells (e.g., through better insulation)

have resulted in a modest decline in residential energy use per person and only

modest increases in total U.S. energy

demand in the residential sector. The

increased use of nontraditional electrical

appliances, such as computers and cordless (rechargeable) tools, is expected to

drive a gradual (one half of 1 percent per

year) rise in per-household residential

energy consumption between 1990 and

2015.

The type of fuel used to heat U.S.

homes has changed significantly over

time. More than one-third of all U.S.

housing units were warmed by coal in

1950, but by 1997 that share fell to less

than one-half of 1 percent. During the

same period, distillate fuel oil lost just

over half of its share of the home-heating

market, falling to 10 percent. Natural gas

and electricity gained as home-heating

sources. The share of natural gas rose

from about a quarter of all homes in 1950

to over half in 1997, while electricity’s

share shot up from less than 1 percent in

1950 to nearly 30 percent in 1997. 

In recent years, electricity and natural

gas have been the most common sources
20 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

of energy used by commercial buildings

as well. Commercial buildings house the

rapidly growing financial and services

sectors. Accordingly, their number and

their total square footage have increased

steadily. Over 85 percent of all commercial buildings are heated, and more than

75 percent are cooled. In addition, the

past decade has seen a major increase in

the use of computers and other energyconsuming office equipment, such as

high-resolution printers, copiers, and

scanners. 

Rapid growth in the financial and

services sectors has substantially

increased the energy services required

by commercial buildings. However, as in

the residential sector, substantial efficiency gains have reduced the net

increases in energy demand and carbon

emissions. The widespread introduction

of efficient lighting and more efficient

office equipment, such as ENERGY STAR®

labeled products, should help to continue this trend. The entry into the market of energy service companies, which

contract with firms or government agencies to improve building energy efficiency and are paid out of the stream of

energy savings, has aided the trend

toward greater energy efficiency in the

commercial buildings sector. 

Transportation 

Reflecting the nation’s low population density, the U.S. transportation

sector has evolved into a multimodal

system that includes waterborne, highway, mass transit, air, rail, and pipeline

transport, capable of moving large volumes of people and freight long distances. Automobiles and light trucks

dominate the passenger transportation

system. In 1997, the highway share of

passenger miles traveled was nearly 90

percent, while air travel accounted for

10 percent. In contrast, transit and rail

travel’s combined share was only 1 percent (Figure 2-9).

35% have personal computers

100% have at least one refrigerator

15% have two or more

33% have separate freezers

61% have ceiling fans

100% have water heaters

52% natural gas

40% electricity

72% have air conditioning

47% have central air

25% have window units

77% have clothes washer

71% have clothes dryer

99% have a television

99% have stoves

83% have microwave ovens

50% have dishwashers

19% use dishwashers daily

99% have central heating

51% natural gas

29% electricity

10% fuel oil

5% liquefied gas

FIGURE 2-8 Energy Characteristics of U.S. Households

In 1997, household energy consumption was 10.25 quadrillion Btus. The primary energy source was natural gas, followed by electricity and oil.

The graphic below depicts the percentage of households with a variety of energy-consuming appliances.

Source: U.S. DOE/EIA 2000a.
National Circumstances ■ 21

FIGURE 2-9 U.S. Transportation: Characteristics and Trends

The U.S. transportation system relies heavily on private vehicles. Although fuel efficiency in automobiles has been rising steadily, there has also

been a trend toward larger vehicles, such as light trucks and sport utility vehicles. Coupled with an increase in vehicle miles traveled, overall

energy consumption has been increasing. Air travel has also experienced impressive growth, and the performance of freight modes has not offset these increases in consumption.

Passenger Miles Traveled: 1998

Of the nearly 5 trillion passenger miles traveled in 1998, passenger

cars accounted for the single largest mode of transportation.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1980

1985

1990

1995

1999

Fuel Efficiency

(miles per gallon)

Vehicle Miles Traveled

(millions of miles)

Fuel Consumption

(millions of gallons)

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

19781980

19851990

1995

2000

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Gasoline Price 

(dollars per gallon)

Fuel Consumption

(millions of barrels per day)

Air Transport (Billions of Miles)

Air transport has been rising over the past decade: revenue aircraft

miles and available seat miles have been increasing at average

annual rates of nearly 4 and 3 percent, respectively.

1987

1990

1995

2000

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

0

2

4

6

8

10

Available Seat Miles

Revenue Aircraft Miles

Available Seat Miles

Revenue Aircraft Miles

Passenger Car Use Index: 1980 = 1

Generally, although fuel efficiency has been improving as a result of

CAFE standards, fuel consumption continues to rise due to increased

U.S. vehicle miles traveled.

Energy Use by Transportation Mode: 1998

In 1998 the transportation sector consumed nearly 26 quadrillion Btus.

Highway vehicles accounted for about 80 percent of this consumption.

Gasoline Prices and Fuel Use Index: 1978 = 1

As real gasoline prices declined in the early 1990s, fuel consumption

on our nation’s highways increased. 

Efficiency of Freight Modes

The fuel efficiency of U.S. freight transportation is steadily improving.

Most notably, the energy intensity of railroads decreased by nearly 

45 percent during 1970–98.

Year Trucks Class I Freight Domestic Waterborne

(mpg) Railroads Commerce

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

1970 5.5 645 4,820 

1980 5.4 590 3,680 

1990 6.0 420 3,370 

1995 6.2 370 3,580 

1996 6.2 365 3,580 

1997 6.4 370 3,770

1998 6.1 360 3,660

Cars & light-duty 

vehicles 63%

Heavy-duty 

trucks & buses

18%

Air 8%

Water 5% Transit 1%

Pipeline 3% Rail 2%

Passenger Cars 52%

Motorcycles <0.5%

Other 2-axle, 

4-tire vehicles 30%

Buses 3%

Trucks 4%

Air 10%

Rail <0.5%

Transit 1%*

Other Transport

Highway Transport

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. DOE/EIA 2000a, U.S. DOT/BTS 2000a and 2000b, U.S. DOT/FAA 1998.
22 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Because of the dominance of motor

vehicles in the U.S. transportation system, motor vehicle ownership rates,

use, and efficiency drive energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions

in the transportation sector. Between

1960 and 1998, the number of cars and

trucks registered in the United States

almost tripled, from nearly 75 million to

more than 210 million. Overall, the

transportation sector consumed slightly

over 25 quadrillion Btus in 1998,

accounting for approximately one-third

of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Rising incomes, population growth, and

settlement patterns were the primary

factors in this trend.

Both the number of vehicles on the

road and the average distance they are

driven have increased. In 1999, on average, passenger cars were driven over

19,000 kilometers (nearly 12,000 miles)

per year, compared to approximately

16,000 kilometers (about 10,000 miles)

in 1970. The distance traveled per car

has increased steadily over the last two

decades, interrupted only by the oil

shocks in 1974 and 1979. Total U.S.

vehicle miles traveled have increased by

nearly 140 percent since 1970. 

These increases have been significantly offset by enhanced efficiency.

This can be attributed to a combination

of factors, including the implementation

of Corporate Average Fuel Economy

(CAFE) standards for new cars, and

improved average fuel consumption per

kilometer—from a low of 18 liters per

100 kilometers (slightly over 13 miles

per gallon) for the on-road passenger car

fleet in 1973, to 11 liters per 100 kilometers (slightly over 21 miles per gallon)

in 1999. Between 1998 and 1999, the

fuel efficiency of passenger cars declined

by about 1 percent, halting the growth

trend in improvement of energy efficiency. 

The fuel economy of light trucks and

sport utility vehicles has also improved,

although the increased share of light

trucks in the total light-duty-vehicle

fleet has diminished these overall gains.

Thus, as in other sectors, efficiency

improvements moderated the increase in

motor fuel consumption (including air,

water, pipeline, and rail) in the transportation sector from nearly 8 million

barrels per day in 1970 to about 12 million barrels per day in 1999. 

The causes for the rapid rise in vehicle miles traveled are numerous,

although their relative importance is

unclear. In 1997, there was slightly

over one vehicle per licensed driver—

an increase of about 25 percent over

1970. This increase in ownership translates into a decrease in the use of carpools and public transportation, and an

accompanying increase in personal

vehicle use. Increased vehicle ownership and use are related to a host of factors, including changing patterns of

land use, such as location of work and

shopping centers; the changing composition of the work force, such as the

growing number of women in the work

force; and the reduced marginal costs

of driving.

U.S. freight transportation, measured in ton-miles, grew at an average of

2 percent annually from 1970 to 1997,

when it reached nearly three trillion

ton-miles. In 1997, the predominant

mode of freight transportation was

trucks, followed closely by rail, then

waterways, pipelines, and air.

• Heavy trucks account for most of the

freight sector’s energy use. From

1970 to 1997, their energy consumption more than doubled. While their

fuel efficiency increased slightly,

U.S. ton-miles of freight transported

on intercity trucks nearly tripled

between 1970 and 1997.

• Between 1970 and 1997, the number

of railroad cars in use declined.

However, they carried more freight

for greater distances, resulting in

nearly a 1 percent reduction in total

fuel consumed for rail freight service

since 1970, and nearly a 50 percent

improvement in energy consumed

(in terms of Btus) per freight 

ton-mile. 

• Ton-miles shipped by air increased

rapidly—by over 6 percent a year

from 1970 to 1997. 

• Water-transport and oil-pipeline

shipments grew steadily over that

same period.

Government

The U.S. government is the nation’s

single largest energy consumer. It uses

energy in government buildings and

operations widely dispersed across the

entire nation and every climate zone,

providing services to the U.S. population. Based on reports submitted to the

Department of Energy by 28 federal

agencies, the U.S. government consumed slightly over one quad of

energy during fiscal year 1999 (about 1

percent of U.S. energy consumption),

when measured in terms of energy

actually delivered to the point of use.

This total net energy consumption

represented a 30 percent decrease from

1990. Based on these figures, the federal government was responsible for

nearly 25 million metric tons of carbon

emissions in 1999—a reduction of

nearly 9 million metric tons, or over 25

percent, from 1990. The largest contribution to this reduction was from vehicle and equipment end-uses, which

reduced their carbon emissions by

nearly 35 percent. 

The Department of Defense is the

federal government’s largest energy

consumer, accounting for just over 80

percent of total federal energy use.

The Postal Service is the second

largest consumer of federal energy, and

accounted for nearly 4 percent of total

federal energy use. Overall in 1999,

energy consumption by vehicles and

equipment accounted for 60 percent of

the total, buildings for 34 percent, and

energy-intensive operations for 7 percent. In terms of energy use by fuel

type, jet fuel accounted for nearly 55

percent; fuel oil, nearly 20 percent;

electricity, more than 10 percent; natural gas, 10 percent; and other fuels, 

6 percent. 

Waste

In 1999, the United States generated

approximately 230 million tons of

municipal solid waste (MSW). Paper

and paperboard products made up the

largest component of MSW generated

by weight (nearly 40 percent), and yard

trimmings comprised the second largest

material component (more than 10 
National Circumstances ■ 23

percent). Glass, metals, plastics, wood,

and food each constituted between 5

and over 10 percent of the total MSW

generated. Rubber, leather, and textiles

combined made up about 7 percent of

the MSW, while other miscellaneous

wastes made up approximately 2 percent of the MSW generated in 1999. 

Waste management practices include source reduction, recycling, and

disposal (including waste combustion

and landfilling). Management patterns

changed dramatically in the late 1990s

in response to changes in economic and

regulatory conditions. The most significant change from a greenhouse gas

perspective was the increase in the

national average recycling rate, which

rose from over 15 percent in 1990 to

nearly 30 percent in 1999 (nearly 65

million tons). Of the remaining MSW

generated, about 15 percent is combusted and nearly 60 percent is disposed of at landfills. The number of

operating MSW landfills has decreased

substantially over the last decade, from

about 8,000 in 1988 to under 2,000 in

1999, while the average landfill size has

increased. 

Overall, waste management and

treatment activities accounted for about

260 teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalent (Tg CO2 Eq.), or nearly 4 percent

of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions

in 1999. Of this, landfill emissions were

over 210 Tg CO2 Eq. Waste combustion, human sewage, and wastewater

treatment constituted the rest of the

emissions.

AGRICULTURE

Despite their decreased acreage,

U.S. grazing lands are sustaining more

animals, and agricultural lands are feeding more people. Enlightened land

management policies and improved

technologies are major contributors to

their enhanced productivity.

Grazing Land

U.S. grazing lands—both grassland

pasture and range and cropland used for

pasture—are environmentally important. They include major recreational

and scenic areas, serve as a principal

source of wildlife habitat, and comprise

a large area of the nation’s watersheds.

These ecosystems, like forest ecosystems, are vulnerable to rapid changes in

climate, particularly shifts in temperature and moisture regimes. However,

range ecosystems tend to be more

resilient than forest ecosystems because

of their ability to survive long-term

droughts. 

Grassland pasture and range ecosystems can include a variety of different

flora and fauna communities, usually

denoted by the dominant vegetation.

They are generally managed by varying

grazing pressure, by using fire to shift

species abundance, and by occasionally

disturbing the soil surface to improve

water infiltration. 

In contrast, cropland used for pasture

is a grazing ecosystem that relies on

more intensive management inputs, such

as fertilizer, chemical pest management,

and introduced or domesticated species.

U.S. cropland used for pasture includes

native grasslands, savannas, alpine meadows, tundra, many wetlands, some

deserts, and areas seeded by introduced

and genetically improved species. 

Grassland pasture and range

accounted for nearly 240 million

hectares (580 million acres), or over 

25 percent of major land uses in 1997

(see Figure 2-2). However, the area of

grassland pasture and range has

declined since 1945, when it was nearly

270 million hectares (nearly 660 million

acres). One reason for this decline is

that farmers have improved the productivity of grazing lands. A second reason

is that some of these land areas were

also converted to cropland, rural residential, suburban, and urban land uses,

as demand for grazing lands declined in

recent years due to the decrease in the

number of domestic animals—particularly sheep and draft animals—raised on

grazing lands. 

Agricultural Land 

The United States enjoys a natural

abundance of productive agricultural

lands and a favorable climate for producing food crops, feed grains, and

other agricultural commodities, such as

oil seed crops. The area of the U.S.

cropland used for crop production

declined by 10 percent during the 

16-year period between 1981 and 1997,

from nearly 160 million hectares (nearly

390 million acres) to about 140 million

hectares (nearly 350 million acres).

During this same period, conservation

programs for the most environmentally

sensitive and highly erodible lands have

removed nearly 15 million hectares 

I

nitially in response to the energy crises of the 1970s, and later because it just made good

financial sense, federal agencies have been steadily pursuing energy and cost savings in

their buildings and operations. Under the Federal Energy Management Program, federal

agencies have invested several billion dollars in energy efficiency over the past 20 years

and have substantially reduced their energy consumption. In federal buildings, the primary

focus of the program, 1999 energy consumption was down nearly 30 percent from 1985 levels and nearly 25 percent from 1990 levels. Within the same sector, carbon emissions have

decreased by nearly 20 percent since 1990. This has been partly due to a 10 percent reduction in gross square footage since 1990 and about an 8 percent reduction in primary energy

intensity (in terms of Btus per gross square footage). 

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 and Executive Order 13123 further challenge federal energy

managers to reduce energy use in federal buildings by 35 percent by 2010 from 1985 levels.

With declining federal resources available, the Federal Energy Management Program is

emphasizing the use of private-sector investment through energy-saving performance contracting and utility financing of energy efficiency to meet these goals. The combination of

federal funding and the anticipated private-sector funding of about $4 billion through 2005

should make these goals attainable. In addition, agencies are making cost-effective investments in renewable-energy and water-conservation projects, and further savings are being

pursued through an energy-efficient procurement initiative.

Energy Savings in Federal Agencies
24 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

(35 million acres) from cropping systems. 

Although the United States harvests

about the same area as it did in 1910, it

feeds a population that has grown two

and one-half times since then, and its

food exports have also expanded considerably. Agricultural productivity

increases are due primarily to technological change in the food and agricultural sectors. In the absence of these

improvements in productivity, substantially more land would need to be cultivated to achieve today’s level of

productivity.

The increase in no-till, low-till, and

other erosion control practices reduced

erosion on cropland and grazing land by

40 percent between 1982 and 1997.

These practices also have helped to conserve carbon associated with those soils,

protect soil productivity, and reduce

other environmental impacts, such as

pesticide and nutrient loadings in water

bodies. 

Although the number of cattle and

sheep has been declining, greenhouse

gas emissions from agricultural activities

have been steadily rising, largely due to

growth in emissions of nitrous oxides

from agricultural soil management and

methane emissions from manure management. 

Forests 

U.S. forests vary from the complex

juniper forests of the arid interior West

to the highly productive forests of the

Pacific Coast and the Southeast. In 1997,

forests covered about one-third (about

300 million hectares, or nearly 750 million acres) of the total U.S. land area.

This includes both the forest-use lands

and a portion of the special-use lands

listed in Table 2-1 and Figure 2-2. 

Excluding Alaska, U.S. forestland

covers about 250 million hectares (620

million acres). Of this, nearly 200 million hectares are timberland, most of

which is privately owned. However,

much of the forested land is dedicated to

special uses (i.e., parks, wilderness areas,

and wildlife areas), which prohibits using

the land for such activities as timber production. These areas increased from

about 9 million hectares (over 20 million

acres) in 1945 to nearly 45 million

hectares (about 100 million acres) in

1997. As a result, land defined as “forestuse land” declined consistently from the

1960s to 1997, while land defined as

“special uses” increased.

Management inputs over the past

several decades have been gradually

increasing the production of marketable

wood in U.S. forests. The United States

currently grows more wood than it harvests, with a growth-to-harvest ratio of

nearly 1.5. This ratio reflects substantial

new forest growth; however, old-growth

forests have continued to decline over

the same period.

OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES

Climate change significantly affects

other U.S. natural resources, including

wetlands, wildlife, and water.

Wetlands 

Wetland ecosystems are some of the

more biologically important and ecologically significant systems on the planet.

Because they represent a boundary condition (“ecotone”) between land and

aquatic ecosystems, wetlands have many

functions. They provide habitats for

many types of organisms, both plant and

animal; serve as diverse ecological niches

that promote preservation of biodiversity; are the source of economic products

for food, clothing, and recreation; trap

sediment, assimilate pollution, and

recharge ground water; regulate water

flow to protect against storms and flooding; and anchor shorelines and prevent

erosion. The United States has a broad

variety of wetland types, ranging from

permafrost-underlain wetlands in Alaska

to tropical rainforests in Hawaii. 

Wetland ecosystems are highly

dependent upon upland ecosystems.

I

n September 2001, the U.S. Department of Agriculture presented its long-term view of the

nation’s agriculture and food system and a framework to foster strategic thinking and

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

Sustain past environmental gains. Improvements in losses from soil erosion and wetlands

benefit farmers and all Americans. These and other gains resulting from existing conservation programs should be maintained.

Accommodate new and emerging environmental concerns. Conservation policy should

adapt to emerging environmental and community needs and incorporate the latest science.

These new and emerging issues include the need for sources of renewable energy and the

potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Design and adopt a portfolio approach to conservation policies. Targeted technical assistance, incentives for improved practices on working farms and forest lands, compensation

for environmental achievements, and limited dedication of farmland and private forest lands

to environmental use will provide a coordinated and flexible portfolio approach to agri-environmental goals.

Reaffirm market-oriented policies. Competition in the supply of environmental goods and

services and targeted incentives ensure the maximum environmental benefits for each public dollar spent. 

Ensure compatibility of conservation, farm, and trade policies. Producer compensation for

conservation practices and environmental achievements should be consistent with “green

box” criteria under World Trade Organization obligations. 

Recognize the importance of collaboration. Nonfederal government agencies as well as

private for-profit and not-for-profit organizations are playing an ever-increasing role in the

delivery of technical assistance and in incentive programs for conservation. 

Source: USDA 2001.

Principles for Conservation
National Circumstances ■ 25

Therefore, they are vulnerable to changes

in the health of upland ecosystems as well

as to environmental change brought

about by shifts in climate regimes. Wetlands, including riparian zones along

waterways and areas of perennial wet soils

or standing water, are both sources of and

sinks for greenhouse gases. 

Since the nation’s settlement in the

18th century, the continental United

States has lost about 40–45 million

hectares (about 100–110 million acres)

of approximately 90 million hectares

(over 220 million acres) of its original

wetlands. Most wetland conversion in

the 19th century was originally for agricultural purposes, although converted

land subsequently was often used for

urban development. A significant additional share of wetlands was lost as a

result of federal flood control and

drainage projects. 

The pace of wetland loss has slowed

considerably in the past two decades.

For example, while net wetland losses

from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s

averaged 185,400 hectares (458,000

acres) a year, they fell to about 117,400

hectares (290,000 acres) a year from the

mid-1970s to mid-1980s. Between 1982

and 1992, the net average rate of wetland conversion further dropped to

about 32,000 hectares (80,000 acres) a

year. During 1992–97, net wetland

losses fell even further to roughly 13,000

hectares (32,600 acres) a year. Urban

development accounted for nearly half

of these losses, while agricultural conversion accounted for about one-quarter. 

The reduced rate of wetland loss

since the mid-1980s is attributable to a

number of factors. Both government

policies for protecting wetlands and low

crop prices have decreased conversions

of wetlands to agricultural uses. In addition, the majority of wetland restorations have occurred on agricultural land.

Government programs, such as the Wetland Reserve Program, which provides

funds and technical assistance to restore

formerly drained wetlands, have aided

such gains. Thus, agricultural land management has most likely contributed to

overall gains in wetland areas, as losses

to agricultural conversion are greatly

reduced and previously drained areas are

restored. Future losses are likely to be

even smaller, because the United States

has implemented a “no net loss” policy

for wetlands.

Alaska’s over 70 million hectares (175

million acres) of wetlands easily exceed

the 45–50 million hectares (over

110–125 million acres) of wetlands in

the continental United States. Many of

these areas are federally owned. Total

wetland losses in Alaska have been less

than 1 percent since the mid-1800s,

although in coastal areas, losses have

been higher.

Wildlife

During the past 20 years, the United

States has become more aware of the

reduction in the diversity of life at all levels, both nationwide and worldwide. To

better understand and catalog both previous and future changes, the United States

is conducting a comprehensive, nationwide survey of its wildlife and biodiversity, referred to as the National Biological

Survey. 

Information on endangered species is

already available through other sources.

As of November 2000, over 960 species

were listed as endangered, of which about

590 are plants and 370 are animals. In

addition, over 140 plant and nearly 130

animal species were listed as threatened,

for a total of nearly 1,240 threatened or

endangered species. The United States

continues to work to conserve species

diversity through programs and laws like

the Endangered Species Act.

Water

The development of water resources

has been key to the nation’s growth and

prosperity. Abundant and reliable water

systems have enabled urban and agricultural centers to flourish in arid and semiarid regions of the country. For instance,

between 1959 and 1997, irrigated agricultural land increased by nearly 70 percent,

from less than 15 million hectares (nearly

35 million acres) to over 20 million

hectares (55 million acres).

Currently, most of the nation’s freshwater demands are met by diversions from

streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs and

by withdrawals from ground-water

aquifers. Even though total withdrawals of

surface water more than doubled from

1950 to 1980, withdrawals remained at

about 20 percent of the renewable water

supply in 1980. However, some areas of

the country still experience intermittent

water shortages during droughts. 

There is increasing competition for

water in the arid western sections of the

country, not only to meet traditional

agricultural and hydropower needs, but

also for drinking water in growing

urban areas; for American Indian water

rights; and for industry, recreation, and

natural ecosystems. The flows of many

streams in the West are fully allocated

to current users, limiting opportunities

for expanded water use by major new

facilities. Several states have adopted a

market-based approach to water pricing

and allocation, thus offering the potential to alleviate projected shortfalls.

Also pertinent is the federal government’s insistence that certain minimumflow requirements be met to preserve

threatened and endangered species. 

These forces have contributed to a

decline in per capita water use in the last

two decades. After continual increases in

the nation’s total water withdrawals for

off-stream use from 1950 to 1980, withdrawals declined from 1980 to 1995. The

1995 estimate of average withdrawals,

which is over 400 million gallons a day, is

2 percent less than the 1990 estimate and

nearly 10 percent less than the 1980 estimate, which was the peak year of water

use. This decline in water withdrawals

occurred even though population

increased by over 15 percent from 1980

to 1995. 
Chapter 3 

Greenhouse

Gas Inventory 

C

entral to any study of climate change

is the development of an emissions

inventory that identifies and quantifies a country’s primary anthropogenic1

sources and sinks of greenhouse gases.

The Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–1999 (U.S. EPA

2001d) adheres to both (1) a comprehensive and detailed methodology for 

estimating sources and sinks of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and (2) a

common and consistent mechanism

that enables signatory countries 

to the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) to compare the relative

contribution of different emission

sources and greenhouse gases to climate

change. Moreover, systematically and

consistently estimating national and

1 In this context, the term “anthropogenic” refers to

greenhouse gas emissions and removals that are a

direct result of human activities or are the result of natural processes that have been affected by human activities (IPCC/UNEP/OECD/IEA 1997).
Greenhouse Gas Inventory ■ 27

international emissions is a prerequisite

for accounting for reductions and evaluating mitigation strategies.

In June 1992, the United States

signed, and later ratified in October, the

UNFCCC. The objective of the

UNFCCC is “to achieve ... stabilization

of greenhouse gas concentrations in the

atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”2 By

signing the Convention, Parties make

commitments “to develop, periodically

update, publish and make available...

national inventories of anthropogenic

emissions by sources and removals by

sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, using

comparable methodologies....”3 The

United States views the Inventory of U.S.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks as an

opportunity to fulfill this commitment.

This chapter summarizes information

on U.S. anthropogenic greenhouse gas

emission trends from 1990 through

1999. To ensure that the U.S. emissions

inventory is comparable to those of

other UNFCCC signatory countries, the

emission estimates were calculated using

methodologies consistent with those

recommended in the Revised 1996 IPCC

Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC/UNEP/OECD/IEA 1997). For

most source categories, the IPCC default

methodologies were expanded, resulting

in a more comprehensive and detailed

estimate of emissions.

Naturally occurring greenhouse

gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous

oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Several

classes of halogenated substances that

contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine

are also greenhouse gases, but they are,

for the most part, solely a product of

industrial activities. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are halocarbons that

contain chlorine, while halocarbons

that contain bromine are referred to as

bromofluorocarbons (i.e., halons).

Because CFCs, HCFCs, and halons are

stratospheric ozone-depleting substances, they are covered under the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the

Ozone Layer. The UNFCCC defers to

this earlier international treaty; consequently these gases are not included in

national greenhouse gas inventories.4

Some other fluorine-containing halogenated substances—hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs),

and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—do not

deplete stratospheric ozone but are

potent greenhouse gases. These latter

substances are addressed by the

UNFCCC and are accounted for in

national greenhouse gas inventories.

There are also several gases that 

do not have a direct global warming

effect but indirectly affect terrestrial

radiation absorption by influencing the

formation and destruction of tropospheric and stratospheric ozone. 

These gases include carbon monoxide

(CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and nonmethane volatile organic compounds

(NMVOCs).5 Aerosols, which are

extremely small particles or liquid

droplets, such as those produced by

sulfur dioxide (SO2) or elemental carbon emissions, can also affect the

absorptive characteristics of the atmosphere.

Although CO2, CH4, and N2O

occur naturally in the atmosphere,

their atmospheric concentrations have

been affected by human activities.

Since pre-industrial time (i.e., since

about 1750), concentrations of these

greenhouse gases have increased by 31,

151, and 17 percent, respectively

(IPCC 2001b). Because this build-up

has altered the chemical composition

of the Earth’s atmosphere, it has

affected the global climate system.

Beginning in the 1950s, the use of

CFCs and other stratospheric ozonedepleting substances (ODSs) increased

by nearly 10 percent per year until the

mid-1980s, when international concern

about ozone depletion led to the signing of the Montreal Protocol. Since then,

the production of ODSs is being

phased out. In recent years, use of ODS

substitutes, such as HFCs and PFCs, has

T

he global warming potential (GWP)-weighted emissions of all direct greenhouse gases

throughout this report are presented in terms of equivalent emissions of carbon dioxide

(CO2

), using units of teragrams of CO2 equivalents (Tg CO2 Eq.). Previous years’ inventories

reported U.S. emissions in terms of carbon—versus CO2

-equivalent—emissions, using

units of millions of metric tons of carbon equivalents (MMTCE). This change of units for

reporting was implemented so that the U.S. inventory would be more consistent with international practices, which are to report emissions in units of CO2 equivalents. 

The following equation can be used to convert the emission estimates presented in this

report to those provided previously:

Tg CO2 Eq. = MMTCE (44/12)

There are two elements to the conversion. The first element is simply nomenclature, since

one teragram is equal to one million metric tons:

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

The second element is the conversion, by weight, from carbon to CO2

. The molecular

weight of carbon is 12, and the molecular weight of oxygen is 16. Therefore, the molecular

weight of CO2 is 44 (i.e., 12+[16(2)], as compared to 12 for carbon alone. Thus, carbon comprises 12/44ths of CO2 by weight.

Emission Reporting Nomenclature 

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

http://www.unfccc.de. 4 Emission estimates of CFCs, HCFCs, halons, and other ozone-depleting substances are included in this chapter for informational purposes (see Table 3-12). 5 Also referred to in the U.S. Clean Air Act as “criteria pollutants.”
28 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

grown as they begin to be phased in as

replacements for CFCs and HCFCs.

RECENT TRENDS IN U.S. 

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

In 1999, total U.S. greenhouse gas

emissions were 6,746 teragrams of CO2

equivalents (Tg CO2 Eq.),6 11.7 percent above emissions in 1990. The 

single-year increase in emissions from

1998 to 1999 was 0.9 percent (59.2 Tg

CO2 Eq.), which was less than the 1.2

percent average annual rate of increase

for 1990 through 1999. The lower than

average increase in emissions, especially

given the robust economic growth in

1999, was primarily attributable to the

following factors: (1) warmer than normal summer and winter conditions, 

(2) significantly increased output from

existing nuclear power plants, 

(3) reduced CH4 emissions from coal

mines, and (4) HFC-23 by-product

emissions from the chemical manufacture of HCFC-22. Figures 3-1 through

3-3 illustrate the overall trends in total

U.S. emissions by gas, annual changes,

and absolute change since 1990. Table

3-1 provides a detailed summary of U.S.

greenhouse gas emissions and sinks for

1990 through 1999.

Figure 3-4 illustrates the relative

contribution of the direct greenhouse

gases to total U.S. emissions in 1999.

The primary greenhouse gas emitted by

human activities was CO2. The largest

source of CO2, and of overall greenhouse gas emissions in the United

States, was fossil fuel combustion. Emissions of CH4 resulted primarily from

decomposition of wastes in landfills,

enteric fermentation associated with

domestic livestock, natural gas systems,

and coal mining. Most N2O emissions

FIGURE 3-1 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas: 1990–1999 (Tg CO2 Eq.)

In 1999, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions rose to 6,746 teragrams of carbon dioxide 

equivalents (Tg CO2 Eq.), which was 11.7 percent above 1990 emissions.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

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

Tg CO2 Eq.

N2O

HFCs, PFCs, & SF6

CH4

CO2

6 Estimates are presented in units of teragrams of carbon

dioxide equivalents (Tg CO2 Eq.), which weight each

gas by its global warming potential, or GWP, value

(see the following section).

FIGURE 3-3 Absolute Change in U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions Since 1990

Greenhouse gas emissions increased a total of 707.9 Tg CO2 Eq.

between 1990 and 1999, or 11.7 percent since 1990.

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Tg CO2 Eq.

-51.2

70.2

172.7

307.2

363.2

559.6

639.9 648.6

707.9

FIGURE 3-2 Annual Change in U.S. Greenhouse Gas

Emissions Since 1990

The single-year increase in greenhouse gas emissions from 1998 to

1999 was 0.9 percent (59.2 Tg CO2 Eq.), which was less than the 1.2

percent average annual rate of increase for 1990 through 1999.

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Percent Change

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

-0.8%

2.0%

1.7%

2.2%

0.9%

3.1%

1.2%

0.1%

0.9%
From 1990 through 1999, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased by 11.7 percent. Specifically, CO2 emissions increased by 13.1 percent,

CH4 emissions decreased by 3.9 percent, N2

O emissions increased by 9.0 percent, and HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 emissions increased by 61.7 percent.

Gas/Source 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

CO2 4,913.0 5,219.8 5,403.2 5,478.7 5,489.7 5,558.1

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

Cement Manufacture 33.3 36.8 37.1 38.3 39.2 39.9

Waste Combustion 17.6 23.1 24.0 25.7 25.1 26.0

Lime Manufacture 11.2 12.8 13.5 13.7 13.9 13.4

Natural Gas Flaring 5.1 13.6 13.0 12.0 10.8 11.7

Limestone and Dolomite Use 5.1 7.0 7.3 8.3 8.1 8.3

Soda Ash Manufacture and Consumption 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.2

Carbon Dioxide Consumption 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6

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

International Bunker Fuelsb 114.0 101.0 102.2 109.8 112.8 107.3

CH4 644.5 650.5 638.0 632.0 624.8 619.6

Landfills 217.3 222.9 219.1 217.8 213.6 214.6

Enteric Fermentation 129.5 136.3 132.2 129.6 127.5 127.2

Natural Gas Systems 121.2 124.2 125.8 122.7 122.1 121.8

Coal Mining 87.9 74.6 69.3 68.8 66.5 61.8

Manure Management 26.4 31.0 30.7 32.6 35.2 34.4

Petroleum Systems 27.2 24.5 24.0 24.0 23.3 21.9

Wastewater Treatment 11.2 11.8 11.9 12.0 12.1 12.2

Rice Cultivation 8.7 9.5 8.8 9.6 10.1 10.7

Stationary Combustion 8.5 8.9 9.0 8.1 7.6 8.1

Mobile Combustion 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.5

Petrochemical Production 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7

Agricultural Residue Burning 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Silicon Carbide Production + + + + + +

International Bunker Fuelsb + + + + + +

N2

O 396.9 431.9 441.6 444.1 433.7 432.6

Agricultural Soil Management 269.0 285.4 294.6 299.8 300.3 298.3

Mobile Combustion 54.3 66.8 65.3 65.2 64.2 63.4

Nitric Acid 17.8 19.9 20.7 21.2 20.9 20.2

Manure Management 16.0 16.4 16.8 17.1 17.2 17.2

Stationary Combustion 13.6 14.3 14.9 15.0 15.1 15.7

Adipic Acid 18.3 20.3 20.8 17.1 7.3 9.0

Human Sewage 7.1 8.2 7.8 7.9 8.1 8.2

Agricultural Residue Burning 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4

Waste Combustion 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2

International Bunker Fuelsb 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0

HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 83.9 99.0 115.1 123.3 138.6 135.7

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

HCFC-22 Production 34.8 27.1 31.2 30.1 40.0 30.4

Electrical Transmission and Distribution 20.5 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7

Aluminum Production 19.3 11.2 11.6 10.8 10.1 10.0

Semiconductor Manufacture 2.9 5.5 7.0 7.0 6.8 6.8

Magnesium Production and Processing 5.5 5.5 5.6 7.5 6.3 6.1

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

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

+ Does not exceed 0.05 Tg CO2 Eq. a Sinks are only included in net emissions total, and are based partly on projected activity data.

b Emissions from international bunker fuels are not included in totals.

Notes: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Parentheses indicate negative values (or sequestration).

Greenhouse Gas Inventory ■ 29

TABLE 3-1 Recent Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (Tg CO2 Eq.)
30 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

FIGURE 3-4 1999 Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions by Gas

were the result of agricultural soil 

management and mobile source fossil

fuel combustion. The emissions of 

substitutes for ozone-depleting substances and emissions of HFC-23 during the production of HCFC-22 were

the primary contributors to aggregate

HFC emissions. Electrical transmission

and distribution systems accounted for

most SF6 emissions, while the majority

of PFC emissions were a by-product of

primary aluminum production.

As the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, CO2 from fossil

fuel combustion accounted for a nearly

constant 80 percent of global warming

potential (GWP)-weighted emissions in

the 1990s.7 Emissions from this source

category grew by 13 percent (617.4 Tg

CO2 Eq.) from 1990 to 1999 and were

responsible for most of the increase in

national emissions during this period.

The annual increase in CO2 emissions

from fossil fuel combustion was 1.2 percent in 1999, a figure close to the

source’s average annual rate of 1.4 perEmissions of CO2 from fossil fuel

combustion grew rapidly in 1996, due

primarily to two factors: (1) fuel switching by electric utilities from natural gas

to more carbon-intensive coal as colder

winter conditions and the associated rise

in demand for natural gas from residential, commercial, and industrial customers for heating caused gas prices to

rise sharply; and (2) higher consumption

of petroleum fuels for transportation.

Milder weather conditions in summer

and winter moderated the growth in

emissions in 1997; however, the shutdown of several nuclear power plants led

electric utilities to increase their consumption of coal and other fuels to offset

the lost capacity. In 1998, weather conditions were again a dominant factor in

slowing the growth in emissions. Warm

winter temperatures resulted in a significant drop in residential, commercial, and

industrial natural gas consumption. This

drop in emissions from natural gas used

for heating was primarily offset by two

factors: (1) electric utility emissions,

which increased in part due to a hot summer and its associated air conditioning

demand; and (2) increased gasoline consumption for transportation.

In 1999, the increase in emissions

from fossil fuel combustion was caused

largely by growth in petroleum consumption for transportation. In addition, heating fuel demand partly

recovered in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors as winter

temperatures dropped relative to 1998,

although temperatures were still

warmer than normal. These increases

were offset, in part, by a decline in

emissions from electric utilities due primarily to: (1) an increase in net generation of electricity by nuclear plants (8

percent) to record levels, which

reduced demand from fossil fuel plants;

and (2) moderated summer temperatures compared to the previous year,

thereby reducing electricity demand for

air conditioning. Utilization of existing

nuclear power plants, measured by a

7 If a full accounting of emissions from fossil fuel combustion is made by including emissions from the combustion of international bunker fuels and CH4 and N2O emissions associated with fuel combustion, then this percentage increases to a constant 82 percent during the 1990s. 8 The capacity factor is defined as the ratio of the electrical energy produced by a generating unit for a given period of time to the electrical energy that could have been produced at

continuous full-power operation during the same period (U.S. DOE/EIA 2000a).

CO2 was the principal greenhouse gas emitted by human activities, driven primarily by

emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

82.4% CO2

9.2% CH4

6.4% N2O

2.0% HFCs, PFCs & SF6

cent during the 1990s. Historically,

changes in emissions from fossil fuel

combustion have been the dominant

factor affecting U.S. emission trends.

Changes in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion are influenced by

many long-term and short-term factors,

including population and economic

growth, energy price fluctuations, technological changes, and seasonal temperatures. On an annual basis, the

overall consumption of fossil fuels in

the United States and other countries

generally fluctuates in response to

changes in general economic conditions, energy prices, weather, and the

availability of non-fossil alternatives.

For example, a year with increased consumption of goods and services, low

fuel prices, severe summer and winter

weather conditions, nuclear plant closures, and lower precipitation feeding

hydroelectric output would be expected

to have proportionally greater fossil fuel

consumption than a year with poor economic performance, high fuel prices,

mild temperatures, and increased output

from nuclear and hydroelectric plants.

Longer-term changes in energy consumption patterns, however, tend to be

more a function of changes that affect

the scale of consumption (e.g., population, number of cars, and size of

houses), the efficiency with which

energy is used in equipment (e.g., cars,

power plants, steel mills, and light

bulbs), and consumer behavior (e.g.,

walking, bicycling, or telecommuting to

work instead of driving).

Energy-related CO2 emissions are

also a function of the type of fuel or

energy consumed and its carbon intensity. Producing heat or electricity using

natural gas instead of coal, for example,

can reduce the CO2 emissions associated

with energy consumption because of the

lower carbon content of natural gas per

unit of useful energy produced. Table 

3-2 shows annual changes in emissions

during the last few years of the 1990s for

particular fuel types and sectors.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory ■ 31

plant’s capacity factor,8 increased from

just over 70 percent in 1990 to over 85

percent in 1999.

Another factor that does not affect

total emissions, but does affect the interpretation of emission trends, is the allocation of emissions from nonutility

power producers. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) currently

includes fuel consumption by nonutilities

with the industrial end-use sector. In

1999, there was a large shift in generating

capacity from regulated utilities to nonutilities, as restructuring legislation spurred

the sale of 7 percent of utility generating

capability (U.S. DOE/EIA 2000b). This

shift is illustrated by the increase in

industrial end-use sector emissions from

coal and the associated decrease in electric utility emissions. However, emissions

from the industrial end-use sector did not

increase as much as would be expected,

even though net generation by nonutilities increased from 11 to 15 percent of

total U.S. electricity production (U.S.

DOE/EIA 2000b).9

Overall, from 1990 to 1999, total

emissions of CO2 and N2O increased by

645.2 (13 percent) and 35.7 Tg CO2 Eq.

(9 percent), respectively, while CH4

emissions decreased by 24.9 Tg CO2 Eq.

(4 percent). During the same period,

aggregate weighted emissions of HFCs,

PFCs, and SF6 rose by 51.8 Tg CO2 Eq.

(62 percent). Despite being emitted in

smaller quantities relative to the other

principal greenhouse gases, emissions of

HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are significant

because many of them have extremely

high global warming potentials and, in

the cases of PFCs and SF6, long atmospheric lifetimes. Conversely, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were partly offset by

carbon sequestration in forests and landfilled carbon, which were estimated to be

15 percent of total emissions in 1999.

Other significant trends in emissions

from source categories over the nineyear period from 1990 through 1999

included the following:

• Aggregate HFC and PFC emissions

resulting from the substitution of

ozone-depleting substances (e.g.,

CFCs) increased by 55.8 Tg CO2

Eq. This increase was partly offset,

however, by reductions in PFC emissions from aluminum production

(9.2 Tg CO2 Eq. or 48 percent), and

reductions in emissions of HFC-23

from the production of HCFC-22

(4.4 Tg CO2 Eq. or 13 percent).

Reductions in PFC emissions from

aluminum production were the result

of both voluntary industry emission

reduction efforts and lower domestic

aluminum production. HFC-23 emissions from the production of HCFC22 decreased due to a reduction in

the intensity of emissions from that

source, despite increased HCFC-22

production.

• Emissions of N2O from mobile combustion rose by 9.1 Tg CO2 Eq. (17

percent), primarily due to increased

rates of N2O generation in highway

vehicles.

• CH4 emissions from coal mining

dropped by 26 Tg CO2 Eq. (30 percent) as a result of the mining of less

gassy coal from underground mines

and the increased use of CH4 from

degasification systems.

Changes in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion are influenced by many long- and short-term factors, including population and economic

growth, energy price fluctuations, technological changes, and seasonal temperatures.

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

Tg CO2 Eq. Percent Tg CO2 Eq. Percent Tg CO2 Eq. Percent Tg CO2 Eq. Percent

Electric Utility

Coal 89.9 5.7 52.0 3.1 14.3 0.8 -32.1 -1.8

Natural Gas -25.3 -14.7 13.1 9.0 16.2 10.1 -7.8 -4.4

Petroleum 5.1 10.0 8.1 14.4 26.7 41.6 -17.4 -19.1

Transportationa

Petroleum 38.8 2.5 7.6 0.5 34.1 2.1 57.6 3.6

Residential 

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

Commercial

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

Industrial 

Coal -7.3 -2.7 2.0 0.8 -1.1 -0.4 29.2 11.2

Natural Gas 17.8 3.4 -0.5 -0.1 -14.5 -2.7 1.6 0.3

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

a Excludes emissions from international bunker fuels.

b Includes fuels and sectors not shown in table.

TABLE 3-2 Annual Change in CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion for Selected Fuels and Sectors

9 It is unclear whether reporting problems for electric

utilities and the industrial end-use sector have

increased with the dramatic growth in nonutilities and

the opening of the electric power industry to increased

competition.
32 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

T

here are several ways to assess a nation’s greenhouse gas-emitting intensity. The basis

for measures of intensity can be (1) per unit of aggregate energy consumption, because

energy-related activities are the largest sources of emissions; (2) per unit of fossil fuel consumption, because almost all energy-related emissions involve the combustion of fossil

fuels; (3) per unit of electricity consumption, because the electric power industry—utilities

and nonutilities combined—was the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in

1999; (4) per unit of total gross domestic product as a measure of national economic activity; or (5) on a per capita basis. Depending on the measure used, the United States could

appear to have reduced or increased its national greenhouse gas intensity during the 1990s.

Table 3-3 provides data on various statistics related to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions normalized to 1990 as a baseline year.

Greenhouse gas emissions in the United States have grown at an average annual rate of 1.2

percent since 1990. This rate is slightly slower than that for total energy or fossil fuel consumption—indicating an improved or lower greenhouse gas-emitting intensity—and much

slower than that for either electricity consumption or overall gross domestic product.

Variable 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Growth 

Ratef

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atmospheric CO2

Concentratione 100 101 101 101 102 102 103 104 104 0.4%

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

TABLE 3-3 AND FIGURE 3-5 Recent Trends in Various U.S. Data (Index: 1990 = 100)

• N2O emissions from agricultural soil

management increased by 29.3 Tg

CO2 Eq. (11 percent), as fertilizer consumption and cultivation of nitrogenfixing crops rose.

• By 1998, all of the three major adipic

acid-producing plants had voluntarily

implemented N2O abatement technology. As a result, emissions fell by

9.3 Tg CO2 Eq. (51 percent). The

majority of this decline occurred from

1997 to 1998, despite increased production.

The following sections describe the

concept of global warming potentials

(GWPs), present the anthropogenic

sources and sinks of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, briefly discuss

emission pathways, further summarize

the emission estimates, and explain the

relative importance of emissions from

each source category.

GLOBAL WARMING 

POTENTIALS

Gases in the atmosphere can contribute to the greenhouse effect both

directly and indirectly. Direct effects

occur when the gas itself is a greenhouse gas. Indirect radiative forcing

occurs when chemical transformations

of the original gas produce a gas or

gases that are greenhouse gases, when a

gas influences the atmospheric lifetimes

of other gases, and/or when a gas affects

other atmospheric processes that alter

the radiative balance of the Earth (e.g.,

affect cloud formation or albedo). The

concept of a global warming potential

(GWP) has been developed to compare

the ability of each greenhouse gas to

trap heat in the atmosphere relative to

another gas. Carbon dioxide (CO2) was

chosen as the reference gas to be consistent with IPCC guidelines.

Global warming potentials are not

provided for CO, NOx, NMVOCs,

SO2, and aerosols (e.g., sulfate and elemental carbon) because there is no

agreed-upon method to estimate the

contribution of gases that are shortlived in the atmosphere and have only

indirect effects on radiative forcing

(IPCC 1996b).

Recent Trends in Various U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions-Related Data

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

Real GDP

Population

Emissions per Capita

Emissions per $ GDP

199019911992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Index: 1990 = 100

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

U.S. EPA 2001d.

At the same time, total U.S.

greenhouse gas emissions

have grown at about the

same rate as the national

population during the last

decade. Overall, global

atmospheric CO2 concentrations (a function of many

complex anthropogenic

and natural processes) are

increasing at 0.4 percent

per year.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory ■ 33

A

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

demand because of the impact they have on residential, commercial, and industrial end-use sector heating and cooling demands. Warmer winters tend to reduce demand for heating fuels—especially natural gas—while cooler summers tend to reduce air conditioning-related electricity demand. Although changes in electricity output from hydroelectric and nuclear power plants do not necessarily affect final energy demand,

increased output from these plants offsets electricity generation by fossil fuel power plants, and therefore leads to reduced CO2 emissions.

Weather and Non-fossil Energy Adjustments to CO2 from Fossil Fuel Combustion Trends

10 The STIFS model is employed in producing EIA’s Short-Term Energy Outlook (U.S. DOE/EIA 2000d). Complete model documentation can be found at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/

steo/pub/contents.html. Various other factors that influence energy-related CO2 emissions were also examined, such as changes in output from energy-intensive manufacturing industries, and changes in fossil fuel prices. These additional factors, however, were not found to have a significant effect on emission trends. 11 Normal levels are defined by decadal power generation trends. 12 Degree-days are relative measurements of outdoor air temperature. Heating degree-days are deviations of the mean daily temperature below 65oF, while cooling degree-days are deviations of the mean daily temperature above 65oF. Excludes Alaska and Hawaii. Normals are based on data from 1961 through 1990. The variations in these normals during this time

period were 10 percent and 14 percent for heating and cooling degree-days, respectively (99 percent confidence interval). 13 The capacity factor is defined as the ratio of the electrical energy produced by a generating unit for a given period of time to the electrical energy that could have been produced at

continuous full-power operation during the same period (U.S. DOE/EIA 2000a).

Warmer winter conditions in both 1998 and 1999 had a significant effect on U.S. CO2 emissions by reducing demand for heating fuels. Heating

degree-days in the United States in 1998 and 1999 were 14 and 7 percent below normal, respectively (see Figure 3-8).12 These warm winters,

however, were partly countered by increased electricity demand that resulted from hotter summers. Cooling degree-days in 1998 and 1999 were

18 and 3 percent above normal, respectively (see Figure 3-9).

Although no new U.S. nuclear power plants have been constructed in many years, the capacity factors13 of existing plants reached record levels in 1998 and 1999, approaching 90 percent. This increase in utilization translated into increased electricity output by nuclear plants—slightly

more than 7 percent in both years. Increased output, however, was partly offset by reduced electricity output by hydroelectric power plants,

which declined by 10 and 4 percent in 1998 and 1999, respectively. Electricity generated by nuclear plants provides approximately twice as much

of the energy consumed in the United States as hydroelectric plants. Figure 3-10 shows nuclear and hydroelectric power plant capacity factors

since 1973 and 1989, respectively.

The results of this analysis show that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel

combustion would have been roughly 1.9 percent higher (102 Tg CO2

Eq.) if weather conditions and hydroelectric and nuclear power generation had remained at normal levels.11 Similarly, emissions in 1997

and 1998 would have been roughly 0.5 and 1.2 percent (7 and 17 Tg CO2

Eq.) greater under normal conditions, respectively.

-1.0-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Percent

Hydro & Nuclear 

Electricity 

Generation

Cooling 

Degree-Days

Heating 

Degree-Days

Total Adjusted 

Emissions

1997

1998

1999

0.2

0.5

1.1

0.3

-0.7

-0.2

0.0

1.4

1.0

0.5

1.2

1.9

FIGURE 3-7 Recent Trends in Adjusted and Actual EnergyRelated CO2 Emissions: 1997–1999

100

101

102

103

1997

1998

1999

Index: 1997 = 100

Hydro & Nuclear

Actual

Total Adjusted

Weather Adjusted

FIGURE 3-6 Percent Difference in Adjusted and Actual 

Energy-Related CO2 Emissions: 1997–1999

In addition to the absolute level of emissions being greater, the growth

rate in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion from 1998 to 1999

would have been 2.0 percent instead of the actual 1.2 percent if both

weather conditions and non-fossil electricity generation had been normal. Similarly, emissions in 1998 would have increased by 0.9 percent

under normal conditions versus the actual rate of 0.2 percent.
34 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

FIGURE 3-8 Annual Deviations from Normal U.S. Heating Degree-Days: 1949–1999

Warmer winter conditions in both 1998 and 1999 had a significant effect on U.S. CO2 emissions by reducing demand for heating fuels. Heating

degree-days in the United States in 1998 and 1999 were 14 and 7 percent below normal, respectively.

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

1949

1954

1959

1964

1969

1974

1979

1984

1989

1994

1999

Index: normal = 100 

(deviation from normal)

Normal

(4,576 heating degree-days)

10.2 (99% Confidence Lower Bound)

-10.2 (99% Confidence Upper Bound)

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

1961 through 1990.

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

FIGURE 3-9 Annual Deviations from Normal U.S. Cooling Degree-Days: 1949–1999

Warmer winters were partly countered by increased electricity demand that resulted from hotter summers. Cooling degree-days in 1998 and

1999 were 18 and 3 percent above normal, respectively.

-20

-10

0

10

20

1949

1954

1959

1964

1969

1974

1979

1984

1989

1994

1999

Index: normal = 100 

(deviation from normal)

Normal

(1,183 cooling degree-days)

14.1 (99% Confidence Upper Bound)

-14.1 (99% Confidence Lower Bound)

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

of 1961 through 1990.

Sources: U.S. DOC/NOAA 1998a, b; 1999a, b; and 2001a, b.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory ■ 35

M

otor vehicle use is increasing all over the world, including in the United States. Since the 1970s, the number of highway vehicles registered

in the United States has increased faster than the overall population (U.S. DOT/FHWA 1999). Likewise, the number of miles driven—up 

13 percent from 1990 to 1999 (U.S. DOT/FHWA 1999)—and gallons of gasoline consumed each year in the United States (U.S. DOC/EIA 2000a)

have increased steadily since the 1980s. These increases in motor vehicle use are the result of a confluence of factors, including population

growth, economic growth, urban sprawl, low fuel prices, and increasing popularity of sport utility vehicles and other light-duty trucks that tend

to have lower fuel efficiency.14 A similar set of social and economic trends led to a significant increase in air travel and freight transportation—

by both air and road modes—during the 1990s.

Passenger cars, trucks, motorcycles, and buses emit significant quantities of air pollutants with local, regional, and global effects. Motor vehicles are major sources of CO, CO2

, CH4, nonmethane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), NOx, N2O, and HFCs. They are also important contributors to many serious environmental pollution problems, including ground-level ozone (i.e., smog), acid rain, fine particulate matter, and global

warming. Within the United States and abroad, government agencies have taken actions to reduce these emissions. Since the 1970s, the

Environmental Protection Agency has required the reduction of lead in gasoline, developed strict emission standards for new passenger cars

and trucks, directed states to enact comprehensive motor vehicle emission control programs, required inspection and maintenance programs,

and, more recently, introduced the use of reformulated gasoline. New vehicles are now equipped with advanced emissions controls, which are

designed to reduce emissions of NOx

, hydrocarbons, and CO.

Table 3-4 summarizes greenhouse gas emissions from all transportation-related activities. Overall, transportation activities, excluding international bunker fuels, accounted for an almost constant 26 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 1999. These emissions were

primarily CO2 from fuel combustion, which increased by 16 percent from 1990 to 1999. However, because of larger increases in N2

O and HFC emissions during this period, overall emissions from transportation activities actually increased by 18 percent.

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

FIGURE 3-10 U.S. Nuclear and Hydroelectric Power Plant Capacity Factors: 1973–1999

0

20

10

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1973

1978

1983

1988

1993

1998

Capacity Factor (percent)

Hydro

Nuclear

The utilization (i.e., capacity factors) of existing nuclear power plants reached record levels in 1998 and 1999, approaching 90 percent. This

increase in utilization translated into an increase in electricity output by nuclear plants of slightly more than 7 percent in both years. However,

it was partly offset by 10 and 14 percent respective declines in electricity output by hydroelectric power plants in 1998 and 1999. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation Activities
Overall, transportation activities (excluding international bunker fuels) accounted for an almost constant 26 percent of total U.S. greenhouse

gas emissions from 1990 to 1999. These emissions were primarily CO2 from fuel combustion, which increased by 16 percent during that period.

However, because of larger increases in N2

O and HFC emissions, overall emissions from transportation activities actually increased by 18

percent.

Gas/Vehicle Type 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

CO2 1,474.4 1,581.8 1,621.2 1,631.4 1,659.0 1,716.4

Passenger Cars 620.0 641.9 654.1 660.2 674.5 688.9 

Light-Duty Trucks 283.1 325.3 333.5 337.3 356.9 364.8

Other Trucks 206.0 235.9 248.1 257.0 257.9 269.7

Aircrafta 176.7 171.5 180.2 179.0 183.0 184.6

Boats and Vessels 59.4 66.9 63.8 50.2 47.9 65.6

Locomotives 28.4 31.5 33.4 34.4 33.6 35.1

Buses 10.7 13.5 11.3 12.0 12.3 12.9

Otherb 90.1 95.3 96.7 101.4 93.0 94.9

International Bunker Fuelsc 114.0 101.0 102.2 109.8 112.8 107.3

CH4 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.5 

Passenger Cars 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9

Light-Duty Trucks 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4

Other Trucks and Buses 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

Aircraft 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2

Boats and Vessels 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Locomotives 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 + +

Otherd 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

International Bunker Fuelsc ++++++

N2

O 54.3 66.8 65.3 65.2 64.2 63.4 

Passenger Cars 31.0 33.0 32.7 32.4 32.1 31.5

Light-Duty Trucks 17.8 27.1 23.9 24.0 23.3 22.7

Other Trucks and Buses 2.6 3.6 5.6 5.8 5.9 6.1

Aircrafta 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8

Boats and Vessels 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4

Locomotives 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2

Otherd 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

International Bunker Fuelsc 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 

HFCs + 9.5 13.5 17.2 20.6 23.7 

Mobile Air Conditionerse + 9.5 13.5 17.2 20.6 23.7 

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

+ Does not exceed 0.05 Tg CO2 Eq. a Aircraft emissions consist of emissions from all jet fuel (less bunker fuels) and aviation gas consumption.

b “Other” CO2 emissions include motorcycles, construction equipment, agricultural machinery, pipelines, and lubricants. c Emissions from international bunker fuels include emissions from both civilian and military activities, but are not included in totals. d “Other” CH4 and N2

O emissions include motorcycles; construction equipment; agricultural machinery; gasoline-powered recreational, industrial, lawn and garden, light

commercial, logging, airport service, and other equipment; and diesel-powered recreational, industrial, lawn and garden, light construction, and airport service.

e Includes primarily HFC-134a.

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

36 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

TABLE 3-4 Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tg CO2 Eq.)
Greenhouse Gas Inventory ■ 37

The concept of a global warming

potential (GWP) has been developed to

compare the ability of each greenhouse

gas to trap heat in the atmosphere

relative to another gas. Carbon dioxide

was chosen as the reference gas to be

consistent with IPCC guidelines.

Gas GWP

Carbon Dioxide (CO2

) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Methane (CH4

)* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Nitrous Oxide (N2

O) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .310

HFC-23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11,700

HFC-125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,800

HFC-134a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,300

HFC-143a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,800

HFC-152a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140

HFC-227ea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,900

HFC-236fa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6,300

HFC-4310mee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,300

CF4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6,500

C2

F6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9,200

C4

F10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7,000

C6

F14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7,400

Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6

) . . . . . . . .23,900

* The methane GWP includes direct effects and

those indirect effects due to the production of

tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor.

The indirect effects due to the production of CO2 are

not included. 

Source: IPCC 1996b.

TABLE 3-5 Global Warming Potentials

(100-Year Time Horizon)

All gases in this report are presented

in units of teragrams of carbon dioxide

equivalents (Tg CO2 Eq.). The relationship between gigagrams (Gg) of a gas

and Tg CO2 Eq. can be expressed as

follows:

The GWP of a greenhouse gas is the

ratio of global warming from one unit

mass of a greenhouse gas to that of one

unit mass of CO2 over a specified

period of time. While any time period

can be selected, the 100-year GWPs

recommended by the IPCC and

employed by the United States for policymaking and reporting purposes were

used in this report (IPCC 1996b). GWP

values are listed in Table 3-5.

CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

The global carbon cycle is made up

of large carbon flows and reservoirs. Billions of tons of carbon in the form of

CO2 are absorbed by oceans and living

biomass (sinks) and are emitted to the

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electric Utilities

L

ike transportation, activities related to the generation, transmission, and distribution of

electricity in the United States resulted in a significant fraction of total U.S. greenhouse

gas emissions. The electric power industry in the United States is composed of traditional

electric utilities, as well as other entities, such as power marketers and nonutility power

producers. Table 3-6 presents emissions from electric utility-related activities. 

Aggregate emissions from electric utilities of all greenhouse gases increased by 11 percent from 1990 to 1999, and accounted for a relatively constant 29 percent of U.S. emissions

during the same period. Emissions from nonutility generators are not included in these estimates. Nonutilities were estimated to have produced about 15 percent of the electricity

generated in the United States in 1999, up from 11 percent in 1998 (U.S. DOE/EIA 2000b).

Therefore, a more complete accounting of greenhouse gas emissions from the electric

power industry (i.e., utilities and nonutilities combined) would account for roughly 40 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions (U.S. U.S. DOE/EIA 2000c).

The majority of electric utility-related emissions resulted from the combustion of coal in

boilers to produce steam that is passed through a turbine to generate electricity. Overall,

the generation of electricity—especially when nonutility generators are included—results

in a larger portion of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions than any other activity.

TABLE 3-6 Electric Utility-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tg CO2 Eq.)

Gas/Fuel Type

or Source 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

CO2 1,757.3 1,810.6 1,880.3 1,953.5 2,010.7 1,953.4

Coal 1,509.3 1,587.7 1,677.7 1,729.7 1,744.0 1,711.9

Natural Gas 151.1 171.8 146.5 159.6 175.8 168.0

Petroleum 96.8 51.0 56.0 64.1 90.8 73.4

Geothermal 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 +

CH4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Stationary 

Combustion (Utilities) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

N2

O 7.4 7.8 8.2 8.5 8.7 8.6

Stationary 

Combustion (Utilities) 7.4 7.8 8.2 8.5 8.7 8.6

SF6 20.5 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7

Electrical 

Transmission and 

Distribution 20.5 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7

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

+ Does not exceed 0.05 Tg CO2 Eq.

Notes: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Excludes emissions from nonutilities, which are currently

accounted for under the industrial end-use sector.

atmosphere annually through natural

processes (sources). When in equilibrium, carbon fluxes among these reservoirs are balanced.

Since the Industrial Revolution, this

equilibrium of atmospheric carbon has

been altered. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31

percent (IPCC 2001b), principally

because of fossil fuel combustion, which

accounted for 98 percent of total U.S.

CO2 emissions in 1999. Changes in

land use and forestry practices can also

emit CO2 (e.g., through conversion of

forest land to agricultural or urban use)

or can act as a sink for CO2 (e.g.,

through net additions to forest biomass).

Figure 3-11 and Table 3-7 summarize

U.S. sources and sinks of CO2. The

remainder of this section discusses CO2

emission trends in greater detail.
38 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Energy

Energy-related activities accounted

for the vast majority of U.S. CO2 emissions from 1990 through 1999. Carbon

dioxide from fossil fuel combustion was

the dominant contributor. In 1999,

approximately 84 percent of the energy

consumed in the United States was produced through the combustion of fossil

fuels. The remaining 16 percent came

from other sources, such as hydropower,

biomass, nuclear, wind, and solar energy

(see Figures 3-12 and 3-13). This section

discusses specific trends related to CO2

emissions from energy consumption.

Fossil Fuel Combustion

As fossil fuels are combusted, the carbon stored in them is almost entirely

emitted as CO2. The amount of carbon

in fuels per unit of energy content varies

significantly by fuel type. For example,

coal contains the highest amount of carbon per unit of energy, while petroleum

has about 25 percent less carbon than

coal, and natural gas about 45 percent

less.

From 1990 through 1999, petroleum

supplied the largest share of U.S.

energy demands, accounting for an

average of 39 percent of total energy

consumption. Natural gas and coal followed in order of importance, accounting for an average of 24 and 23 percent

of total energy consumption, respectively. Most petroleum was consumed in

the transportation end-use sector, the

vast majority of coal was used by electric utilities, and natural gas was consumed largely in the industrial and

residential sectors.

Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel

combustion increased at an average

annual rate of 1.4 percent from 1990 to

1999. The fundamental factors behind

this trend included (1) a robust domestic

Carbon dioxide accounted for 82 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 1999, and fossil fuel combustion accounted for 98 percent

of total CO2 emissions. Changes in land use and forestry practices resulted in a net decrease of 990.4 Tg CO2 Eq., or 18 percent, of CO2 emissions.

Source or Sink 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

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

Cement Manufacture 33.3 36.8 37.1 38.3 39.2 39.9

Waste Combustion 17.6 23.1 24.0 25.7 25.1 26.0

Lime Manufacture 11.2 12.8 13.5 13.7 13.9 13.4

Natural Gas Flaring 5.1 13.6 13.0 12.0 10.8 11.7

Limestone and Dolomite Use 5.1 7.0 7.3 8.3 8.1 8.3

Soda Ash Manufacture and Consumption 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.2

Carbon Dioxide Consumption 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6

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

International Bunker Fuelsb 114.0 101.0 102.2 109.8 112.8 107.3

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

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

a Sinks are only included in net emissions total, and are based partly on projected activity data.

b Emissions from international bunker fuels are not included in totals.

Notes: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Parentheses indicate negative values (or sequestration).

FIGURE 3-11 AND TABLE 3-7 U.S. Sources of CO2 Emissions and Sinks (Tg CO2 Eq.)

5,453.1

39.9

26.0

13.4

11.7

8.3

4.2

1.6

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Tg CO2 Eq. in 1999

Fossil Fuel Combustion

Cement Manufacture

Waste Combustion

Lime Manufacture

Natural Gas Flaring

Limestone and Dolomite Use

Soda Ash Manufacture and Consumption

Carbon Dioxide Consumption

CO2 as a portion of 

all GHG emissions

82.4%
Greenhouse Gas Inventory ■ 39

economy, (2) relatively low energy

prices as compared to 1990, (3) fuel

switching by electric utilities, and (4)

heavier reliance on nuclear energy.

Between 1990 and 1999, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion

steadily increased from 4,835.7 to

5,453.1 Tg CO2 Eq.—a 13 percent

total increase over the ten-year period.

In 1999, fossil fuel emission trends

were primarily driven by similar factors—a strong economy and an

increased reliance on carbon-neutral

nuclear power for electricity generation. Although the price of crude oil

increased by over 40 percent between

1998 and 1999, and relatively mild

weather conditions in 1999 moderated

energy consumption for heating and

cooling, emissions from fossil fuels still

rose by 1.2 percent. Emissions from the

combustion of petroleum products in

1999 grew the most (64 Tg CO2 Eq., or

about 3 percent), although emissions

from the combustion of petroleum by

electric utilities decreased by 19 percent. That decrease was offset by

increased emissions from petroleum

combustion in the residential, commercial, industrial, and especially transportation end-use sectors. Emissions

from the combustion of natural gas in

1999 increased slightly (5 Tg CO2 Eq.,

or 0.4 percent), and emissions from

coal consumption decreased slightly 

(3 Tg CO2 Eq., or 0.1 percent) as the

industrial end-use sector substituted

more natural gas for coal in 1999. 

Along with the four end-use sectors,

electric utilities also emit CO2,

although these emissions are produced

as they consume fossil fuel to provide

electricity to one of the four end-use

sectors. For the discussion in this chapter, electric utility emissions have been

distributed to each end-use sector based

upon their fraction of aggregate electricity consumption. This method of

distributing emissions assumes that each

end-use sector consumes electricity that

is generated with the national average

mix of fuels according to their carbon

intensity. In reality, sources of electricity

vary widely in carbon intensity. By

assuming the same carbon intensity for

each end-use sector’s electricity consumption, for example, emissions attributed to the residential sector may be

overestimated, while emissions attributed to the industrial sector may be

underestimated. Emissions from electric

utilities are addressed separately after

the end-use sectors have been discussed. 

It is important to note, though, that

all emissions resulting from the generation of electricity by the growing number of nonutility power plants are

currently allocated to the industrial sector. Nonutilities supplied 15 percent of

the electricity consumed in the United

States in 1999. Emissions from U.S. territories are also calculated separately

due to a lack of specific consumption

data for the individual end-use sectors.

Table 3-8, Figure 3-14, and Figure 3-15

summarize CO2 emissions from fossil

fuel combustion by end-use sector.

Industrial End-Use Sector. Industrial

CO2 emissions—resulting both directly

from the combustion of fossil fuels and

indirectly from the generation of electricity by utilities that is consumed by

industry—accounted for 33 percent of

CO2 from fossil fuel combustion in

1999. About two-thirds of these 

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

FIGURE 3-12 1999 U.S. Energy Consumption by Energy Source

Petroleum supplied the largest share of U.S. energy demands in 1999,

accounting for 39 percent of total energy consumption. Natural gas

and coal followed in order of importance, each accounting for 23 percent of total energy consumption.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

7.6% Renewable

8.0% Nuclear

22.5% Coal

22.9% Natural Gas

39.0% Petroleum

FIGURE 3-13 U.S. Energy Consumption: 1990–1999

0

20

40

60

80

100

Renewable & Nuclear

Fossil Fuels

Total Consumption

199019911992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Quadrillion Btus

In 1999, approximately 84 percent of the energy consumed in the

United States was produced through the combustion of fossil fuels.

The remaining 16 percent came from other energy sources, such as

hydropower, biomass, nuclear, wind, and solar.
40 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

emissions resulted from direct fossil fuel

combustion to produce steam and/or

heat for industrial processes or by

nonutility electricity generators that are

classified as industrial, the latter of

which are growing rapidly. The remaining third of emissions resulted from

consuming electricity from electric utilities for motors, electric furnaces,

ovens, lighting, and other applications.

Transportation End-Use Sector. Transportation activities (excluding international bunker fuels) accounted for 31

percent of CO2 emissions from fossil

fuel combustion in 1999.15 Virtually all

of the energy consumed in this end-use

sector came from petroleum products.

Slightly less than two-thirds of the

emissions resulted from gasoline consumption in motor vehicles. The

remaining emissions came from other

transportation activities, including the

FIGURE 3-14 1999 CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion by Sector and Fuel Type

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Electric Utilities U.S. Territories

Tg CO2 Eq.

Petroleum

Natural Gas

Coal

255.0

95.0

289.4

1,679.2

34.8

52.1

73.4

168.0

520.5

166.4 4.2 6.3

50.5 345.6

Coal 0.9

1,711.9 Relative Contribution

by Fuel Type

42%

31%

37%

Of the emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 1999, most petroleum was consumed in the transportation end-use sector. The vast majority of

coal was consumed by electric utilities, and natural gas was consumed largely in the industrial and residential end-use sectors.

FIGURE 3-15 1999 End-Use Sector Emissions of CO2 from Fossil Fuel Combustion

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation U.S. Territories

Tg CO2 Eq.

Electricity Consumption

Direct Fossil Fuel Combustion

681.6

354.1

641.0

223.0

628.3

1,155.6

2.4

1,714.0

0.0 53.0

Electric utilities were responsible for 36 percent of the U.S. emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel

combustion in 1999. The remaining 64 percent of emissions resulted from the direct combustion of fuel for heat and other uses in the residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation end-use sectors.

15 If emissions from international bunker fuels are

included, the transportation end-use sector accounted

for 33 percent of U.S. emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 1999.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory ■ 41

on coal for over half of their total energy requirements and accounted for 85

percent of all coal consumed in the

United States in 1999. Consequently,

changes in electricity demand have a

significant impact on coal consumption

and associated CO2 emissions. Note,

again, that all emissions resulting from

the generation of electricity by nonutility plants are currently allocated to the

industrial end-use sector.

Natural Gas Flaring

Carbon dioxide is produced when

natural gas from oil wells is flared (i.e.,

combusted) to relieve rising pressure or

to dispose of small quantities of gas that

are not commercially marketable. In

1999, flaring activities emitted approximately 11.7 Tg CO2 Eq., or about 0.2

percent of U.S. CO2 emissions.

Biomass Combustion

Biomass in the form of fuel wood and

wood waste was used primarily by the

industrial end-use sector. The transportation end-use sector was the predominant user of biomass-based fuels,

such as ethanol from corn and woody

crops. Ethanol and ethanol blends, such

as gasohol, are typically used to fuel

public transport vehicles.

Although these fuels emit CO2, in

the long run the CO2 emitted from biofuel consumption does not increase

atmospheric CO2 concentrations if the

biogenic carbon emitted is offset by the

growth of new biomass. For example,

fuel wood burned one year but regrown

the next only recycles carbon, rather

than creating a net increase in total

atmospheric carbon. Net carbon fluxes

from changes in biogenic carbon reservoirs in wooded areas or croplands are

accounted for under the Land-Use

Change and Forestry section of this

chapter.

Gross CO2 emissions from biomass

combustion were 234.1 Tg CO2 Eq. in

1999, with the industrial sector accounting for 81 percent and the residential

sector 14 percent of the emissions.

Ethanol consumption by the transportation sector accounted for only 3 percent

of CO2 emissions from biomass combustion.

Industrial Processes

Emissions are produced as a by-product of many nonenergy-related activities. For example, industrial processes

can chemically transform raw materials.

This transformation often releases such

greenhouse gases as CO2. The major

production processes that emit CO2

include cement manufacture, lime manufacture, limestone and dolomite use,

soda ash manufacture and consumption,

and CO2 consumption. Total CO2

emissions from these sources were

In 1999, industrial CO2 emissions resulting from direct fossil fuel combustion and from the generation of electricity by utilities accounted for 33

percent of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion. Transportation activities (excluding international bunker fuels) accounted for 31 percent of CO2

emissions from fossil fuel combustion the same year, and the residential and commercial sectors accounted for 19 and 16 percent, respectively.

End-Use Sector* 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

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

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

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

Commercial 760.8 797.2 828.2 872.9 880.2 864.0

U.S. Territories 33.7 44.0 40.1 42.8 47.9 53.0

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

* Emissions from electric utilities are allocated based on aggregate electricity consumption in each end-use sector.

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

TABLE 3-8 CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion by End-Use Sector (Tg CO2 Eq.)

combustion of diesel fuel in heavy-duty

vehicles and jet fuel in aircraft.

Residential and Commercial End-Use

Sectors. The residential and commercial end-use sectors accounted for 19

and 16 percent, respectively, of CO2

emissions from fossil fuel consumption

in 1999. Both sectors relied heavily on

electricity for meeting energy needs,

with 66 and 74 percent, respectively, of

their emissions attributable to electricity

consumption for lighting, heating, cooling, and operating appliances. The

remaining emissions were largely due to

the consumption of natural gas and

petroleum, primarily for meeting heating and cooking needs.

Electric Utilities. The United States

relies on electricity to meet a significant

portion of its energy demands, especially for lighting, electric motors, heating,

and air conditioning. Electric utilities

are responsible for consuming 27 percent of U.S. energy from fossil fuels and

emitted 36 percent of the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion in 1999. The type of

fuel combusted by utilities significantly

affects their emissions. For example,

some electricity is generated with low

CO2-emitting energy technologies, particularly non-fossil fuel options, such as

nuclear, hydroelectric, or geothermal

energy. However, electric utilities rely
42 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

approximately 67.4 Tg CO2 Eq. in

1999, or about 1 percent of all CO2

emissions. Between 1990 and 1999,

emissions from most of these sources

increased, except for emissions from

soda ash manufacture and consumption,

which have remained relatively constant.

Cement Manufacture 

(39.9 Tg CO2 Eq.)

Carbon dioxide is emitted primarily

during the production of clinker, an

intermediate product from which 

finished Portland and masonry cement

are made. When calcium carbonate

(CaCO3) is heated in a cement kiln to

form lime and CO2, the lime combines

with other materials to produce clinker,

and the CO2 is released to the atmosphere.

Lime Manufacture 

(13.4 Tg CO2 Eq.)

Lime is used in steel making, construction, pulp and paper manufacturing, and water and sewage treatment. It

is manufactured by heating limestone

(mostly calcium carbonate, CaCO3) in

a kiln, creating calcium oxide (quicklime) and CO2, which is normally emitted to the atmosphere.

Limestone and Dolomite Use 

(8.3 Tg CO2 Eq.)

Limestone (CaCO3) and dolomite

(Ca Mg(CO3)2) are basic raw materials

used by a wide variety of industries,

including the construction, agriculture,

chemical, and metallurgical industries.

For example, limestone can be used as a

purifier in refining metals. In the case of

iron ore, limestone heated in a blast furnace reacts with impurities in the iron

ore and fuels, generating CO2 as a byproduct. Limestone is also used in flue

gas desulfurization systems to remove

sulfur dioxide from the exhaust gases

Soda Ash Manufacture and

Consumption (4.2 Tg CO2 Eq.)

Commercial soda ash (sodium carbonate, Na2CO3) is used in many consumer products, such as glass, soap and

detergents, paper, textiles, and food.

During the manufacture of soda ash,

some natural sources of sodium carbonate are heated and transformed into a

crude soda ash, in which CO2 is generated as a by-product. In addition, CO2

is often released when the soda ash is

consumed.

Carbon Dioxide Consumption 

(1.6 Tg CO2 Eq.)

Carbon dioxide is used directly in

many segments of the economy,

including food processing, beverage

manufacturing, chemical processing,

and a host of industrial and other miscellaneous applications. This CO2 may

be produced as a by-product from the

production of certain chemicals (e.g.,

ammonia) from select natural gas wells,

or by separating it from crude oil and

natural gas. For the most part, the CO2

used in these applications is eventually

released to the atmosphere.

Land-Use Change and Forestry

(Sink) (990.4 Tg CO2 Eq.)

When humans alter the terrestrial

biosphere through land use, changes in

land use, and forest management practices, they alter the natural carbon flux

between biomass, soils, and the atmosphere. Forest management practices, the

management of agricultural soils, and

landfilling of yard trimmings have

resulted in a net uptake (sequestration)

of carbon in the United States that is

equivalent to about 15 percent of total

U.S. gross emissions. 

Forests (including vegetation, soils,

and harvested wood) accounted for

approximately 91 percent of the total

sequestration, agricultural soils (including mineral and organic soils and the

application of lime) accounted for 8 percent, and landfilled yard trimmings

accounted for less than 1 percent. The

net forest sequestration is largely a result

of improved forest management practices, the regeneration of previously

cleared forest areas, and timber harvesting. Agricultural mineral soils account

for a net carbon sink that is more than

three times larger than the sum of emissions from organic soils and liming. Net

sequestration in these soils is largely due

to improved management practices on

cropland and grazing land, especially

using conservation tillage (leaving

residues on the field after harvest), and

taking erodible lands out of production

and planting them with grass or trees

through the Conservation Reserve Program. Finally, the net sequestration from

yard trimmings is due to their long-term

accumulation in landfills.

Waste

Waste Combustion (26.0 Tg CO2 Eq.)

Waste combustion involves the burning of garbage and nonhazardous solids,

referred to as municipal solid waste

(MSW), as well as the burning of hazardous waste. Carbon dioxide emissions

arise from the organic (i.e., carbon)

materials found in these wastes. Within

MSW, many products contain carbon of

biogenic origin, and the CO2 emissions

from their combustion are reported

under the Land-Use Change and

Forestry section. However, several components of MSW—plastics, synthetic

rubber, synthetic fibers, and carbon

black—are of fossil fuel origin, and are

included as sources of CO2 emissions.

METHANE EMISSIONS

Atmospheric methane (CH4) is an

integral component of the greenhouse

effect, second only to CO2 as a contributor to anthropogenic greenhouse gas

emissions. The overall contribution of

CH4 to global warming is significant

because it has been estimated to be 

21 times more effective at trapping 

heat in the atmosphere than CO2

(i.e., the GWP value of CH4 is 21)

(IPCC1996b). Over the last two centuries, the concentration of CH4 in the

atmosphere has more than doubled

(IPCC 2001b). Experts believe these

atmospheric increases were due largely

to increasing emissions from anthropogenic sources, such as landfills, natural

gas and petroleum systems, agricultural

activities, coal mining, stationary and

mobile combustion, wastewater treatment, and certain industrial processes

(see Figure 3-16 and Table 3-9).
Greenhouse Gas Inventory ■ 43

Landfills

Landfills are the largest source of

anthropogenic CH4 emissions in the

United States. In an environment

where the oxygen content is low or

nonexistent, organic materials—such as

yard waste, household waste, food

waste, and paper—can be decomposed

by bacteria, resulting in the generation

of CH4 and biogenic CO2. Methane

emissions from landfills are affected by

site-specific factors, such as waste composition, moisture, and landfill size.

In 1999, CH4 emissions from U.S.

landfills were 214.6 Tg CO2 Eq., down

by 1 percent since 1990. The relatively

constant emission estimates are a result

of two offsetting trends: (1) the amount

of municipal solid waste in landfills

contributing to CH4 emissions has

increased, thereby increasing the

potential for emissions; and (2) the

amount of landfill gas collected and

combusted by landfill operators has

also increased, thereby reducing emissions. Emissions from U.S. municipal

solid waste landfills accounted for 94

percent of total landfill emissions, while

industrial landfills accounted for the

remainder. Approximately 28 percent

of the CH4 generated in U.S. landfills

in 1999 was recovered and combusted,

often for energy.

A regulation promulgated in March

1996 requires the largest U.S. landfills

to collect and combust their landfill 

gas to reduce emissions of nonmethane volatile organic compounds

(NMVOCs). It is estimated that by the

year 2000 this regulation will have

reduced landfill CH4 emissions by

more than 50 percent.

Natural Gas and 

Petroleum Systems

Methane is the major component of

natural gas. During the production,

processing, transmission, and distribution of natural gas, fugitive emissions of

CH4 often occur. Because natural gas is

often found in conjunction with petroleum deposits, leakage from petroleum

systems is also a source of emissions.

Emissions vary greatly from facility to

facility and are largely a function of

operation and maintenance procedures

and equipment conditions. In 1999,

CH4 emissions from U.S. natural gas

systems were estimated to be 121.8 Tg

CO2 Eq., accounting for approximately

20 percent of U.S. CH4 emissions.

Petroleum is found in the same geological structures as natural gas, and the

two are retrieved together. Methane is

also saturated in crude oil, and

volatilizes as the oil is exposed to the

atmosphere at various points along the

Methane accounted for 9 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 1999. Landfills,

enteric fermentation, and natural gas systems were the source of 75 percent of total CH4

emissions.

Source 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Landfills 217.3 222.9 219.1 217.8 213.6 214.6

Enteric Fermentation 129.5 136.3 132.2 129.6 127.5 127.2

Natural Gas Systems 121.2 124.2 125.8 122.7 122.1 121.8

Coal Mining 87.9 74.6 69.3 68.8 66.5 61.8

Manure Management 26.4 31.0 30.7 32.6 35.2 34.4

Petroleum Systems 27.2 24.5 24.0 24.0 23.3 21.9

Wastewater Treatment 11.2 11.8 11.9 12.0 12.1 12.2

Rice Cultivation 8.7 9.5 8.8 9.6 10.1 10.7

Stationary Combustion 8.5 8.9 9.0 8.1 7.6 8.1

Mobile Combustion 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.5

Petrochemical Production 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7

Agricultural Residue Burning 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Silicon Carbide Production + + + + + +

International Bunker Fuels* + + + + + +

Total* 644.5 650.5 638.0 632.0 624.8 619.6

+ Does not exceed 0.05 Tg CO2 Eq.

* Emissions from international bunker fuels are not included in totals.

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

FIGURE 3-16 AND TABLE 3-9 U.S. Sources of Methane Emissions (Tg CO2 Eq.)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Tg CO2 Eq. in 1999

Landfills

Enteric Fermentation

Natural Gas Systems

Coal Mining

Manure Management

Petroleum Systems

Wastewater Treatment

Rice Cultivation

Stationary Sources

Mobile Sources

Petrochemical Production

Agricultural Residue Burning

Silicon Carbide Production

214.6

127.2

121.8

61.8

34.4

21.9

12.2

10.7

8.1

4.5

1.7

0.6

<0.05

CH4 as a portion of 

all GHG emissions

9.2%
44 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

system. Emissions of CH4 from the

components of petroleum systems—

including crude oil production, crude

oil refining, transportation, and distribution—generally occur as a result of

system leaks, disruptions, and routine

maintenance. In 1999, emissions from

petroleum systems were estimated to be

21.9 Tg CO2 Eq., or just less than 4 percent of U.S. CH4 emissions.

From 1990 to 1999, combined CH4

emissions from natural gas and petroleum systems decreased by 3 percent.

Emissions from natural gas systems have

remained fairly constant, while emissions from petroleum systems have

declined gradually since 1990, primarily

due to production declines.

Coal Mining

Produced millions of years ago during the formation of coal, CH4 trapped

within coal seams and surrounding rock

strata is released when the coal is

mined. The quantity of CH4 released to

the atmosphere during coal mining

operations depends primarily upon the

depth and type of the coal that is

mined.

Methane from surface mines is emitted directly to the atmosphere as the

rock strata overlying the coal seam are

removed. Because CH4 in underground

mines is explosive at concentrations of

5 to 15 percent in air, most active

underground mines are required to vent

this CH4. At some mines, CH4 recovery

systems may supplement these ventilation systems. Recovery of CH4 in the

United States has increased in recent

years. During 1999, coal mining activities emitted 61.8 Tg CO2 Eq. of CH4,

or 10 percent of U.S. CH4 emissions.

From 1990 to 1999, emissions from this

source decreased by 30 percent due, in

part, to increased use of the CH4 collected by mine degasification systems.

Agriculture

Agriculture accounted for 28 percent

of U.S. CH4 emissions in 1999, with

enteric fermentation in domestic livestock, manure management, and rice

cultivation representing the majority.

Agricultural waste burning also contributed to CH4 emissions from agricultural activities. 

Enteric Fermentation 

(127.2 Tg CO2 Eq.)

During animal digestion, CH4 is produced through the process of enteric fermentation, in which microbes residing in

animal digestive systems break down the

feed consumed by the animal. Ruminants, which include cattle, buffalo,

sheep, and goats, have the highest CH4

emissions among all animal types

because they have a rumen, or large forestomach, in which CH4-producing 

fermentation occurs. Nonruminant

domestic animals, such as pigs and

horses, have much lower CH4 emissions. 

In 1999, enteric fermentation was the

source of about 21 percent of U.S. CH4

emissions, and more than half of the

CH4 emissions from agriculture. From

1990 to 1999, emissions from this source

decreased by 2 percent. Emissions from

enteric fermentation have been generally

decreasing since 1995, primarily due to

declining dairy cow and beef cattle populations.

Manure Management 

(34.4 Tg CO2 Eq.) 

The decomposition of organic animal waste in an anaerobic environment

produces CH4. The most important factor affecting the amount of CH4 produced is how the manure is managed,

because certain types of storage and

treatment systems promote an oxygenfree environment. In particular, liquid

systems tend to encourage anaerobic

conditions and produce significant

quantities of CH4, whereas solid waste

management approaches produce little

or no CH4. Higher temperatures and

moist climate conditions also promote

CH4 production.

Emissions from manure management

were about 6 percent of U.S. CH4 emissions in 1999, and 20 percent of the

CH4 emissions from agriculture. From

1990 to 1999, emissions from this

source increased by 8.0 Tg CO2 Eq.—

the largest absolute increase of all the

CH4 source categories. The bulk of this

increase was from swine and dairy cow

manure, and is attributed to the shift in

the composition of the swine and dairy

industries toward larger facilities.

Larger swine and dairy farms tend to use

liquid management systems.

Rice Cultivation 

(10.7 Tg CO2 Eq.)

Most of the world’s rice, and all of

the rice in the United States, is grown

on flooded fields. When fields are

flooded, anaerobic conditions develop

and the organic matter in the soil

decomposes, releasing CH4 to the

atmosphere, primarily through the rice

plants. 

In 1999, rice cultivation was the

source of 2 percent of U.S. CH4 emissions, and about 6 percent of U.S. CH4

emissions from agriculture. Emission

estimates from this source have

increased by about 23 percent since

1990, due to an increase in the area harvested.

Agricultural Residue Burning 

(0.6 Tg CO2 Eq.)

Burning crop residue releases a number of greenhouse gases, including

CH4. Because field burning is not common in the United States, it was responsible for only 0.1 percent of U.S. CH4

emissions in 1999.

Other Sources

Methane is also produced from several other sources in the United States,

including wastewater treatment, fuel

combustion, and some industrial

processes. Methane emissions from

domestic wastewater treatment totaled

12.2 Tg CO2 Eq. in 1999. Stationary

and mobile combustion were responsible for CH4 emissions of 8.1 and 4.5 Tg

CO2 Eq., respectively. The majority of

emissions from stationary combustion

resulted from the burning of wood in

the residential end-use sector. The combustion of gasoline in highway vehicles

was responsible for the majority of the

CH4 emitted from mobile combustion.

Methane emissions from two industrial

sources—petrochemical and silicon carbide production—were also estimated,

totaling 1.7 Tg CO2 Eq.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory ■ 45

NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a greenhouse

gas that is produced both naturally, from

a wide variety of biological sources in

soil and water, and anthropogenically by

a variety of agricultural, energy-related,

industrial, and waste management activities. While total N2O emissions are

much smaller than CO2 emissions, N2O

is approximately 310 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat in the

atmosphere (IPCC 1996b).

During the past two centuries,

atmospheric concentrations of N2O

have risen by approximately 13 percent.

The main anthropogenic activities producing N2O in the United States are

agricultural soil management, fuel combustion in motor vehicles, and adipic

and nitric acid production processes

(see Figure 3-17 and Table 3-10).

Agricultural Soil Management

Nitrous oxide is produced naturally

in soils through microbial processes of

nitrification and denitrification. A number of anthropogenic activities add to

the amount of nitrogen available to be

emitted as N2O by these microbial

processes. These activities may add

nitrogen to soils either directly or indirectly. Direct additions occur through

the application of synthetic and organic

fertilizers; production of nitrogenfixing crops; the application of livestock

manure, crop residues, and sewage

sludge; cultivation of high-organiccontent soils; and direct excretion by

animals onto soil. Indirect additions

result from volatilization and subsequent atmospheric deposition, and from

leaching and surface runoff of some of

the nitrogen applied to soils as fertilizer,

livestock manure, and sewage sludge.

In 1999, agricultural soil management accounted for 298.3 Tg CO2 Eq.,

or 69 percent, of U.S. N2O emissions.

From 1990 to 1999, emissions from this

source grew by 11 percent as fertilizer

consumption, manure production, and

crop production increased.

Fuel Combustion

Nitrous oxide is a product of the

reaction that occurs between nitrogen

Nitrous oxide accounted for 6 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 1999, and

agricultural soil management represented 69 percent of total N2

O emissions.

Source 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

Agricultural Soil Management 269.0 285.4 294.6 299.8 300.3 298.3

Mobile Combustion 54.3 66.8 65.3 65.2 64.2 63.4

Nitric Acid 17.8 19.9 20.7 21.2 20.9 20.2

Manure Management 16.0 16.4 16.8 17.1 17.2 17.2

Stationary Combustion 13.6 14.3 14.9 15.0 15.1 15.7

Adipic Acid 18.3 20.3 20.8 17.1 7.3 9.0

Human Sewage 7.1 8.2 7.8 7.9 8.1 8.2

Agricultural Residue Burning 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4

Waste Combustion 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2

International Bunker Fuels* 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0

Total* 396.9 431.9 441.6 444.1 433.7 432.6

* Emissions from international bunker fuels are not included in totals.

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

0

50

100

150

200

250300

Tg CO2 Eq. in 1999

Agricultural Soil Management

Mobile Sources

Nitric Acid

Manure Management

Stationary Sources

Adipic Acid

Human Sewage

Agricultural Residue Burning

Waste Combustion

298.3

63.4

20.2

17.2

15.7

9.0

8.2

0.4

0.2

N2O as a portion of 

all GHG emissions

6.4%

and oxygen during fuel combustion.

Both mobile and stationary combustion

emit N2O. The quantity emitted varies

according to the type of fuel, technology, and pollution control device used,

as well as maintenance and operating

practices. For example, catalytic converters installed to reduce motor vehicle

pollution can result in the formation of

N2O.

In 1999, N2O emissions from mobile

combustion totaled 63.4 Tg CO2 Eq.,

or 15 percent of U.S. N2O emissions.

Emissions of N2O from stationary combustion were 15.7 Tg CO2 Eq., or 4

percent of U.S. N2O emissions. From

1990 to 1999, combined N2O emissions from stationary and mobile combustion increased by 16 percent, primarily due to increased rates of N2O

generation in motor vehicles.

Nitric Acid Production

Nitric acid production is an industrial source of N2O emissions. Used primarily to make synthetic commercial

fertilizer, this raw material is also a

major component in the production of

adipic acid and explosives.

Virtually all of the nitric acid manufactured in the United States is produced

by the oxidation of ammonia, during

which N2O is formed and emitted to the

atmosphere. In 1999, N2O emissions

FIGURE 3-17 AND TABLE 3-10 U.S. Sources of Nitrous Oxide Emissions (Tg CO2 Eq.)
46 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

from nitric acid production were 20.2 Tg

CO2 Eq., or 5 percent of U.S. N2O emissions. From 1990 to 1999, emissions from

this source category increased by 13 percent as nitric acid production grew.

Manure Management 

Nitrous oxide is produced as part of

microbial nitrification and denitrification processes in managed and unmanaged manure, the latter of which is

addressed under agricultural soil management. Total N2O emissions from

managed manure systems in 1999 were

17.2 Tg CO2 Eq., accounting for 4 percent of U.S. N2O emissions. From 1990

to 1999, emissions from this source category increased by 7 percent, as poultry

and swine populations have increased.

Adipic Acid Production

Most adipic acid produced in the

United States is used to manufacture

nylon 6,6. Adipic acid is also used to produce some low-temperature lubricants

and to add a “tangy” flavor to foods.

Nitrous oxide is emitted as a by-product

of the chemical synthesis of adipic acid.

In 1999, U.S. adipic acid plants emitted 9.0 Tg CO2 Eq. of N2O, or 2 percent

of U.S. N2O emissions. Even though

adipic acid production has increased, by

1998 all three major adipic acid plants in

the United States had voluntarily implemented N2O abatement technology. As

a result, emissions have decreased by 51

percent since 1990.

Other Sources

Other sources of N2O included agricultural residue burning, waste combustion, and human sewage in wastewater

treatment systems. In 1999, agricultural

residue burning and municipal solid

waste combustion each emitted less

than 1 Tg CO2 Eq. of N2O. The human

sewage component of domestic wastewater resulted in emissions of 8.2 Tg

CO2 Eq. in 1999.

HFC, PFC, AND SF6 EMISSIONS

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and

perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are categories

of synthetic chemicals that are being

used as alternatives to the ozonedepleting substances (ODSs) being

phased out under the Montreal Protocol

and Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990. Because HFCs and PFCs do not

directly deplete the stratospheric ozone

layer, they are not controlled by the

Montreal Protocol.

These compounds, however, along

with sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), are potent

greenhouse gases. In addition to having

high global warming potentials, SF6 and

PFCs have extremely long atmospheric

lifetimes, resulting in their essentially

irreversible accumulation in the atmosphere. Sulfur hexafluoride is the most

potent greenhouse gas the IPCC has

evaluated.

Other emissive sources of these gases

include aluminum production, HCFC-22

production, semiconductor manufacturing, electrical transmission and distribution systems, and magnesium production

and processing. Figure 3-18 and Table 

3-11 present emission estimates for

HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, which totaled

135.7 Tg CO2 Eq. in 1999.

Substitution of OzoneDepleting Substances

The use and subsequent emissions of

HFCs and PFCs as substitutes for ozonedepleting substances (ODSs) increased

from small amounts in 1990 to 56.7 Tg

CO2 Eq. in 1999. This increase was the

result of efforts to phase out CFCs and

other ODSs in the United States, especially the introduction of HFC-134a as a

CFC substitute in refrigeration applications. In the short term, this trend is

expected to continue, and will most

likely accelerate in the next decade as

HCFCs, which are interim substitutes in

many applications, are themselves

phased out under the provisions of the

Copenhagen Amendments to the Montreal Protocol. Improvements in the technologies associated with the use of these

gases, however, may help to offset this

anticipated increase in emissions.

Other Industrial Sources

HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are also emitted

from a number of other industrial

processes. During the production of primary aluminum, two PFCs—CF4 and

C2F6—are emitted as intermittent byproducts of the smelting process. Emissions from aluminum production, which

totaled 10.0 Tg CO2 Eq., were estimated

to have decreased by 48 percent

between 1990 and 1999 due to voluntary

emission reduction efforts by the industry and falling domestic aluminum production.

HFC-23 is a by-product emitted during the production of HCFC-22. Emissions from this source were 30.4 Tg CO2

Eq. in 1999, and have decreased by 13

percent since 1990. The intensity of

HFC-23 emissions (i.e., the amount of

HFC-23 emitted per kilogram of HCFC22 manufactured) has declined significantly since 1990, although production

has been increasing.

The semiconductor industry uses

combinations of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, and

other gases for plasma etching and to

clean chemical vapor deposition tools.

For 1999, it was estimated that the U.S.

semiconductor industry emitted a total

of 6.8 Tg CO2 Eq. Emissions from this

source category have increased with the

growth in the semiconductor industry

and the rising intricacy of chip designs.

The primary use of SF6 is as a dielectric in electrical transmission and distribution systems. Fugitive emissions of SF6

occur from leaks in and servicing of substations and circuit breakers, especially

from older equipment. Estimated emissions from this source increased by 

25 percent since 1990, to 25.7 Tg CO2

Eq. in 1999.

Finally, SF6 is also used as a protective cover gas for the casting of molten

magnesium. Estimated emissions from

primary magnesium production and

magnesium casting were 6.1 Tg CO2

Eq. in 1999, an increase of 11 percent

since 1990.

Emissions of OzoneDepleting Substances

Halogenated compounds were first

emitted into the atmosphere during the

20th century. This family of manmade

compounds includes chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, methyl
HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 accounted for 2 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 1999, and substitutes for ozone-depleting substances

comprised 42 percent of all HFC, PFC, and SF6 emissions.

Source 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

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

HCFC-22 Production 34.8 27.1 31.2 30.1 40.0 30.4

Electrical Transmission and Distribution 20.5 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7

Aluminum Production 19.3 11.2 11.6 10.8 10.1 10.0

Semiconductor Manufacture 2.9 5.5 7.0 7.0 6.8 6.8

Magnesium Production and Processing 5.5 5.5 5.6 7.5 6.3 6.1

Total 83.9 99.0 115.1 123.3 138.6 135.7

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

Greenhouse Gas Inventory ■ 47

bromide, and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). These substances have

been used in a variety of industrial

applications, including refrigeration, air

conditioning, foam blowing, solvent

cleaning, sterilization, fire extinguishing, coatings, paints, and aerosols.

Because these compounds have been

shown to deplete stratospheric ozone,

they are typically referred to as ozonedepleting substances (ODSs). However, they are also potent greenhouse

gases.

Recognizing the harmful effects of

these compounds on the ozone layer,

181 countries have ratified the Montreal

Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone

Layer to limit the production and

importation of a number of CFCs and

other halogenated compounds. The

United States furthered its commitment

to phase out ODSs by signing and ratifying the Copenhagen Amendments to

the Montreal Protocol in 1992. Under

these amendments, the United States

committed to ending the production

and importation of halons by 1994, and

CFCs by 1996.

The IPCC Guidelines and the

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change do not include

reporting instructions for estimating

emissions of ODSs because their use is

being phased out under the Montreal

Protocol. The United States believes,

however, that a greenhouse gas emissions inventory is incomplete without

these emissions; therefore, estimates for

several Class I and Class II ODSs are

provided in Table 3-12. Compounds are

grouped by class according to their

ozone-depleting potential. Class I compounds are the primary ODSs; Class II

compounds include partially halogenated chlorine compounds (i.e.,

HCFCs), some of which were developed as interim replacements for CFCs.

Because these HCFC compounds are

only partially halogenated, their hydrogen-carbon bonds are more vulnerable

to oxidation in the troposphere and,

therefore, pose only one-tenth to onehundredth the threat to stratospheric

ozone compared to CFCs.

It should be noted that the effects of

these compounds on radiative forcing

are not provided. Although many

ODSs have relatively high direct global

warming potentials, their indirect

effects from ozone (also a greenhouse

gas) destruction are believed to have

negative radiative-forcing effects and,

therefore, could significantly reduce the

overall magnitude of their radiativeforcing effects. Given the uncertainties

about the net effect of these gases,

emissions are reported on an

unweighted basis.

FIGURE 3-18 AND TABLE 3-11 U.S. Sources of HFC, PFC, and SF6 Emissions (Tg CO2 Eq.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Tg CO2 Eq. in 1999

Substitution of Ozone-Depleting Substances 56.7

HCFC-22 Production 30.4

Electrical Transmission and Distribution 25.7

Aluminum Production 10.0

Semiconductor Manufacture 6.8

Magnesium Production and Processing 6.1

HFCs, PFCs, SF6 as a portion of 

all GHG emissions

2.0%
48 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

CRITERIA POLLUTANT 

EMISSIONS

In the United States, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx

), nonmethane volatile organic compounds

(NMVOCs), and sulfur dioxide (SO2)

are commonly referred to as “criteria pollutants,” as termed in the Clean Air Act.

Criteria pollutants do not have a direct

global warming effect, but indirectly

affect terrestrial radiation absorption by

influencing the formation and destruction of tropospheric and stratospheric

ozone, or, in the case of SO2, by affecting the absorptive characteristics of the

atmosphere. 

Carbon monoxide is produced when

carbon-containing fuels are combusted

incompletely. Nitrogen oxides (i.e., NO

and NOx) are created by lightning, fires,

and fossil fuel combustion and 

are created in the stratosphere from

nitrous oxide (N2O). NMVOCs—

which include such compounds as

propane, butane, and ethane—are emitted primarily from transportation, industrial processes, and nonindustrial

consumption of organic solvents. In the

United States, SO2 is primarily emitted

from the combustion of coal by the electric power industry and by the 

metals industry.

In part because of their contribution

to the formation of urban smog—and

acid rain in the case of SO2 and NOx—

criteria pollutants are regulated under

the Clean Air Act. These gases also indirectly affect the global climate by reacting with other chemical compounds in

the atmosphere to form compounds that

are greenhouse gases. Unlike other criteria pollutants, SO2 emitted into the

atmosphere is believed to affect the

Earth’s radiative budget negatively;

therefore, it is discussed separately.

One of the most important indirect

climate change effects of NOx and

NMVOCs is their role as precursors for

tropospheric ozone formation. They can

also alter the atmospheric lifetimes of

other greenhouse gases. For example,

CO interacts with the hydroxyl radical—the major atmospheric sink for

CH4 emissions—to form CO2. 

Many ozone-depleting substances have relatively high direct global warming potentials.

However, their indirect effects from ozone (also a greenhouse gas) destruction are believed

to have negative radiative-forcing effects and, therefore, could significantly reduce the

overall magnitude of their radiative-forcing effects. Given the uncertainties about the net

effect of these gases, emissions are reported on an unweighted basis.

Compound 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Class I

CFC-11 52.4 19.1 11.7 10.7 9.8 9.2

CFC-12 226.9 71.1 72.2 63.6 54.9 64.4

CFC-113 39.0 7.6 + + + +

CFC-114 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 +

CFC-115 2.2 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.1

Carbon Tetrachloride 25.1 5.5 + + + +

Methyl Chloroform 27.9 8.7 1.6 + + +

Halon-1211 + 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Halon-1301 1.0 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

Class II 

HCFC-22 33.9 46.2 48.8 50.6 52.3 83.0

HCFC-123 + 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

HCFC-124 + 5.6 5.9 6.2 6.4 6.5

HCFC-141b + 20.6 25.4 25.1 26.7 28.7

HCFC-142b + 7.3 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.5

HCFC-225ca/cb + + + + + +

+ Does not exceed 0.05 gigagrams.

Source: EPA estimates.

TABLE 3-12 Emissions of Ozone-Depleting Substances (Gigagrams)

S

ulfur dioxide emitted into the atmosphere through natural and anthropogenic processes

affects the Earth’s radiative budget through its photochemical transformation into sulfate

aerosols that can (1) scatter sunlight back to space, thereby reducing the radiation reaching the Earth’s surface; (2) affect cloud formation; and (3) affect atmospheric chemical composition by providing surfaces for heterogeneous chemical reactions. The overall effect of

SO2

-derived aerosols on radiative forcing is negative (IPCC 2001b). However, because SO2

is short-lived and unevenly distributed in the atmosphere, its radiative-forcing impacts are

highly uncertain.

Sulfur dioxide is also a contributor to the formation of urban smog, which can cause significant increases in acute and chronic respiratory diseases. Once SO2 is emitted, it is chemically transformed in the atmosphere and returns to the Earth as the primary source of acid

rain. Because of these harmful effects, the United States has regulated SO2 emissions in the

Clean Air Act.

Electric utilities are the largest source of SO2 emissions in the United States, accounting for

67 percent in 1999. Coal combustion contributes nearly all of those emissions (approximately 93 percent). Emissions of SO2 have decreased in recent years, primarily as a result

of electric utilities switching from high-sulfur to low-sulfur coal and use of flue gas desulfurization.

Sources and Effects of Sulfur Dioxide
Greenhouse Gas Inventory ■ 49

Therefore, increased atmospheric concentrations of CO limit the number of

hydroxyl molecules (OH) available to

destroy CH4.

Since 1970, the United States has

published estimates of annual emissions

of criteria pollutants (U.S. EPA 2000).16

Table 3-13 shows that fuel combustion

accounts for the majority of emissions of

these gases. Industrial processes, such as

the manufacture of chemical and allied

products, metals processing, and industrial uses of solvents, are also significant

sources of CO, NOx, and NMVOCs.

Fuel combustion accounts for the majority of emissions of criteria pollutants. Industrial processes—such as the manufacture of chemical and

allied products, metals processing, and industrial uses of solvents—are also significant sources of CO, NOX, and NMVOCs.

Gas/Activity 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

NOX 21,955 22,755 23,663 23,934 23,613 23,042

Stationary Fossil Fuel Combustion 9,884 9,822 9,541 9,589 9,408 9,070

Mobile Fossil Fuel Combustion 10,900 11,870 12,893 13,095 13,021 12,794

Oil and Gas Activities 139 100 126 130 130 130

Industrial Processes 921 842 977 992 924 930

Solvent Use 133333

Agricultural Burning 28 28 32 33 34 33

Waste 83 89 92 92 93 83

CO 85,846 80,678 87,196 87,012 82,496 82,982

Stationary Fossil Fuel Combustion 4,999 5,383 5,620 4,968 4,575 4,798

Mobile Fossil Fuel Combustion 69,523 68,072 72,390 71,225 70,288 68,179

Oil and Gas Activities 302 316 321 333 332 332

Industrial Processes 9,502 5,291 7,227 8,831 5,612 5,604

Solvent Use 451111

Agricultural Burning 537 536 625 630 653 629

Waste 979 1,075 1,012 1,024 1,035 3,439

NMVOCs 18,843 18,663 17,353 17,586 16,554 16,128

Stationary Fossil Fuel Combustion 912 973 971 848 778 820

Mobile Fossil Fuel Combustion 8,154 7,725 8,251 8,023 7,928 7,736

Oil and Gas Activities 555 582 433 442 440 385

Industrial Processes 3,110 2,805 2,354 2,793 2,352 2,281

Solvent Use 5,217 5,609 4,963 5,098 4,668 4,376

Agricultural Burning NA NA NA NA NA NA

Waste 895 969 381 382 387 531

SO2 21,481 17,408 17,109 17,565 17,682 17,115

Stationary Fossil Fuel Combustion 18,407 14,724 14,727 15,106 15,192 14,598

Mobile Fossil Fuel Combustion 1,339 1,189 1,081 1,116 1,145 1,178

Oil and Gas Activities 390 334 304 312 310 309

Industrial Processes 1,306 1,117 958 993 996 996

Solvent Use 011111

Agricultural Burning NA NA NA NA NA NA

Waste 38 43 37 37 38 33

+ Does not exceed 0.5 gigagrams.

NA = Not Available.

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

Source: EPA 2000, except for estimates from agricultural residue burning.

TABLE 3-13 Emissions of NOx, CO, NMVOCs, and SO2 (Gg)

16 NOx and CO emission estimates from agricultural residue burning were estimated separately and, therefore, not taken from U.S. EPA 2000.
Chapter 4 

Policies

and Measures

I

n the past decade, the United States

has made significant progress in

reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In

2000 alone, U.S. climate change programs reduced the growth in greenhouse

gas emissions by 242 teragrams of carbon

dioxide equivalent1 (Tg CO2 Eq.) (see

Table 4-1 at the end of this chapter).

They have also significantly helped the

United States reduce carbon intensity,

which is the amount of CO2 emitted per

unit of gross domestic product .

While many policies and measures

developed in the 1990s continue to

achieve their goals, recent changes in the

economy and in energy markets, coupled

with the introduction of new science and

technology, create a need to re-evaluate

existing climate change programs to

ensure they effectively meet future economic, climate, and other environmental

1 Emissions are expressed in units of CO2 equivalents for

consistency in international reporting under the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

One teragram is equal to one million metric tons.
Policies and Measures ■ 51

T

he U.S. government is currently pursuing a broad range of strategies to reduce net emissions of greenhouse gases.

Electricity

Federal programs promote greenhouse gas reductions through the development of

cleaner, more efficient technologies for electricity generation and transmission. The

government also supports the development of renewable resources, such as solar energy, wind power, geothermal energy, hydropower, bioenergy, and hydrogen fuels.

Transportation

Federal programs promote development of fuel-efficient motor vehicles and trucks,

research and development options for producing cleaner fuels, and implementation of

programs to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled.

Industry

Federal programs implement partnership programs with industry to reduce emissions of

carbon dioxide (CO2

) and other greenhouse gases, promote source reduction and recycling, and increase the use of combined heat and power.

Buildings

Federal voluntary partnership programs promote energy efficiency in the nation’s commercial, residential, and government buildings (including schools) by offering technical

assistance as well as the labeling of efficient products, new homes, and office buildings.

Agriculture and Forestry

The U.S. government implements conservation programs that have the benefit of 

reducing agricultural emissions, sequestering carbon in soils, and offsetting overall

greenhouse gas emissions.

Federal Government

The U.S. government has taken steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from energy

use in federal buildings and in the federal transportation fleet.

U.S. Strategies in Key Sectors to Reduce Net Emissions of Greenhouse Gases

goals. Our experience with greenhouse

gas emissions highlights the importance

of creating climate policy within the context of the overall economy, changing

energy markets, technology development and deployment, and R&D priorities. Because global warming is a

long-term problem, solutions need to be

long lasting.

The U.S. government is currently

pursuing a broad range of strategies to

reduce net emissions of greenhouse

gases. In addition, businesses, state and

local governments, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are addressing global climate change by improving

the measurement and reporting of

greenhouse gas emission reductions; by

voluntarily reducing emissions, including using emission trading systems; and

by sequestering carbon through tree

planting and forest preservation,

restoration, conversion of eroding

cropland to permanent cover, and soil

management.

NATIONAL POLICYMAKING

PROCESS

Shortly after taking office in January

2001, President Bush directed a Cabinetlevel review of U.S. climate change 

policy and programs. The President

established working groups and

requested them to develop innovative

approaches that would:

• be consistent with the goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations

in the atmosphere; 

• be sufficiently flexible to allow for

new findings; 

• support continued economic growth

and prosperity; 

• provide market-based incentives; 

• incorporate technological advances;

and

• promote global participation.

Members of the Cabinet, the Vice

President, and senior White House staff

extensively reviewed and discussed climate science, existing technologies to

reduce greenhouse gases and sequester

carbon, current U.S. programs and policies, and innovative options for addressing concentrations of greenhouse gases

in the atmosphere. They were assisted

by a number of scientific, technical, and

policy experts from the federal government, national laboratories, universities,

NGOs, and the private sector. To obtain

the most recent information and a balanced view of the current state of climate

change science, the Cabinet group asked

the National Academy of Sciences

(NAS) to issue a report addressing areas

of scientific consensus and significant

gaps in our climate change knowledge

(NRC 2001a). Appendix D of this report

presents key questions posed by the

Committee on the Science of Climate

Change, along with the U.S. National

Research Council’s responses.

On June 11, 2001, the President

issued the interim report of the Cabinet-level review (EOP 2001). Based on

the NAS report (NRC 2001a) and the

Cabinet’s findings, President Bush

directed the Department of Commerce,

working with other federal agencies, to

set priorities for additional investments

in climate change research, to review

such investments, and to maximize

coordination among federal agencies to

advance the science of climate change.

The President is committed to fully

funding all priority research areas that

the review finds are underfunded or

need to be accelerated relative to other

research. Such areas could include the

carbon and global water cycles and climate modeling. 

The President further directed the

Secretaries of Commerce and Energy,

working with other federal agencies, to

develop a National Climate Change

Technology Initiative with the following major objectives:

• Evaluate the current state of U.S. climate change technology R&D and

make recommendations for improvements.

• Develop opportunities to enhance

private–public partnerships in applied R&D to expedite innovative
52 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

and cost-effective approaches to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions

and the buildup of greenhouse gas

concentrations in the atmosphere.

• Make recommendations for funding

demonstration projects for cuttingedge technologies.

• Provide guidance on strengthening

basic research at universities and

national laboratories, including the

development of the advanced mitigation technologies that offer the

greatest promise for low-cost reductions of greenhouse gas emissions

and global warming potential.

• Make recommendations to enhance

coordination across federal agencies,

and among the federal government,

universities, and the private sector.

• Make recommendations for developing improved technologies for

measuring and monitoring gross and

net greenhouse gas emissions.

Simultaneous with the President’s

climate change policy development is

the implementation of the May 2001

National Energy Policy (NEPD Group

2001).2 Developed under the leadership of Vice President Cheney, the

National Energy Policy is a long-term,

comprehensive strategy to advance the

development of new, environmentally

friendly technologies to increase

energy supplies and encourage cleaner,

more efficient energy use 

The National Energy Policy identified a

number of major energy challenges and

contains 105 specific recommendations

for dealing with them, many of which

affect greenhouse gas emissions. For

example, it promotes energy efficiency

by calling for the intelligent use of 

new technologies and information 

dissemination; confronts our increasing

dependency on foreign sources of

energy by calling for increased domestic

production with advanced technologies;

and addresses our increasing reliance on

natural gas by paving the way for a

greater balance among many energy

sources, including renewable energy but

also traditional sources, such as

hydropower and nuclear energy. In addition, the National Energy Policy initiated a

comprehensive technology review to reprioritize energy R&D. The review,

which is currently underway, is critically

evaluating the research, development,

demonstration, and deployment portfolio for energy efficiency, renewable

energy, and alternative energy technologies as they apply to the buildings, transportation, industry, power generation,

and government sectors.

FEDERAL POLICIES 

AND MEASURES

The United States recognizes that

climate change is a serious problem, and

has devoted significant resources to climate change programs and activities

(Table 4-2). This section summarizes the

progress of existing federal climate

change programs, including new policies

and measures not described in the 

1997 U.S. Climate Action Report (CAR), and

actions described in the 1997 CAR that

are no longer ongoing (U.S. DOS

1997). Many of these programs have

evolved substantially since the 1997

CAR, which is reflected in individual

program descriptions. Although originally focused on important early reductions by the year 2000, the programs

are building emission reductions that

grow over time and provide even larger

benefits in later years. In addition, the

Cabinet-level climate change working

group is continuing its review and is

developing other approaches to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions, including

those that tap the power of the markets,

help realize the promise of technology,

and ensure the broadest possible global

participation.

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

M

any U.S. climate change programs have been highly successful at stimulating participation and achieving measurable energy and cost savings, as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.*

• Minimum efficiency standards on residential appliances have saved consumers nearly $25 billion through 1999, avoiding cumulative emissions by an amount equal to

almost 180 Tg CO2 Eq. Four pending appliance standards (clothes washers, fluorescent

light ballasts, water heaters, and central air conditioners) are projected to save consumers up to $10 billion and reduce cumulative emissions by as much as 80 Tg CO2 Eq.

through 2010.

• The ENERGY STAR® program promotes energy efficiency in U.S. homes and commercial

buildings. It has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 55 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000

alone, and is projected to increase this amount to about 160 Tg CO2 Eq. a year by 2010.

• Public–private partnership programs have contributed to the decline in methane emissions since 1990, and are expected to hold emissions at or below 1990 levels through

2010 and beyond. Partners in the methane programs have reduced methane emissions

by about 35 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000 and are projected to reduce emissions by 55 Tg CO2 Eq.

annually by 2010.

• Programs designed to halt the growth in emissions of the most potent greenhouse

gases—the “high global warming potential (GWP) gases”––are achieving significant

progress. These programs reduced high-GWP emissions by more than 70 Tg CO2 Eq. in

2000 and are projected to reduce emissions by more than 280 Tg CO2 Eq. annually by

2010.

• Federal, state, and local outreach has allocated nearly $10 million in grants and other

awards since 1992 for 41 state greenhouse gas emission inventories, 27 state action

plans, 16 demonstration projects, and 32 educational and outreach programs. Across

the nation, 110 cities and counties, representing approximately 44 million people, are

developing inventories and implementing climate change action plans.

* There is uncertainty in any attempt to project future emission levels and program impacts from what would have

happened in the absence of these programs. These projections represent a best estimate. They are also based on

the assumption that programs will continue to be funded at current funding levels.

Highlights of U.S. Climate Change Programs
Policies and Measures ■ 53

Since the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report, the United States has reassessed ongoing activities for their direct and indirect impacts on greenhouse emissions. This table summarizes

the funding across a portion of these activities, which includes a range of research and

development on energy efficiency and renewable energy, as well as setting efficiency standards. 

FY 2001

Types of Programs FY 1999 FY 2000 Estimate

Directly Related Programs & Policies 1,009 1,095 1,239

Other Climate-Related Programs 685 698 946

Total 1,694 1,793 2,185

Note: Funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, International Assistance, and the Global Environment 

Facility is described in later chapters and is not included in this total.

Source: OMB 2001.

TABLE 4-2 Summary of Federal Climate Change Expenditures: 1999–2001 

(Millions of Dollars)

Federal partnership programs promote improved energy efficiency and

increased use of renewable energy technologies in the nation’s commercial, residential, and government buildings

(including schools) by offering technical

assistance as well as the labeling of efficient products, efficient new homes, and

efficient buildings. The U.S. government is implementing a number of partnership programs with industry to

reduce CO2 emissions, increase the use

of combined heat and power, and promote the development of cleaner, more

efficient technologies for electricity generation and transmission. The federal

government is also supporting renewable resources, such as solar energy,

wind power, geothermal energy,

hydropower, bioenergy, and hydrogen

fuels. In addition, the U.S. government’s

commitment to advanced research and

development in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy, alternative

energy technologies, and nuclear energy

will play a central role in an effective

long-term response to climate change.

Energy: Residential 

and Commercial

Residential and commercial buildings

account for approximately 35 percent of

U.S. CO2 emissions from energy use.

Electricity consumption for lighting,

heating, cooling, and operating appliances accounts for the majority of these

emissions. Many commercial buildings

and new homes could effectively operate with 30 percent less energy if owners

made investments in energy-efficient

products, technologies, and best management practices. Federal partnership

programs promote these investments

through a market-based approach, using

labeling to clearly identify which products, practices, new homes, and buildings are energy efficient. The United

States also funds significant research on

developing highly efficient building

equipment and appliances. Following

are descriptions of some of the key policies and measures in this area.

ENERGY STAR® for the 

Commercial Market

This program has evolved substantially since the last CAR. Its major focus

now is on promoting high-performing

(high-efficiency) buildings and providing decision makers throughout an

organization with the information they

need to undertake effective building

improvement projects. While the partnership continues to work with more

than 5,500 organizations across the

country, this program also introduced a

system in 1999 that allows the benchmarking of building energy performance against the national stock of

buildings. As recommended in the

National Energy Policy, this system is

being expanded to represent additional

major U.S. building types, such as

schools (K–12), grocery stores, hotels,

hospitals, and warehouses. By the end of

2001, more than 75 percent of U.S.

building stock could use this system.

The national building energy performance rating system also allows for recognizing the highest-performing buildings,

which can earn the ENERGY STAR® label.

EPA estimates that ENERGY STAR® in the

commercial building sector provided 23

Tg CO2 Eq. reductions in 2000, and

projects it will provide 62 Tg CO2 Eq.

reductions by 2010.

Commercial Buildings Integration

This program continues to work to

realize energy-saving opportunities provided by the whole-building approach

during the construction and major renovation of existing commercial buildings.

The program is increasing its industry

partnerships in design, construction,

operation and maintenance, indoor environment, and control and diagnostics of

heating, ventilation, air conditioning,

lighting, and other building systems.

Through these efforts, the Department

of Energy (DOE) helps transfer the most

energy-efficient building techniques and

practices into commercial buildings

through regulatory activities, such as

supporting the upgrade of voluntary

(model) building energy codes and

promulgating upgraded federal commercial building energy codes. The program

consists of Updating State Building Codes

and Partnerships for Commercial Buildings and

Facilities, and is supported by a number of

DOE programs, such as Commercial Building R&D. 

ENERGY STAR® for the 

Residential Market

This program has expanded significantly since the last CAR when it was

focused on new home construction. It

now also provides guidance for homeowners on designing efficiency into

kitchen, additions, and whole-home

improvement projects and works with

major retailers and other organizations

to help educate the public. In addition,

it offers a Web-based audit tool and a

home energy benchmark tool to help

the homeowner implement a project

and monitor progress. Builders have
54 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

constructed more than 55,000 ENERGY

STAR®-labeled new homes in the

United States, at a pace that has doubled each year. These homes are averaging energy savings of about 35

percent better than the model energy

code. The Environmental Protection

Agency’s (EPA’s) ENERGY STAR®-labeled

homes and home improvement effort

are expected to provide about 20 Tg

CO2 Eq. in emission reductions in

2010.

Community Energy Program:

Rebuild America

This program continues to help

communities, towns, and cities save

energy, create jobs, promote growth,

and protect the environment through

improved energy efficiency and sustainable building design and operation. The

centerpiece of this newly consolidated

program is Rebuild America—a program

that assists states and communities in

developing and implementing environmentally and economically sound activities through smarter energy use. The

program provides one-stop shopping

for information and assistance on how

to plan, finance, implement, and manage retrofit projects to improve energy

efficiency. As of May 2001, Rebuild

America formed 340 partnerships committed to performing energy retrofits,

which are complete or underway on

approximately 550 million square feet

of building space in the 50 states and

two U.S. territories.

Residential Building Integration:

Building America

This program represents the consolidation of a number of initiatives. It

works with industry to jointly fund,

develop, demonstrate, and deploy housing that integrates energy-efficiency

technologies and practices. The Energy

Partnerships for Affordable Housing consolidates the formerly separate systems

engineering programs of Building America,

Industrialized Housing, Passive Solar Buildings,

Indoor Air Quality, and existing building

research into a comprehensive program.

Systems integration research and development activities analyze building components and systems and integrate them

so that the overall building performance

is greater than the sum of its parts. Building America is a private–public partnership that provides energy solutions for

production housing and combines the

knowledge and resources of industry

leaders with DOE’s technical capabilities to act as a catalyst for change in the

home building industry.

ENERGY STAR®-Labeled Products

The strategy of this program has

evolved substantially since the last CAR,

not only with the addition of new products to the ENERGY STAR® family, but also

with expanded outreach to consumers in

partnership with their local utility or

similar organization. The ENERGY STAR®

label has been expanded to more than 

30 product categories and, as recommended in the President’s National Energy

Policy, EPA and DOE are currently working to expand the program to additional

products and appliances. ENERGY STAR®

works in partnership with utilities representing about 50 percent of U.S. energy

customers. The ENERGY STAR® label is

now recognized by more than 40 percent of U.S. consumers, who have purchased over 600 million ENERGY STAR®

products. Due to the increased penetration of these energy-efficient products,

EPA estimates that 33 Tg CO2 Eq. of

emissions were avoided in 2000 and

projects that 75 Tg CO2 Eq. will be

reduced in 2010.

Building Equipment, 

Materials, and Tools

This program conducts R&D on

building components and design tools

and issues standards and test procedures for a variety of appliances and

equipment. Sample building components that increase the energy efficiency of buildings and improve

building performance include innovative lighting, advanced space conditioning and refrigeration, and fuel cells.

The program also conducts R&D on

building envelope technologies, such as

advanced windows, coatings, and insulation. It is improving analytical tools

that effectively integrate all elements

affecting building energy use and help

building designers, owners, and operators develop the best design strategies

for new and existing buildings.

Additional Policies and Measures

Additional ongoing policies and

measures in the residential and commercial sector include Residential Appliance Standards; State and Community

Assistance (State Energy Program, Weatherization Assistance Program, Community

Energy Grants, Information Outreach); Heat

Island Reduction Initiative; and Economic

Incentives/Tax Credits. Appendix B provides detailed descriptions of policies

and measures.

Two policies and measures listed as

new initiatives in the 1997 CAR no

longer appear as separate programs.

Expand Markets for Next-Generation Lighting

Products and Construction of Energy-Efficient

Buildings have been incorporated into

other existing climate programs at

DOE and EPA.

Energy: Industrial

About 27 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions result from industrial activities.

The primary source of these emissions

is the burning of carbon-based fuels,

either on site in manufacturing plants or

through the purchase of generated electricity. Many manufacturing processes

use more energy than is necessary. The

following programs help to improve

industrial productivity by lowering

energy costs, providing innovative

manufacturing methods, and reducing

waste and emissions.

Industries of the Future

This program continues to work in

partnership with the nation’s most

energy-intensive industries, enhancing

their long-term competitiveness and

accelerating research, development,

and deployment of technologies that

increase energy and resource efficiency.

Led by DOE, the program’s strategy is

being implemented in nine energy- and

waste-intensive industries. Two key elements of the strategy include: (1) an

industry-driven report outlining each

industry’s vision for the future, and (2) a
Policies and Measures ■ 55

energy, wind power, geothermal energy,

hydropower, bioenergy, and hydrogen

fuels, as well as traditional nonemitting

sources, such as nuclear energy. DOE’s

development programs have been very

successful in reducing technology implementation costs. The cost of producing

photovoltaic modules has decreased by

50 percent since 1991, and the cost of

wind power has decreased by 85 percent

since 1980. Commercial success has

been achieved for both of these areas in

certain applications.

Renewable Energy

Commercialization

This program consists of several programs to develop clean, competitive

renewable energy technologies, including wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. Renewable technologies use

naturally occurring energy sources to

produce electricity, heat, fuel, or a combination of these energy types. The

program also works to achieve tax

incentives for renewable energy production and use. Some individual highlights follow.

Wind Energy. Use of wind energy is

growing rapidly. Technologies under

development by DOE and its partners

can enable a twenty-fold or more

expansion of usable wind resources and

make wind energy viable without federal incentives. DOE will continue developing next-generation wind turbines

able to produce power at 3.0 cents per

kilowatt-hour in good wind regions,

with the goal of having such turbines

commercially available from U.S. manufacturers in 2004.

Solar Energy. Over the past 20 years,

federal R&D has resulted in an 80 percent cost reduction in solar photovoltaics.

Geothermal Energy. The Annual Energy

Outlook 2002 estimates geothermal energy will provide 5,300 megawatts of

generating capacity by 2020 (U.S.

DOE 2001a). However, geothermal

could provide 25,000–50,000 megawatts from currently identified

technology roadmap to identify the

technologies that will be needed to

reach that industry’s goals.

Best Practices Program

This program offers industry the

tools to improve plant energy efficiency, enhance environmental performance, and increase productivity.

Selected best-of-class large demonstration plants are showcased across the

country, while other program activities

encourage the replication of those best

practices in still greater numbers of

large plants.

ENERGY STAR® for Industry

This new initiative integrates and

builds upon the Climate Wise program and

offers a more comprehensive partnership

for industrial companies. ENERGY STAR®

will enable industrial companies to evaluate and cost-effectively reduce their

energy use. Through established energy

performance benchmarks, strategies for

improving energy performance, technical assistance, and recognition for

accomplishing reductions in energy, the

partnership will contribute to a reduction in energy use for the U.S. industrial

sector. EPA estimates that awareness

focused by Climate Wise reduced emissions by 11 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000, and

projects that ENERGY STAR®’s industrial

partnerships will provide 16 Tg CO2 Eq.

reductions in 2010.

Additional Policies and Measures

Additional ongoing policies and

measures in the industrial sector include

Industrial Assessment Centers, Enabling Technologies, and Financial Assistance: NICE3.

Appendix B provides detailed descriptions of policies and measures.

Energy: Supply

Electricity generation is responsible

for about 41 percent of CO2 emissions

in the United States. Federal programs

promote greenhouse gas reductions

through the development of cleaner,

more efficient technologies for electricity generation and transmission. The

U.S. government is also supporting

renewable resources, such as solar

hydrothermal resources if the technology existed to develop those resources at

a reasonable cost. DOE’s R&D program

is working in partnership with U.S.

industry to establish geothermal energy

as an economically competitive contributor to the U.S. energy supply.

Biopower. DOE is testing and demonstrating biomass co-firing with coal,

developing advanced technologies for

biomass gasification, developing and

demonstrating small modular systems,

and developing and testing high-yield,

low-cost biomass feedstocks.

Climate Challenge

This program is a joint, voluntary

effort of the electric utility industry and

DOE to reduce, avoid, or sequester

greenhouse gases. Established as a

Foundation Action under the 1993 Climate Change Action Plan, electric utilities

developed Participation Accords with

DOE to identify and implement costeffective activities (EOP 1993). The

program has now grown to include participation by over 650 utilities accounting for more than 70 percent of the

sector’s MWh production and CO2

emissions. The Bush Administration

and its industry partners are now considering successor efforts, building

upon the experience and learning

gained in the this program and in

related industry-wide efforts.

Distributed Energy Resources

Distributed energy resources (DER)

describe a variety of smaller electricitygenerating options well suited for placement in homes, offices, and factories or

near these facilities. The program

focuses on technology development and

the elimination of regulatory and institutional barriers to the use of DER, including interconnection to the utility grid

and environmental siting and permitting. Distributed systems include combined cooling, heating, and power

systems; biomass-based generators;

combustion turbines; concentrating

solar power and photovoltaic systems;

fuel cells; microturbines; engines/generator sets; and wind turbine storage and
56 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

control technologies. The program partners with industry to apply a wide array

of technologies and integration strategies for on-site use, as well as for 

grid-enhancing systems. Successful

deployment of DER technologies affects

the industrial, commercial, institutional,

and residential sectors of the U.S. economy—in effect, all aspects of the energy

value chain. 

High-Temperature

Superconductivity

High-temperature superconductors

conduct electricity with high efficiency

when cooled to liquid nitrogen temperatures. This program supports industryled projects to capitalize on recent

breakthroughs in superconducting wire

technology, aimed at developing such

devices as advanced motors, power

cables, and transformers. These technologies would allow more electricity

to reach consumers and perform useful

work with no increase in fossil CO2

emissions.

Hydrogen Program

This program’s mission is to advance

and support the development of costcompetitive hydrogen technologies and

systems that will reduce the environmental impacts of energy use and

enable the penetration of renewable

energy into the U.S. energy mix. The

program has four strategies to carry out

its objective: (1) expand the use of

hydrogen fuels in the near term by

working with industry, including

hydrogen producers, to improve efficiency, lower emissions, and lower the

cost of technologies that produce

hydrogen from natural gas for distributed filling stations; (2) work with fuel

cell manufacturers to develop hydrogen-based electricity storage and generation systems that will enhance the

introduction and penetration of distributed, renewables-based utility systems;

(3) coordinate with the Department of

Defense and DOE’s Office of Transportation Technologies to demonstrate

safe and cost-effective fueling systems

for hydrogen vehicles in urban nonattainment areas and to provide

onboard hydrogen storage systems; and

(4) work with the national laboratories

to lower the cost of technologies that

produce hydrogen directly from sunlight and water.

Clean Energy Initiative

Through its new Clean Energy Initiative that has resulted from the President’s

National Energy Policy, EPA is promoting a

variety of technologies, practices, and

policies with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with the

energy supply sector. The initiative has a

three-pronged strategy: (1) expand markets for renewable energy; (2) work with

state and local governments to develop

policies that favor clean energy; and (3)

facilitate combined heat and power and

other clean “distributed generation”

technologies in targeted sectors. Within

this initiative, the United States has

launched two new partnership programs––the Green Power Partnership and

the Combined Heat and Power Partnership.

EPA projects these efforts will spur new

investments that will avoid about 30 Tg

CO2 Eq. emissions in 2010.

Nuclear Energy

The Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization

program is working to further improve

the efficiency and reliability of existing

nuclear power plants, up to and beyond

the end of their original operating

licenses. It works to resolve open issues

related to plant aging and applies new

technologies to improve plant reliability,

availability, and productivity, while maintaining high levels of safety. DOE also

supports Next-Generation Nuclear Energy

Systems through two programs: the

Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) and

the Generation IV Initiative. NERI funds

small-scale research efforts on promising

advanced nuclear energy system concepts, in areas that will promote novel

next-generation, proliferation-resistant

reactor designs, advanced nuclear fuel

development, and fundamental nuclear

science. The Generation IV Initiative is currently preparing a technology roadmap

that will set forth a plan for large-scale

research, development, and demonstration of promising advanced reactor concepts. Research and development will be

conducted to increase fuel lifetime, establish or improve material compatibility,

improve safety performance, reduce system cost, effectively incorporate passive

safety features, enhance system reliability, and achieve a high degree of proliferation resistance.

Carbon Sequestration

Carbon sequestration is one of the

potentially lowest-cost approaches for

reducing CO2 emissions. This DOE program develops the applied science and

demonstrates new technologies for

addressing cost-effective, ecologically

sound management of CO2 emissions

from the production and use of fossil

fuels through capture, reuse, and sequestration. Its goal is to make sequestration

options available by 2015. The program’s technical objectives include

reducing the cost of carbon sequestration and capture from energy production

activities; establishing the technical,

environmental, and economic feasibility

of carbon sequestration using a variety of

storage sites and fossil energy systems;

determining the environmental acceptability of large-scale CO2 storage; and

developing technologies that produce

valuable commodities from CO2 reuse.

Additional Policies and Measures

Additional ongoing policies and

measures in the energy supply sector

include the Hydropower Program, International Programs, and Economic Incentives/Tax

Credits. Appendix B provides detailed

descriptions of policies and measures.

The program to Promote Seasonal Gas

Use for the Control of Nitrogen Oxides, which

was projected in the 1997 CAR to have

no reductions in 2010 below baseline

forecasts, is no longer included. ENERGY

STAR® Transformers has been incorporated

into ENERGY STAR®-labeled products. 

Transportation

Cars, trucks, buses, aircraft, and

other parts of the nation’s transportation system are responsible for about

one-third of U.S. CO2 emissions. Emissions from transportation are growing

rapidly as Americans drive more and
Policies and Measures ■ 57

Smart Growth and Brownfields Policies.

These programs, such as the AirBrownfields Pilot Program, demonstrate the

extent to which brownfields redevelopment and local land use policies can

reduce the growth rate of vehicle miles

traveled. EPA estimates reductions of

2.7 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000 and projects

almost 11 Tg CO2 Eq. will be avoided

in 2010 from these policies.

Ground Freight Transportation Initiative.

This voluntary program is aimed at

reducing emissions from the freight sector through the implementation of

advanced management practices and

efficient technologies. EPA projects this

program will reduce emissions by 18 Tg

CO2 Eq. in 2010. 

Clean Automotive Technology. This

program includes research activities and

partnerships with the automotive industry to develop advanced clean, fuelefficient automotive technology. EPA is

collaborating with its industry partners

to transfer the unique efficient hybrid

engine and power-train components,

originally developed for passenger car

applications, to meet the more demanding size, performance, durability and

towing requirements of sport-utility and

urban-delivery vehicle applications,

while being practical and affordable with

ultra-low emissions and ultra-high fuel

efficiency. The successful technology

development under this program has laid

the foundation for cost-effective commercialization of high-fuel-economy/

low-emission vehicles for delivery to

market, with an aim toward putting a

pilot fleet of vehicles on the road by the

end of the decade. 

DOT Emission-Reducing Initiatives

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) provides funding for and

oversees transportation projects and

programs that are implemented by the

states and metropolitan areas across the

country. Although these activities are

not designed specifically as climate 

use less fuel-efficient sport-utility and

other large vehicles. The United States

is currently promoting the development

of fuel-efficient motor vehicles and

trucks, researching options for producing cleaner fuels, and implementing

programs to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled. Furthermore, many

communities are developing innovative

ways to reduce congestion and transportation energy needs by improving

highway designs and urban planning,

and by encouraging mass transit.

FreedomCAR Research Partnership

This new public–private partnership

with the nation’s automobile manufacturers promotes the development of hydrogen as a primary fuel for cars and trucks.

It will focus on the long-term research

needed to develop hydrogen from

domestic renewable sources and technologies that utilize hydrogen, such as

fuel cells. FreedomCAR replaces and builds

on the Partnership for a New Generation of

Vehicles (PNGV) program. The transition

of vehicles from gasoline to hydrogen is

viewed as critical to reducing both CO2

emissions and U.S. reliance on foreign

oil. FreedomCAR will focus on technologies to enable mass production of affordable hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles

and the hydrogen-supply infrastructure

to support them. It also will support

selected interim technologies that have

the potential to dramatically reduce oil

consumption and environmental impacts

in the nearer term, and/or are applicable

to fuel cell and hybrid approaches—e.g.,

batteries, electronics, and motors.

Innovative Vehicle Technologies

and Alternative Fuels

DOE funds research, development,

and deployment of technologies that

can significantly alter current trends in

oil consumption. Commercialization of

innovative vehicle technologies and

alternative fuels is the nation’s best

strategy for reducing its reliance on oil.

These advanced technologies could

also result in dramatic reductions of 

criteria pollutants and greenhouse 

gas emissions from the transportation

sector. DOE’s Vehicle Systems R&D

funds research and development 

for advanced power-train-technology

(direct-injection) engines, hybridelectric drive systems, advanced batteries, fuel cells, and lightweight materials

for alternative fuels (including ethanol

from biomass, natural gas, methanol,

electricity, and biodiesel). The Clean

Cities program works to deploy alternative-fuel vehicles and build supporting

infrastructure, including community

networks. And the Biofuels Program

researches, develops, demonstrates, and

facilitates the commercialization of 

biomass-based, environmentally sound,

cost-competitive U.S. technologies to

develop clean fuels for transportation.

EPA Voluntary Initiatives

EPA supports a number of voluntary

initiatives designed to reduce emissions

of greenhouse gases and criteria pollutants from the transportation sector.3

Although many of these EPA initiatives

generally fall under broader existing

interagency transportation programs,

EPA’s efforts greatly increase the adoption in the market of the transportation

strategies that have the potential to 

significantly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. In addition to the initiatives and brief descriptions that follow,

EPA is working with existing programs

to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and criteria pollutants in areas

including congestion mitigation, transit

demand-management strategies, and

alternative transportation.

Commuter Options Programs.

Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative is a

voluntary employer-adopted program

that increases commuter flexibility by

expanding mode options, using flexible

scheduling, and increasing work location choices. Parking Cash-Out offers

employees the option to receive taxable

income in lieu of free or subsidized parking, and Transit Check offers nontaxable

transit benefits, currently up to $100

monthly. EPA estimates emission reductions of 3.5 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000 and

projects reductions of 14 Tg CO2 Eq. in

2010 from these and other Commuter

Options programs. 3 These initiatives replace the Transportation Partners 

Programs.
58 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

methane over the next few years may

lead to an upward revision in the projected reductions for 2010 and beyond.

HFC, PFC, SF6 Environmental

Stewardship

The United States is one of the first

nations to develop and implement a

national strategy to control emissions of

high-GWP gases. The strategy is a combination of industry partnerships and

regulatory mechanisms to minimize

atmospheric releases of HFCs, PFCs and

SF6, which contribute to global warming, while ensuring a safe, rapid, and 

cost-effective transition away from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), halons, and

other ozone-depleting substances across

multiple industry sectors.

Significant New Alternatives Program.

This program continued to facilitate the

smooth transition away from ozonedepleting chemicals in major industrial

and consumer sectors, while minimizing

risks to human health and the environment. Hundreds of alternatives determined to reduce overall risks have been

listed as substitutes for ozone-depleting

chemicals. By limiting use of global

warming gases in specific applications

where safe alternatives are available, the

program reduced emissions by an estimated 50 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000 and is

projected to reduce emissions by 162

Tg CO2 Eq. in 2010.

HFC-23 Partnership. This partnership

continued to encourage companies to

develop and implement technically feasible, cost-effective processing practices

or technologies to reduce HFC-23

emissions from the manufacture of

HCFC-22. Despite a 35 percent

increase in production since 1990, EPA

estimates that total emissions are below

1990 levels––a reduction of 17 Tg CO2

Eq., compared to business as usual. EPA

projects reductions of 27 Tg CO2 Eq.

for 2010.

Partnership with Aluminum Producers.

This partnership continued to reduce

CF4 and C2F6 where cost-effective

and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are 100

to 12,000 times more effective. In addition, perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur

hexafluoride (SF6) also have extremely

long atmospheric lifetimes.

Methane and Industry

U.S. industry works in concert with

the federal government through a variety of voluntary partnerships that are

directed toward eliminating market barriers to the profitable collection and use

of methane that otherwise would be

released to the atmosphere. Collectively, EPA projects these programs will

hold methane emissions below 1990

levels through and beyond 2010.

Natural Gas STAR. Since its launch in

1993, Natural Gas STAR has been a successful means of limiting methane emissions. In 2000, it was expanded to the

processing sector and included companies representing 40 percent of U.S. natural gas production, 72 percent of

transmission company pipeline miles, 49

percent of distribution company service

connections, and 23 percent of processing throughput. EPA estimates the program reduced methane emissions by 15

Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000. Because of the program’s expanded reach, EPA projects the

estimated reduction for 2010 reported in

the 1997 CAR will increase from 15 to

22 Tg CO2 Eq.

Coalbed Methane Outreach Program.

The fraction of coal mine methane from

degasification systems that is captured

and used grew from 25 percent in 1990

to more than 85 percent in 1999. Begun

in 1994, the Coalbed Methane Outreach

Program (CMOP) is working to demonstrate technologies that can eliminate

the remaining emissions from degasification systems, and is addressing

methane emissions in ventilation air.

EPA estimates that CMOP reduced 7

Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000. Due to unanticipated mine closures, EPA projects that

the program’s reduction in 2010 will be

reduced slightly from that reported in

the 1997 submission, from 11 to 10 Tg

CO2 Eq. However, CMOP’s anticipated

success in reducing ventilation air

programs, highway funds are used for

projects that may have significant ancillary benefits for reducing greenhouse gas

emissions, such as transit and pedestrian

improvements, bikeways, ride-sharing

programs, and other transportation

demand-management projects, as well as

system improvements on the road network. It is very difficult to estimate the

amount of greenhouse gas emission

reductions from these programs, since

project selection is left to the individual

states and metropolitan areas, and reductions will vary among projects. Some significant DOT programs that are likely to

have ancillary greenhouse gas benefits

follow.

Transit Programs. Funded at about $6.8

billion per year, these programs will

likely reduce greenhouse gas emissions

by carrying more people per gallon of

fuel consumed than those driving alone

in their automobiles. 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

Improvement. This program is targeted

at reducing criteria pollutants and provides about $1.35 billion per year to the

states to fund new transit services, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, alternative fuel projects, and traffic flow

improvements that will likely reduce

greenhouse gases as well. 

Additional Policies and Measures

Appendix B describes Transportation

Enhancements, the Transportation and Community System Preservation Pilot Program,

and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. The Fuel Economy Labels for Tires

program, which was listed in the 1997

CAR, was never implemented and is no

longer included.

Industry (Non-CO2)

Although CO2 accounts for the

largest share of U.S. greenhouse gas

emissions, non-CO2 greenhouse gases

have significantly higher global warming

potentials. For example, over a 100-year

time horizon, methane is more than 20

times more effective than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere, nitrous

oxide is about 300 times more effective,
Policies and Measures ■ 59

technologies and practices are technically feasible. It met its overall goal for

2000, with emissions reduced by about

50 percent relative to 1990 levels on an

emissions per unit of product basis.

EPA estimates that the partnership

reduced emissions by 8 Tg CO2 Eq. in

2000 and projects reductions of 10 Tg

CO2 Eq. in 2010. 

Environmental Stewardship Initiative.

This initiative was a new action proposed as part of the 1997 CAR, based on

new opportunities to reduce emissions of

high-GWP gases. Its initial objective was

to limit emissions of HFCs, PFCs, and

SF6 in three industrial applications: semiconductor production, electric power

distribution, and magnesium production.

Additional sectors are being assessed for

the availability of cost-effective emission

reduction opportunities and are being

added to this initiative. EPA’s current

projections are that the programs will

reduce emissions by 94 Tg CO2 Eq. in

2010. Because resource constraints

delayed implementation of the electric

power system and magnesium partnerships, EPA’s estimate of the total 2000

reduction is 3 Tg CO2 Eq. less than was

expected in 1997.

Agriculture

The U.S. government maintains a

broad portfolio of research and outreach programs aimed at enhancing the

overall environmental performance of

U.S. agriculture, including reducing

greenhouse gas emissions and increasing carbon sinks.

AgSTAR and RLEP

The U.S. government also implements programs targeting greenhouse

gas emissions from agriculture. Specific

practices aimed at directly reducing

greenhouse gas emissions are developed, tested, and promoted through

outreach programs. These programs,

including AgSTAR and the Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program (RLEP), have

focused on reducing methane emissions. Although the overall impact of

AgSTAR and RLEP on greenhouse gas

emissions has been small on a national

scale, program stakeholders in the agricultural community have demonstrated

that the practices can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase 

productivity. The practices being tested

under AgSTAR and RLEP can be 

incorporated into U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) broad conservation programs.

Nutrient Management Tools

Efforts to reduce nitrous oxide emissions focus on improving the efficiency

of fertilizer use. For example, in 1996

USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service began collaborating with

partners on two nutrient management

tools that can improve the efficiency of

farm-level fertilizer use. The project’s

goal is to construct a database of such

information and make it available to

producers. These tools will enable

farmers to develop nutrient management plans and detailed crop nutrient

budgets, and to assess the impact of

management practices on nitrous oxide

emissions.

Conservation Programs

Several conservation programs are

providing significant benefits in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and

increasing carbon sequestration in agricultural soils. 

Conservation Reserve Program. This

USDA program cost-effectively assists

farm owners and operators in conserving

and improving soil, water, air, and

wildlife resources by removing environmentally sensitive land from agricultural

production and keeping it under 

long-term, resource-conserving cover.

Currently, USDA estimates that the program removes 34 million acres of environmentally sensitive cropland from

production and generates long-term

environmental benefits, including the

offset of about 56 Tg CO2 Eq. each year.

Projections indicate that total enrollment in the program will reach the maximum authorized level of slightly over

36 million acres by the end of 2002.

Changing Management Practices.

USDA also offers conservation programs that are aimed at changing management practices rather than removing

land from production. For example, the

Environmental Quality Incentive Program

provides technical, educational, and

financial assistance to landowners who

face serious natural resource challenges.

It helps producers make beneficial and

cost-effective changes to cropping and

grazing systems; improve manure,

nutrient, and pest management; and

implement conservation measures to

improve soil, water, and related natural

resources. Similarly, Conservation and

Technical Assistance supports locally led,

voluntary conservation through unique

partnerships. The program provides

technical assistance to farmers for planning and implementing soil- and waterconservation practices.

Conservation Compliance Plans. In

addition to direct assistance programs,

USDA farm program “conservation

compliance” eligibility policy protects

existing wetlands on agricultural land

and requires that excess erosion on

highly erodible agricultural land be

controlled through implementation of a

conservation plan. The ancillary benefits of this policy to greenhouse gas

mitigation include increased soil carbon

sequestration on working agricultural

land and preservation of soil carbon

associated with wetlands.

Bio-based Products and Bioenergy

The goal of this USDA–DOE collaborative research program is to triple

the nation’s use of bio-based products

and bioenergy. One of the objectives is

to use renewable agricultural and

forestry biomass for a range of products, including biofuels, as an offset to

CO2 emissions.

Additional Policies and Measures

Appendix B describes two additional

programs: the USDA Commodity Credit

Corporation’s Bioenergy Program and the

Conservation Reserve Program Biomass Project.
60 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

T

he array of conservation issues has grown with changes in the structure of agriculture

and in farm and forest management practices, and with greater public concern about a

wider range of issues, including greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration, and

energy production and conservation. The agriculture and forestry sectors have been

responsive to this concern, and progress has been made in each of these areas.

Today, U.S. forests and forest products are sequestering a significant quantity of carbon

every year, equivalent to roughly 15 percent of overall U.S. emissions. Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils is offsetting an additional 2 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Given appropriate economic incentives, much of the vast landscape managed by

farmers and forest landowners could be managed to store additional carbon, produce biomass and biofuels to replace fossil fuels, and reduce energy use. The challenge is to identify and implement low-cost opportunities to increase carbon storage in soils, provide

low-cost tools for enhanced farm and forest management, and ensure that the production

of energy raw materials is environmentally beneficial. Realizing these opportunities will

take a number of efforts, including an adequate system for measuring the carbon storage

and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and forests.

For more information about the Administration’s effort to formulate a longer-term view of

the nation’s agriculture and food system, see Food and Agricultural Policy: Taking Stock for

the New Century, which is available at www.usda.gov (USDA/NRCS 2001).

Agriculture and Forestry: Opportunities and Challenges

Forestry

The U.S. government supports

efforts to sequester carbon in both

forests and harvested wood products to

minimize unintended carbon emissions

from forests by reducing the catastrophic risk of wildfires. 

Forest Stewardship

USDA’s Forest Stewardship Program and

Stewardship Incentive Program provide technical and financial assistance to nonindustrial, private forest owners. About

147 million hectares (363 million acres)

of U.S. forests are nonindustrial, private

forestlands and provide many ecological and economic benefits and values.

These forests provide about 60 percent

of our nation’s timber supply, with

increases expected in the future. The

acceleration of tree planting on nonindustrial, private forestlands and marginal agricultural lands can help meet

resource needs and provide important

ancillary benefits that improve environmental quality—e.g., wildlife habitat,

soil conservation, water quality protection and improvement, and recreation.

Additionally, tree planting and forest

management increase the uptake of

CO2 and the storage of carbon in living

biomass, soils, litter, and long-life wood

products. Both programs are managed

by USDA’s Forest Service in cooperation with state forestry agencies.

National Fire Plan

The recently completed National

Fire Plan will improve fire management

on forested lands, especially in the

western parts of the United States. The

effort is designed to foster a proactive,

collaborative, and community-based

approach to reducing risks from 

wildland fires, using hazardous fuels

reduction, integrated vegetation management, and traditional firefighting

strategies. While the initiative recognizes that fire is part of natural ecosystems, it will have long-term benefits in

reducing greenhouse gas emissions

because the risks of catastrophic forest

fires will be lower. In addition, the initiative will generate a great volume of

small-diameter, woody materials as part

of hazardous fuel-reduction activities.

Some of these materials have the potential to be used for biomass electric

power and composite structural building products. 

Waste Management

The U.S. government’s waste management programs work to reduce

municipal solid waste and greenhouse

gas emissions through energy savings,

increased carbon sequestration, and

avoided methane emissions from landfill gas––the largest contributor to U.S.

anthropogenic methane emissions.

Climate and Waste Program

This program was introduced to

encourage recycling and source reduction for the purpose of reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions. EPA is implementing a number of targeted efforts

within this program to achieve its goals.

WasteWise continues to work with organizations to reduce solid waste. New initiatives, including extended product

responsibility and biomass waste, further

waste reduction efforts through voluntary or negotiated agreements with

product manufacturers, and market

development activities for recycled-content and bio-based products. Since the

last CAR, the Pay-As-You-Throw Initiative

was launched to provide information and

education on community-based programs that provide cost incentives for

residential waste reduction. EPA is also

continuing to conduct supporting outreach, technical assistance, and research

efforts on the linkages between climate

change and waste management to complement these activities. Reductions in

2000 are estimated by EPA at 8 Tg CO2

Eq. and are projected to increase to 20

Tg CO2 Eq. in 2010.

Stringent Landfill Rule

Promulgated under the Clean Air

Act in March 1996, the New Source

Performance Standards and Emissions

Guidelines (Landfill Rule) require large

landfills to capture and combust their

landfill gas emissions. Since the last

CAR, implementation of the rule began

at the state level in 1998. Preliminary

data on the rule’s impact indicate that

increasing its stringency has significantly increased the number of landfills

that must collect and combust their

landfill gas. Methane reductions in

2000 are estimated by EPA at 15 Tg

CO2 Eq. The current EPA projection

for 2010 is 33 Tg CO2 Eq., although

the preliminary data suggest that reductions from the more stringent rule may

be even greater over the next decade.
Policies and Measures ■ 61

More comprehensive data will be available by the next CAR submission.

Landfill Methane 

Outreach Program

This program continues to encourage

landfills not regulated by the Landfill Rule

to capture and use their landfill gas emissions. Capturing and using landfill gas

reduces methane emissions directly and

reduces CO2 emissions indirectly

through the utilization of landfill gas as

a source of energy, thereby displacing

the use of fossil fuels. Since the last

CAR, the Landfill Methane Outreach Program

(LMOP) continues to work with landfill

owners, state energy and environmental

agencies, utilities and other energy suppliers, industry, and other stakeholders

to lower the barriers to landfill gas-toenergy projects. LMOP has developed a

range of tools to help landfill operators

overcome barriers to project development, including feasibility analyses, software for evaluation project economics,

profiles of hundreds of candidate landfills across the country, a project development handbook, and energy end user

analyses. Due to these efforts, the number of landfill gas-to-energy projects has

grown from less than 100 in the early

1990s to almost 320 projects by the end

of 2000. EPA estimates that LMOP

reduced greenhouse gas emissions from

landfills by about 11 Tg CO2 Eq. in

2000 and projects reductions of 22 Tg

CO2 Eq. in 2010.

Cross-sectoral

The federal government has taken

the lead to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from energy use in federal buildings and transportation fleets by:

• requiring federal agencies, through

Executive Order 13221, to purchase

products that use no more than one

watt in standby mode;

• directing the heads of executive

departments and agencies to take

appropriate actions to conserve

energy use at their facilities, review

existing operating and administrative

processes and conservation programs, and identify and implement

ways to reduce energy use;

• requiring all federal agencies to take

steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions from energy use in buildings

by 30 percent below 1990 levels by

2010;

• directing federal agencies in Washington, D.C., to offer their employees up to $100 a month in transit

and van pool benefits; and

• requiring federal agencies to implement strategies to reduce their fleets’

annual petroleum consumption by

20 percent relative to 1990 consumption levels and to use alternative fuels a majority of the time.

Federal Energy 

Management Program

This program reduces energy use in

federal buildings, facilities, and operations by advancing energy efficiency

and water conservation, promoting the

use of renewable energy, and managing

utility choices of federal agencies. The

program accomplishes its mission by

leveraging both federal and private

resources to provide federal agencies

the technical and financial assistance

they need to achieve their goals.

State and Local Climate 

Change Outreach Program

This EPA program continues to provide technical and financial assistance to

states and localities to conduct greenhouse gas inventories, to develop state

and city action plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to study the impacts

of climate change, and to demonstrate

innovative mitigation policies or outreach programs. New or developing

projects include estimates of forest carbon storage for each state, a spreadsheet

tool to facilitate state inventory updates,

a software tool to examine the air quality

benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation, a

study of the health benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation, and a working

group on voluntary state greenhouse gas

registries. To date, 41 states and Puerto

Rico have initiated or completed inventories, and 27 states and Puerto Rico have

completed or are developing action

plans. While the program’s primary purpose is to build climate change capacity

and expertise at the state and local levels,

EPA estimates that the program reduced

greenhouse gas emissions by about 6 Tg

CO2 Eq. in 2000.

NONFEDERAL POLICIES 

AND MEASURES

All federal climate initiatives are conducted in cooperation with private-sector parties. The private sector’s support is

essential for the success of emission

reduction policies. Businesses, state and

local governments, and NGOs are also

moving forward to address global climate change––through programs to

improve the measurement and reporting

of emission reductions; through voluntary programs, including emissions trading programs; and through sequestration

programs.

State Initiatives

In 2000, the National Governors

Association reaffirmed its position on

global climate change policy. At the

domestic level, the governors recommended that the federal government

continue its climate research, including

regional climate research, to improve

scientific understanding of global climate change. The governors also recommended taking steps that are

cost-effective and offer other social and

economic benefits beyond reducing

greenhouse gas emissions. In particular,

the governors supported voluntary partnerships to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while achieving other economic

and environmental goals. 

NEG-ECP 2001 Climate 

Change Action Plan

The New England Governors and

Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG–ECP)

adopted a Resolution accepting the

goals of the NEG–ECP 2001 Climate

Change Action Plan. The plan sets an

overall goal for reducing greenhouse

gases in New England States and Eastern Canadian Provinces to 1990 emission levels by 2010, and to 10 percent

below 1990 emissions by 2020. The

plan’s long-term goal is to reduce

regional greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to eliminate any dangerous
62 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

threat to the climate (75–85 percent

below current levels).

Massachusetts Regulation of

Electric Utility Emissions

In April 2001, the governor of Massachusetts released a regulation requiring

additional controls on Massachusetts

electric utility sources, making the state

the first in the nation to adopt binding

reduction requirements for CO2. The

new regulation sets a cap on total emissions and creates an emission standard

that will require CO2 reductions of

about 10 percent below the current average emission rate. The regulation allows

companies to buy carbon credits to meet

their reduction requirements. 

New York and Maryland 

Executive Orders

The governors of New York and

Maryland issued Executive Orders

requiring state facilities to: (1) purchase a

percentage of energy from green

sources; (2) evaluate energy efficiency in

state building design and maintenance;

and (3) purchase ENERGY STAR®-labeled

products when available. Both states are

developing comprehensive action plans

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

New Jersey Executive Order

The State of New Jersey issued an

Executive Order to reduce the state’s

annual greenhouse gas emissions to 3.5

percent below 1990 levels by 2005,

using “no regrets” measures that are readily available and that pay for themselves

within the short term. The potential

emission reductions are based on policies

and technologies identified in the New

Jersey Sustainability Greenhouse Gas Action

Plan (NJ 2000). Approximately twothirds of the reductions will be achieved

through energy efficiency and innovative energy technologies in residential,

commercial, and industrial buildings.

The remainder will come from energy

conservation and innovative technologies in the transportation sector, waste

management improvements, and natural

resource conservation.

Other State Initiatives

California, Maine, New Hampshire,

New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Texas are

developing voluntary registries for greenhouse

gas emissions. In addition, 12 states have

established renewable portfolio standards,

and 19 out of 24 states have included

public benefit charges (also called system 

benefit charges) as a component of their

electricity restructuring policy to support continued investment in energy

efficiency and renewable energy.

Approximately $11 billion, for the

period 1998–2012, is expected to be

available nationwide through public

benefit fund programs. Greenhouse gas

emission inventories have been completed

in 37 states, with four more in progress;

and 19 states completed action plans to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with

8 more in progress.

Local Initiatives

A total of 110 U.S. cities and counties, representing nearly 44 million 

people, are participating in the International Council for Local Environmental

Initiatives’ Cities for Climate Protection Campaign. This program offers training and

technical assistance to cities, towns, and

counties for projects focusing on reducing emissions. Actions implemented

through the campaign are reducing

emissions by over 7 Tg CO2 Eq. each

year. Also, in June 2000, the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a resolution

recognizing the seriousness of global

warming and calling for increased cooperation between cities and the federal

government in taking action to address

the challenge.

Private-Sector and 

NGO Initiatives

Following are some highlights of 

private-sector and NGO efforts that are

demonstrative of leadership by example.

Green Power Market 

Development Group

In May 2000 a number of private

corporations not directly involved

with the electric utility industry organized the Green Power Market Development

Group to support the development of

green U.S. energy markets. Together,

the Group’s 11 members—Alcoa,

Cargill-Dow, Delphi, DuPont, General

Motors, IBM, Interface, Johnson &

Johnson, Kinko’s, Oracle, and Pitney

Bowes—account for about 7 percent of

U.S. industrial energy use. They are

working with the World Resources

Institute and Business for Social

Responsibility to purchase 1,000

megawatts of new green energy capacity and otherwise provide support to

the development of green energy markets. The Group believes that such

markets are essential to provide competitively priced energy that also protects the Earth’s climate and reduces

conventional air pollutants. The members are exploring a variety of green

energy purchase opportunities to identify those that are cost-competitive.

This is a long-term process, with companies hoping to support market development over a 10-year period. 

Business Environmental 

Leadership Council

The U.S. business community, many

times in partnership with environmental

NGOs, is moving forward on climate

change in many other ways. For example, the Pew Center on Climate Change

launched a $5 million campaign in 1998

to build support for taking action on

climate change. Boeing, DuPont, Shell,

Weyerhaeuser, and 32 other major corporations joined the Center’s Business

Environmental Leadership Council, agreeing

that “enough is known about the science and environmental impacts of climate change for us to take actions to

address its consequences.”

Climate Savers

Johnson & Johnson, IBM, Polaroid,

and Nike have joined this new partnership to help business voluntarily lower

energy consumption and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In joining Climate

Savers, partners make specific commitments to reduce their emissions and

participate in an independent verification process. 
Policies and Measures ■ 63

Partnership for Climate Action

Seven companies, including BP,

DuPont, and Shell International joined

Environmental Defense in the creation

of the Partnership for Climate Action. Each

company has set a firm target for greenhouse gas reductions and has agreed to

measure and publicly report its emissions. 

Voluntary Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gases

Under this program, provided by

section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy

Act of 1992, more than 200 companies

have voluntarily reported to DOE more

than 1,715 voluntary projects to

reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse

gas emissions. 

Auto Manufacturers’ Initiatives

U.S. auto manufacturers have announced production plans for hybrid

gas and electric vehicles in 2003 or

2004 and have pledged to increase their

sport-utility vehicles’ fuel economy by

25 percent by 2005.
64 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

TABLE 4-1 Summary of Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Estimated

Mitigation

Name of Policy Objective and/or Activity Affected GHG Type of Status Implementing Impact for 2000

or Measure Affected Instrument Entity/Entities (Tg CO2 Eq.)

ENERGY STAR® for the

Commercial Market

Commercial Buildings

Integration: Updating

State Buildings Codes;

Partnerships for

Commercial Buildings

and Facilities

ENERGY STAR® for the

Residential Market

Community Energy

Program: Rebuild

America

Residential Building

Integration: Building

America

ENERGY STAR®-Labeled

Products

Building Equipment,

Materials, and Tools:

Superwindow 

Collaborative; Lighting

Partnerships; Partnerships for Commercial

Buildings and Facilities; 

Collaborative Research

and Development

Residential Appliance

Standards

State and Community

Assistance: State Energy

Program; Weatherization

Assistance Program;

Community Energy

Grants; Information

Outreach

Heat Island Reduction

Initiative

Economic Incentives/

Tax Credits

Promotes the improvement of energy

performance in commercial buildings.

Realizes energy-saving opportunities

provided by whole-building approach

during construction and major

renovation of existing commercial

buildings.

Promotes the improvement of energy

performance in residential buildings

beyond the labeling of products.

Helps communities, towns and cities

save energy, create jobs, promote

growth, and protect the environment

through improved energy efficiency and

sustainable building design and

operation.

Funds, develops, demonstrates, and

deploys housing that integrates energyefficiency technologies and practices.

Label distinguishes energy-efficient

products in the marketplace.

Conducts R&D on building components

and design tools and issues standards

and test procedures for a variety of

appliances and equipment.

Reviews and updates efficiency

standards for most major household

appliances.

Provides funding for state and

communities to provide local energyefficiency programs, including services

to low-income families; to implement

sustainable building design and

operation; and to adopt a systematic

approach to marketing and

communication objectives.

Reverses the effects of urban heat

islands by encouraging the use of

mitigation strategies.

Provides tax credits to residential solar

energy systems.

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

Voluntary

Research,

regulatory

Voluntary,

outreach

Voluntary,

information,

education

Voluntary,

research,

education

Voluntary,

outreach

Information,

research

Regulatory

Economic,

information

Voluntary,

information,

research

Economic

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Proposed

EPA

DOE

EPA

DOE

DOE

EPA/DOE

DOE

DOE

DOE

EPA

ENERGY: COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL 56.8
Policies and Measures ■ 65

TABLE 4-1 (continued) Summary of Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Estimated

Mitigation

Name of Policy Objective and/or Activity Affected GHG Type of Status Implementing Impact for 2000

or Measure Affected Instrument Entity/Entities (Tg CO2 Eq.)

ENERGY: INDUSTRIAL

Industries of the Future

Best Practices Program

ENERGY STAR® for Industry

(Climate Wise)

Industrial Assessment

Centers

Enabling Technologies

Financial Assistance:

NICE3

Helps nine key energy-intensive

industries reduce their energy consumption while remaining competitive

and economically strong.

Offers industry tools to improve plant

energy efficiency, enhance environmental performance, and increase

productivity.

Enables industrial companies to

evaluate and cost-effectively reduce

their energy use.

Assesses and provides recommendations to manufacturers in identifying

opportunities to improve productivity,

reduce waste, and save energy.

Addresses the critical technology

challenges partners face for developing

materials and production processes.

Provides funding to state and industry

partnerships for projects that develop

and demonstrate advances in energy

efficiency and clean production

technologies.

All

All

CO2

All

All

All

Voluntary,

information

Voluntary,

information

Voluntary

Information,

research

Information,

research

Research 

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

DOE

DOE

EPA

DOE

DOE

DOE

27.9

ENERGY: SUPPLY 

Renewable Energy

Commercialization: Wind;

Solar; Geothermal;

Biopower

Climate Challenge

Distributed Energy

Resources (DER)

High-Temperature

Superconductivity

Hydrogen Program

Develops clean, competitive power

technologies using renewable

resources.

Promotes efforts to reduce, avoid, or

sequester greenhouse gases from electric utilities.

Focuses on technology development

and the elimination of regulatory and

institutional barriers to the use of DER.

Advances R&D of high-temperature

superconducting power equipment for

energy transmission, distribution, and

industrial use.

Enhances and supports the development of cost-competitive hydrogen

technologies and systems to reduce the

environmental impacts of their use.

All

All

All

All

All

Research,

regulatory

Voluntary

Information,

research,

education,

regulatory

Research

Research,

education

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

DOE

DOE

DOE

DOE

DOE

14.7
66 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

TABLE 4-1 (continued) Summary of Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Estimated

Mitigation

Name of Policy Objective and/or Activity Affected GHG Type of Status Implementing Impact for 2000

or Measure Affected Instrument Entity/Entities (Tg CO2 Eq.)

Removes market barriers to increased

penetration of cleaner, more efficient

energy supply.

Recognizes the importance of existing

nuclear plants in reducing greenhouse

gas emissions.

Supports research, development, and

demonstration of an advanced nuclear

energy system concept.

Ensures the availability of near-term

nuclear energy options that can be in

operation in the U.S. by 2010.

Develops new technologies for

addressing cost-effective management

of CO2 emissions from the production

and use of fossil fuels.

Improves the technical, societal, and

environmental benefits of hydropower.

Accelerates the international development and deployment of clean energy

technologies.

Provides tax credits to electricity generated from wind- and biomass-based

generators.

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

All

All

CO2

Voluntary,

education,

technical

assistance

Information,

technical

assistance

Research,

technical

assistance

Information

Research

Information,

research

Information,

technical

assistance

Economic

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Proposed

EPA

DOE

DOE

DOE

DOE

DOE

DOE

Clean Energy Initiative:

Green Power Partnership; Combined Heat and

Power Partnership

Nuclear Energy Plant

Optimization

Development of NextGeneration Nuclear

Energy Systems: Nuclear

Energy Research

Initiative; Generation IV

Initiative

Support Deployment of

New Nuclear Power

Plants in the United States

Carbon Sequestration

Hydropower Program

International Programs

Economic Incentives/

Tax Credits
Policies and Measures ■ 67

TABLE 4-1 (continued) Summary of Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Estimated

Mitigation

Name of Policy Objective and/or Activity Affected GHG Type of Status Implementing Impact for 2000

or Measure Affected Instrument Entity/Entities (Tg CO2 Eq.)

TRANSPORTATION

FreedomCAR Research

Partnership

Vehicle Systems R&D

Clean Cities

Biofuels Program

Commuter Options

Programs

Smart Growth and

Brownfields Policies 

Ground Freight

Transportation Initiative

Clean Automotive

Technology

DOT Emission-Reducing

Initiatives

Promotes the development of hydrogen

as a primary fuel for cars and trucks.

Promotes the development of cleaner,

more efficient passenger vehicles.

Supports public–private partnerships to

deploy alternative-fuel vehicles and

builds supporting infrastructure, including community networks.

Researches, develops, demonstrates,

and facilitates the commercialization of

biomass-based, environmentally sound

fuels for transportation.

Reduces single-occupant-vehicle commuting by providing incentives and

alternative modes, timing, and locations

for work.

Reduces motorized trips and trip

distance by promoting more efficient

location choice.

Increases efficient management practices for ground freight.

Develops advanced clean and fuelefficient automotive technology.

Provides funding mechanisms for

alternative modes to personal

motorized vehicles.

CO2

CO2

All

All

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

Research,

information

Research,

information

Voluntary,

information

Information,

research

Voluntary

agreements,

tax incentives, information,

education,

outreach

Technical

assistance,

outreach

Voluntary/

negotiated

agreements

Voluntary,

research

Funding

mechanisms

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Adopted

Implemented

Implemented

DOE

DOE

DOE

DOE

EPA/DOT

EPA

EPA

EPA

DOT

8.4
Name of Policy Objective and/or Activity Affected GHG Type of Status Implementing` Estimated

or Measure Affected Instrument Entity/Entities Mitigation

Impact for 2000

(Tg CO2 Eq.)

68 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

TABLE 4-1 (continued) Summary of Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

INDUSTRY (NON-CO2) 

Natural Gas STAR

Program

Coalbed Methane

Outreach Program

Significant New

Alternatives Program

HFC-23 Partnership

Partnership with

Aluminum Producers

Environmental

Stewardship Initiative

AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Outreach

Programs: AgSTAR; RLEP

Nutrient Management

Tools 

USDA CCC Bioenergy

Program

Conservation Reserve

Program: Biomass

Project

FORESTRY

Forest Stewardship

Reduces methane emissions from U.S.

natural gas systems through the widespread adoption of industry best management practices.

Reduces methane emissions from U.S.

coal mining operations through costeffective means.

Facilitates smooth transition away from

ozone-depleting chemicals in industrial

and consumer sectors.

Encourages reduction of HFC-23 emissions through cost-effective practices

or technologies.

Encourages reduction of CF4 and C2

F6

where technically feasible and costeffective.

Limits emissions of HFCs, PFCs, and SF6

in industrial applications.

Promotes practices to reduce GHG

emissions at U.S. farms.

Aims to reduce nitrous oxide emissions

through improving by efficiency of fertilizer nitrogen.

Encourages bioenergy production

through economic incentives to commodity producers.

Encourages land-use changes to

increase the amount of feedstock available for biomass projects.

Sequesters carbon in trees, forest soils,

forest litter, and understudy plants.

CH4

CH4

High

GWP

High

GWP

PFCs

High

GWP

CH4

N2O

CO2

CO2

N20

CO2

Voluntary

agreement

Information,

education,

outreach

Regulatory,

information

Voluntary

agreement

Voluntary

agreement

Voluntary

agreement

Information,

education,

outreach

Technical

assistance,

information

Economic

Economic

Technical/

financial

assistance

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented 

Implemented

(pilot phase)

Implemented

EPA

EPA

EPA

EPA

EPA

EPA

EPA/

USDA

EPA/

USDA

USDA

USDA

USDA

88.7
Policies and Measures ■ 69

TABLE 4-1 (continued) Summary of Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Name of Policy Objective and/or Activity Affected GHG Type of Status Implementing` Estimated

or Measure Affected Instrument Entity/Entities Mitigation

Impact for 2000

(Tg CO2 Eq.)

Encourages recycling, source reduction, and other progressive integrated

waste management activities to reduce

GHG emissions.

Reduces methane/landfill gas emissions

from U.S. landfills.

Reduces methane emissions from U.S.

landfills through cost-effective means.

Promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy use in federal buildings,

facilities, and operations.

Assists key state and local decision

makers in maintaining and improving

economic and environmental assets

given climate change.

All

CH4

CH4

All

All

Voluntary

agreements,

technical

assistance,

information,

research

Regulatory

Voluntary

agreements,

information,

education,

outreach

Economic,

information,

education

Information,

education,

research

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

EPA

EPA

EPA

DOE

EPA

39.2

6.2

241.9

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Climate and Waste

Program

Stringent Landfill Rule

Landfill Methane

Outreach Program

CROSS-SECTORAL

Federal Energy

Management Program

State and Local Climate

Change Outreach

Program

TOTAL
Chapter 5 

Projected

Greenhouse

Gas Emissions

T

his chapter provides estimates for

national emissions under many of

the implemented policies and

measures for reducing emissions

through technology improvements and

dissemination, demand-side efficiency

gains of many specific types, more efficient regulatory procedures, and shifts

to cleaner fuels. The anticipated expansion of the U.S. economy under the

impetus of population and output

growth at projected rates contributes to

rising greenhouse gas emissions. These

emissions are partly offset by reductions from ongoing efforts to decrease

energy use and from implemented policies and measures. Even with projected

growth in absolute emissions, there are

near-term and continuing reductions in

emissions per unit of gross domestic

product (GDP). These projections do

not include the impact of the President’s

climate change initiative announced in

February 2002, nor do they include the

effects of policies in the National Energy
Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions ■ 71

Policy that have not yet been implemented (NEPD Group 2001).

THE NEMS MODEL AND 

POLICIES COVERAGE

The U.S. Department of Energy’s

(DOE’s) Annual Energy Outlook 2002

(AEO 2002) presents mid-term forecasts of energy supply, demand, and

prices through 2020 based on results

from the Energy Information Administration’s National Energy Modeling

System (NEMS) (U.S. DOE/EIA

2001a). This integrated model looks at

all determinants of carbon emissions

simultaneously, accounting for interaction and feedback effects. But in some

cases, it uses assumptions about diffusion and adoption rates that are different from the assumptions used for the

independent policies and measures estimates in Chapter 4 of this report.

The NEMS uses a market-based

approach that balances supply and

demand with price competition between

fuels and sectors. It is a comprehensive,

but simplified, representation of the

energy economy. Rather than explicitly

including and replicating every transaction, the NEMS measures aggregate

impacts using empirically developed statistical proxies. Its strength lies in the

consistency it brings in representing and

accounting for the large number of concurrent, interrelated, and competing

energy transactions, investment transactions, and production and consumption

decisions that occur in the national

energy sector. 

The AEO 2002 projections are

based on the assumption that the trend

in funding levels for policies continues

to follow historical patterns. Policies or

programs adopted since July 2001—

such as the Green Power Partnership,

the Combined Heat and Power Partnership, and the Ground Freight Transportation Initiative—are not included

in these emission estimates. The methods used to create the projections are

regularly updated as new information

and methods emerge. However, there is

a time lag in the representation of the

future effects of some of the adopted

measures when using an economic

model based on history, such as the

NEMS. Consequently, actual growth in

energy use and emissions may be different from the projected levels, and the

AEO 2002 projections should not be

interpreted as reflecting the ultimate

impact of policies and measures over

the 20-year horizon. 

The reported impacts of the individual policies and measures in Chapter 4 of

this report are based on specific assumptions for the impacts and adoption of

each measure. However, those impacts

recognize fewer interaction and competitive effects within and among the economic sectors in which the individual

measures are applied. A precise mapping

of the emission reductions from individual policies and measures against the

aggregate estimates of the NEMS used in

the AEO modeling exercise is not possible. Readers are cautioned not to interpret the difference between the

estimates in Chapter 4 and this chapter

as the numeric difference between the

“with measures” and “without measures”

cases. The direct impact measures of

Chapter 4 compare the effects of provisions that avoid large interaction effects

between each other or broadly competitive alternatives. The NEMS results,

which address interaction effects and

potentially nonmarginal changes, reflect

integrated responses to a comprehensive

set of economic variables.

Assumptions Used to Estimate

Future CO2 Emissions

This projection of emissions for distant future years is always subject to certain assumptions and uncertainties.

These assumptions relate to the prospective implementation and funding of policies and measures adopted but not yet

funded; to the actual discovery, adoption, and efficacy of technologies not yet

tested in the marketplace; and to the

pace of future economic growth. 

The AEO 2002 projects a declining

ratio of emissions to GDP by incorporating the impacts—including costs—of

legislation and regulations adopted as of

July 1, 2001. These provisions include,

for example, rising appliance efficiencies

driven by upgraded ENERGY STAR® specifications for products and homes, progressive upgrades to commercial lighting, and adoption of electric and

alternative-fuel vehicles in accord with

federal and state requirements. Utility

Climate Challenge plans are represented

in large measure, with the exception of

tree-planting programs and purchases of

emission offsets. Renewable-fuels power

generation is included, consistent with

announced utility building plans through

2020. A description of the policies and

measures and technology assumptions

embodied in the AEO projections is provided in Appendix G of the AEO 2002. 

The assumptions under which the

AEO 2002 estimates were prepared

include real GDP growth of 3 percent

annually over the 20-year period, without specific regard to interim business

cycles. The degree of technology

improvement reflected in the projections

is internally generated in the modeling

process based on the Energy Information

Administration’s judgment about the

market readiness, cost, and performance

of available technologies, their rates of

adoption, and their potential for efficiency improvement. Based on the AEO

2002 estimates, real oil prices are

expected to average just over $21 a barrel in 2002, and then rise gradually to

$24–$25 a barrel by 2020. Natural gas

supplies are assumed to be adequate to

support the projected growth in

demand. Natural gas prices are projected

to rise from just over $2 per thousand

cubic feet in 2002, to $3.26 in real terms

per thousand cubic feet in 2020. The

projection exercise assumes that current

laws and regulations will continue in

force, but does not anticipate measures

not yet enacted or implemented. 

Table 5-1 presents several measures of

the U.S. economy that generate energy

consumption and related carbon emissions, and compares the values used in

the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report (CAR)

to those relied upon for this report. In

this 2001 CAR, 2020 real GDP is

notably higher, energy intensity per dollar of GDP is notably lower, natural gas

prices are higher, and gasoline prices are

lower compared to the levels assumed in

the 1997 CAR.
72 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS 

EMISSIONS: 2000–2020

This report contains reported levels

of greenhouse gas emissions for the year

2000 and estimates to 2020. The projections of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions

described here reflect national estimates

of net greenhouse gas emissions considering population growth, long-term economic growth potential, historical rates

of technology improvement, normal

weather patterns, and many of the

implemented policies and measures. The

covered gases include carbon dioxide

(CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and

sulfur hexafluoride.

DOE’s Energy Information Administration computed the energy-related

CO2 projections and the estimated

adjustments for bunker fuel use (U.S.

DOE/EIA 2001a). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepared the emission projections for

source categories other than CO2 emissions resulting from fossil fuel consumption (U.S. EPA 1999; 2001a, b, d).

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prepared the estimates of

carbon sequestration rates (USDA 2000).

The projections reflect long-run trends

and do not attempt to mirror short-run

departures from those trends. 

Rather than the carbon tonnages

often used in the United States, emission

projections in this report are converted

to metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, in keeping with the reporting

guidelines of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC). The conversions of nonCO2 gases to CO2 equivalents are based

on the 100-year global warming potentials (GWPs) listed in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s

(IPCC’s) second assessment report

(IPCC 1996b).

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from

energy consumption, industrial and agricultural activities, and other anthropogenic sources continued to grow from

levels reported in the 1997 U.S. Climate

Action Report (Figure 5-1). However, emissions of a few of the non-CO2 gases—

e.g., methane and industrial gases

associated with the production of aluminum and HCFC-22—have declined

from 1990 levels and are projected to

remain below 1990 levels out to 2020

(Figure 5-2). 

As shown in Figure 5-1, while carbon sequestration partly offsets gross

emissions of greenhouse gases, net

emissions are projected to rise nonetheless under the impetus of population

and economic growth. Increased efforts

to use cleaner fuels, improved technologies, and better management methods for agriculture, forestry, mines, and

landfills have kept the growth of greenhouse gas emissions below the concurrent growth of the U.S. economy. The

policies and measures described in

Chapter 4 of this report are expected to

further decouple economic growth and

greenhouse gas emissions. 

The most recent historical measures

of greenhouse gas emissions are for

2000, but these measures are still preliminary and are thus subject to possible

revision after this report’s publication.

Nevertheless, the projections use the

report’s preliminary 2000 data as a point

of departure for estimating greenhouse

Several sectors of the U.S. economy involve energy consumption and related carbon emissions. This table compares the values used in the

1997 U.S. Climate Action Report (CAR) to those relied upon for this report. In this 2001 CAR, 2020 real GDP is notably higher, energy intensity per

dollar of GDP is notably lower, natural gas prices are higher, and gasoline prices are lower compared to the levels assumed in the 1997 CAR.

Factors 2000 2010 2020

1997 CAR 2001 CAR 1997 CAR 2001 CAR 1997 CAR 2001 CAR

Real GDP (billions of 1996 dollars) 8,152 9,224 9,925 12,312 11,467 16,525

Population (millions) 276 276 299 300 324 325

Residential Housing Stock (millions) 103.0 105.2 114.7 116.0 125.4 127.1

Commercial Floor Space (billion sq. ft.) 72.3 64.5 78.5 77.5 85.3 89.6

Energy Intensity (Btus per 1996 dollar GDP) 11,903 10,770 10,572 9,400 9,631 7,920

Light-Duty Vehicle Miles Traveled (billions) 2,373 2,340 2,885 2,981 3,368 3,631

Energy Commodity Prices 

World Oil Price (2000 dollars/barrel) 19.86 27.72 22.16 23.36 24.18 24.68

Wellhead Natural Gas (2000 dollars/1,000 cu. ft.) 2.02 3.60 2.16 2.85 2.61 3.26

Minemouth Coal (2000 dollars/ton) 19.60 16.45 18.00 14.11 16.70 12.79

Average Price Electricity (2000 cents/kWh) 7.31 6.90 6.98 6.30 6.66 6.50

Average Price Gasoline (2000 dollars/gallon) 1.49 1.53 1.52 1.40 1.56 1.40

TABLE 5-1 Comparison of 1997 and 2001 CAR Assumptions and Model Results 
Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions ■ 73

FIGURE 5-1 Gross and Net U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2000–2020 gas emissions at the 5-year interval

benchmarks of 2005, 2010, 2015, and

2020. The text that follows describes

changes in emission levels and intensities to the end-point year 2020. 

Net U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions: 2000–2020

The total projected levels of U.S.

greenhouse gas emissions are tallied by

(1) combining the CO2 contributions

of energy and nonenergy activities and

the non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions

of methane, nitrous oxide (including

forestry and agriculture), and the high

GWP gases; (2) subtracting for projected levels of carbon sequestration;

and (3) making noted adjustments.

Because some of the individual greenhouse gas emissions apart from energyrelated portions are not attributed to

particular economic sectors, the totals

are reported in aggregate.

Total net U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are projected to rise by 42.7 percent, from 5,773 teragrams of CO2

equivalent (Tg CO2 Eq.)1 as the (preliminary) actual level for 2000, to 8,237

Tg CO2 Eq. projected for 2020 (Table

5-2). However, when examined by 

5-year intervals, the rate of increase in

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions is

expected to diminish over the 20-year

projection period. The declining 5-year

growth rates reflect the influence of

development and implementation of

cleaner, more efficient technologies

that reduce the ratio of greenhouse gas

emissions to GDP over the period; the

substitution of fuels that emit lower volumes of greenhouse gases; and changes

in the composition of GDP to goods

and services with fewer fuel inputs.

Some of the mitigating factors are also

the subject of implemented policies and

measures that reduce emissions relative

to a hypothetical “business as usual”

path. In addition, there are adopted

policies and measures, not yet fully

implemented, and the possibility of

additional policies and measures prior

to 2020 that are not yet defined, which

together may further reduce the 

Although carbon sequestration partly offsets gross greenhouse gas emissions, net emissions are projected to increase nonetheless under the impetus of population and 

economic growth. Tg CO2 Eq.

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

6,979

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

5,773

7,540

6,365

8,115

6,971

8,700

7,604

9,180

8,237

12,000

Net Greenhouse Gases

Gross Greenhouse Gases

A few of the non-CO2 gases—e.g., methane and industrial gases associated with the production of aluminum and HFC-22—have declined from 1990 levels and are projected to

remain below 1990 levels out to 2020.

FIGURE 5-2 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas: 2000–2020 Tg CO2 Eq.

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

623

6,290

6,813

7,655

7,302

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

5,799

433

124

633 447

170

630 464

208

625 483 290

611 504410

Methane

CO2 Emissions

High GWP Gases

Nitrous Oxide

Note: CO 1 One teragram equals one million metric tons. 2 emissions reported are net of adjustments.
74 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

20-year greenhouse gas path below the

aggregate and sectoral levels projected

in this report. 

The projected emission levels of this

report for the years 2010 and 2020 are

higher than the levels projected for

those same years in the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report, and the preliminary

actual level of emissions reported for

2000 is lower than the 1997 projected

value. The sections that follow present

more detailed projections of specific

categories of total U.S. greenhouse gas

emissions.

CO2 Emissions 

From 2000 to 2020, energy-related

CO2 emissions are projected to

increase by 33.6 percent, compared to

cumulative projected economic growth

of 80 percent (Table 5-3). The nation’s

carbon intensity has declined from 721

grams of CO2 per dollar of GDP in

1990 to 621 grams per dollar in 2000,

and is projected to decline further to

463 grams per dollar of GDP by 2020.

In the first 5-year interval, CO2

emissions are projected to grow by 1.6

percent annually, but by the final 5-year

period growth in emissions will have

diminished to 1.2 percent annually. The

estimated level of U.S. CO2 emissions

from energy-related activities for the

year 2020 is 7,655 Tg CO2. This level of

emissions results from the projected

long-term economic, technological, and

demographic path, and from the impacts

of implemented policies and measures.

Additional policies and measures,

adopted but not yet implemented—

including both new recommendations of

the National Energy Policy and expanded

emphasis on some measures already

implemented—could further reduce

U.S. CO2 emissions for 2020 and

interim years.

The rising absolute levels of greenhouse gas emissions for the entire U.S.

economy occur against a background of

growth assumptions for population and

GDP. Over the 20-year period, population and personal income are projected

to rise respectively by 18 and 79 percent. 

• The CO2 emission intensity of the

residential sector is expected to decline

by 30 percent, while the sector’s contributions of CO2 are estimated to

rise by 25 percent, to a total of 1,397

Tg CO2 annually by 2020. Over the

same period, the sector is expected

to contribute a diminishing share of

total U.S. CO2 emissions.

• The projected CO2 emission intensity of the commercial sector is expected

to decline by 16 percent over the 20-

year interval, as measured against the

projected 79 percent increase in

GDP. The sector’s absolute emission

contributions are estimated to rise by

42.5 percent to a total of 1,363 Tg

CO2 annually by 2020. Over the 20-

year projection period, the commercial sector is expected to contribute a

rising share of total U.S. CO2 emissions.

• The projected CO2 emission intensity of the industrial sector is expected

to decline by 27 percent over the 20-

year interval, as measured against the

projected 79 percent increase in

GDP. The sector’s absolute emission

contributions are estimated to rise by

22 percent to a total of 2,135 Tg

CO2 annually by 2020. Over the 20-

year projection period, the industrial

sector is expected to contribute a

diminishing share of total U.S. CO2

emissions.

• The projected CO2 emission intensity of the transportation sector is

expected to decline by 19 percent

over the 20-year interval, as measured against the projected 79 percent increase in GDP. The sector’s

absolute emission contributions are

estimated to rise by 46 percent to a

total of 2,760 Tg CO2 annually by

2020. Over the 20-year projection

period, the transportation sector is

expected to contribute a rising share

of estimated total U.S. CO2 emissions, reflecting the growth of travel

demand and the relatively limited

projected use of low-emission fuels

even by 2020.

Nonenergy CO2 Emissions

Other, nonfuel, sources that emit

CO2 include natural gas production

and processing, the cement industry,

and waste handling and combustion.

These CO2 emissions are subject to

increasing voluntary control and are

using recapture technologies to reduce

their emission levels. Because the

underlying sources are so varied, no

clear projection method, other than

Between 2000 and 2020, total net U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are projected to rise by

42.7 percent. However, the rate of increase in emissions is projected to diminish over the

same period, reflecting the development and implementation of cleaner, more efficient

technologies; the substitution of fuels that emit lower volumes of greenhouse gases; and

changes in the composition of GDP to goods and services with fewer fuel inputs.

All Covered Sources 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Energy-Related CO2 5,726 6,210 6,727 7,206 7,655

Non-energy CO2 132 138 145 153 161

Methane 623 633 630 625 611

Nitrous Oxide 433 447 464 483 504

High GWP Gases 124 170 208 290 410

Sequestration Removals -1,205 -1,175 -1,144 -1,096 -1,053

Adjustments - 59 - 58 - 59 - 57 - 51

Total 5,773 6,366 6,972 7,604 8,237

GWP = global warming potential.

Notes: These total U.S. CO2 equivalent emissions correspond to carbon weights of 1,574 teragrams (Tg) for year 

2000; 1,901 Tg for 2010; and 2,246 Tg for 2020. Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

TABLE 5-2 Projected U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from All Sources:

2000–2020 (Tg CO2 Eq.)
Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions ■ 75

increase in total sales of electric energy.

Absolute emissions contributions from

the electricity sector are estimated to rise

by 35 percent during the same period to

a total of 2,897 Tg CO2, reflecting rising

electric power sales from 2000 to 2020.

The sector’s share of total U.S. CO2

emissions is expected to rise as well, due

to the growing role of electricity in powering activities in all economic sectors.

By 2020, the mix of primary fuels in

electricity production is expected to be

significantly different from the mix during 2000. The expanding role of natural

gas, with its relatively low greenhouse

gas impact, and the growing dominance

of highly efficient generation technologies are projected to reduce the sector’s

greenhouse gas emissions to a level far

below what they would have been without these changes. As noted above, the

emission intensity of electricity production is estimated to decline significantly

over the projection period. By fuel type,

the 2020 CO2 emissions from electricity

generation are 22 Tg CO2 for energy

generated from petroleum, 554 Tg CO2

for energy generated from natural gas,

and 2,322 Tg CO2 for generation from

coal (Table 5-4). Greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear and renewable

sources are essentially zero.

Sectoral CO2 Emissions from

Electricity Use

Customers in all sectors use electricity. In that sense, the greenhouse gas

emissions that result from electricity production and distribution can be attributed to the end-use sectors (Table 5-5).

• Electricity demand by the residential sector is projected to rise by 40

percent from 2000 to 2020, while

the CO2 emissions from the sector’s

electricity consumption are projected to rise by 31.7 percent. The

absolute level of projected CO2

emissions attributable to the residential sector from electricity use in

2020 is 985 Tg CO2. 

• Electricity demand by the commercial sector is projected to rise by 49 

percent from 2000 to 2020, while

the CO2 emissions from the 

sector’s electricity consumption are 

Improvements in CO2 emission intensity and the absolute levels of future CO2 emissions vary

among economic sectors. The projected 1 percent annual growth in CO2 emissions from

nonenergy sources is well below the 79 percent GDP growth rate assumed in the fuel emission projections.

Sector/Source 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Residential 1,122 1,223 1,269 1,325 1,397

Petroleum 101 95 90 86 83

Natural Gas 268 292 300 311 325

Coal 4 4 5 5 5

Electricity 748 832 874 924 985

Commercial 957 1,057 1,163 1,264 1,363

Petroleum 52 48 50 51 51

Natural Gas 181 199 213 228 245

Coal 7 6 7 7 7

Electricity 717 803 893 979 1,059

Industrial 1,753 1,818 1,951 2,049 2,135

Petroleum 344 362 393 414 432

Natural Gas 499 541 581 612 632

Coal 239 231 232 234 237

Electricity 671 684 745 790 834

Transportation 1,895 2,112 2,345 2,568 2,760

Petroleum 1,843 2,055 2,280 2,495 2,679

Natural Gas 42 45 50 57 61

Other 0 * * * *

Electricity 11 13 14 16 19

Total Energy Uses 5,726 6,210 6,727 7,206 7,655

Petroleum 2,339 2,560 2,813 3,045 3,245

Natural Gas 990 1,077 1,145 1,208 1,263

Coal 250 242 244 245 249

Other 0 * * * *

Electricity 2,147 2,331 2,526 2,709 2,897

Nonenergy CO2 Emissions 132 138 145 153 161

Natural Gas Production 39 40 41 43 44

Industrial Processes 92 98 104 110 117

Total CO2 Emissions 5,858 6,348 6,872 7,359 7,816

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

* = less than 0.5 Tg.

TABLE 5-3 U.S. CO2 Emissions by Sector and Source: 2000–2020 (Tg CO2)

historical extrapolation, is available.

These sources are projected to grow by

1 percent annually, well below the 79

percent GDP growth rate assumed in

the fuel emission projections. These

nonfuel emissions are projected to grow

from 132 Tg CO2 in 2000 to 161 Tg

CO2 in 2020.

CO2 Emissions from the 

Electricity Sector

Electricity generation typically produces significant CO2 emissions, with

the important exceptions of electricity

generated from nuclear power and from

renewable sources, such as hydropower,

geothermal, wind, biomass and biomass

conversion, and solar power applications. While electricity producers differ

greatly in their reliance on various primary fuel inputs, their overall CO2 contributions are attributable to the

nationwide electricity purchases of customers in all economic sectors.

The electricity sector’s CO2 emission

intensity is projected to decline by 6 percent over the 20-year interval, as measured against a 43 percent projected
76 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

By 2020, the mix of primary fuels in electricity production is expected to be significantly 

different from the mix during 2000.

Primary Fuel 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Petroleum 73 25 116 19 22

Natural Gas 224 295 369 479 554

Coal 1,850 2,011 2,141 2,211 2,322

Total 2,147 2,331 2,526 2,709 2,898

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

TABLE 5-4 U.S. CO2 Emissions from Electricity Generators: 2000–2020 (Tg CO2)

TABLE 5-5 Sectoral U.S. CO2 Emissions from Electricity Use: 2000–2020 (Tg CO2)

For all sectors, demand for electricity is projected to grow more rapidly than direct fuel use

in other sectors, as electricity assumes an expanding role in meeting the energy demands of

the U.S. economy. Emissions of greenhouse gases from the electricity sector are projected

to rise by 34.9 percent over the 20-year projection period.

Sector 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Residential 748 832 874 924 985

Commercial 717 803 893 979 1,059

Industrial 671 684 745 790 834

Transportation 11 13 14 16 19

Total 2,147 2,331 2,526 2,709 2,898

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

projected to rise by 47.7 percent.

The absolute level of projected CO2

emissions attributable to the commercial sector from electricity use in

2020 is 1,059 Tg CO2. 

• Electricity demand by the industrial

sector is projected to rise by 32 percent from 2000 to 2020, while the

CO2 emissions from the sector’s

electricity consumption are projected to rise by 24.2 percent. The

absolute level of projected CO2

emissions attributable to the industrial sector from electricity use in

2020 is 834 Tg CO2. 

• Emissions of CO2 from the transportation sector’s electricity use are

projected to rise by 71 percent from

2000 to 2020. However, this sector’s

overall electricity use is expected to

remain small, constituting less than 1

percent of total U.S. electricity

demand in 2020.

• For all sectors, demand for electricity is projected to grow more rapidly

than direct fuel use in other sectors,

as electricity assumes an expanding

role in meeting the energy demands

of the U.S. economy. Emissions of

CO2 from the electricity sector are

projected to rise by 34.9 percent

over the 20-year projection period.

Efficient production and use of electricity, as well as development of

clean fuels, will be a continuing policy focus for the United States.

U.S. CO2 Emissions from 

Energy Activities

Total CO2 emissions are projected

to increase by 33.4 percent from 2000

to 2020, to an absolute level of 7,816

Tg CO2 (Table 5-6). By contrast, cumulative GDP growth over the same

period is projected at 79 percent. Consolidating end-use sectors and the electricity industry to examine the

projected levels of CO2 emissions by

principal primary fuels shows a growing

relative share for natural gas emissions,

reflecting rising natural gas use. This

share growth for natural gas is an

important cause of the declining ratio

of greenhouse gas—particularly CO2—

emissions to U.S. economic output. 

Emissions of CO2 from primary fuels

are projected to rise as follows: petroleum, 35.4 percent; natural gas, 49.7

percent; and coal, 22.4 percent. Emissions of CO2 from the ancillary power

needs for electricity generation from

non-fossil fuels—primarily nuclear and

hydro-power, but also including other

renewable sources—remain at negligible levels (less than 0.4 Tg CO2), even

though the utilization of low-emission

energy sources is expected to double by

2020. Natural gas is projected to meet a

growing share of U.S. energy demand;

coal, a reduced share; and petroleum

fuels, approximately the same share.

The impact of the changing shares of

primary fuels is to reduce the intensity

of the GDP’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Nonenergy CO2 emissions are expected to grow by 22 percent over the

projection period.

Non-CO2 Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions

Emissions other than CO2 include

methane emissions from natural gas

production and transmission, coal mine

operation, landfills, and livestock operations; nitrous oxide emissions from

agriculture and, to a lesser degree,

transportation; and hydrofluorocarbon

(HFC), perfluorocarbon (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) gases from industrial activities and, in some cases, the

life cycles of the resulting products

(Table 5-7).

Methane

Methane emissions are estimated

for 1990 and 2000, and over the 5-year

benchmarks of 2005, 2010, 2015, and

2020 (U.S. EPA 1999, 2001a). Over

this period, total methane emissions

are estimated to decline by 5.2 percent, primarily due to reductions in

methane emissions from coal mines

and landfills. However, this decline is

expected to be offset in part by rising

methane emissions from livestock

operations. Projected methane emissions from natural gas production,

transportation, and use remain nearly

unchanged, as the rising natural gas

volumes produced and transported are

governed by policies and practices that
Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions ■ 77

TABLE 5-7 Non-CO2 Emissions: 2000-2020 (Tg CO2 Eq.)

will curtail methane releases with

increasing effectiveness over the projection period.

Natural Gas Operations. Methane emissions from natural gas operations are

projected to increase from 116 Tg CO2

Eq. in 2000 to 119 Tg CO2 Eq. in

2020—an increase of only 2.5 percent,

despite the more than 60 percent projected increase in natural gas use over

the 20-year period. 

Coal Mine Operations. Methane emissions from coal mine operations are

projected to decline from 70 Tg CO2

Eq. in 2000 to 66 Tg CO2 Eq. in

2020—a decrease of 6 percent, primarily due to the closure of very gassy

mines and to a projected shift in coal

production from underground to 

surface mines. Coal mine methane is

subject to continually improving management practices. This decline in coalrelated methane emissions is expected,

despite the more than 20 percent

increase in coal production projected

over the 20-year period. 

Landfills. Landfill methane emissions 

are projected to decrease from 214 Tg

CO2 Eq. in 2000 to 186 Tg CO2 Eq. in

2020—a decrease of 13 percent, despite

growing volumes of municipal waste in

place over the period. Landfill sites are

assumed to be subject to continually

improving methane recovery practices

over the 20-year period. 

Livestock Operations and Other Activities.

Methane emissions from livestock operations, manure management, and other

activities not separately listed are

expected to rise from 224 Tg CO2 Eq.

in 2000 to 240 Tg CO2 Eq. in 

2020—an increase of 10.3 percent.

Anticipated emission management

practices for the agricultural and other

categories do not fully offset projected

agricultural growth over the 20-year

period. 

Total Methane Emissions. Total U.S.

methane emissions from all sources 

are projected to decline from 623 Tg

TABLE 5-6 U.S. CO2 Emissions from All Sectors: 2000–2020 (Tg CO2)

The growing relative share of natural gas emissions resulting from the increased use of natural gas is an important cause of the declining ratio of greenhouse gas—particularly CO2

—

emissions to U.S. economic output. 

Primary Fuel /Source 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Primary Fuel CO2 5,725 6,210 6,728 7,206 7,655

Petroleum 2,411 2,584 2,829 3,063 3,266

Natural Gas 1,214 1,372 1,513 1,687 1,817

Coal 2,100 2,253 2,385 2,456 2,571

Non-energy CO2 132 138 145 153 161

Total CO2 5,857 6,348 6,873 7,359 7,816 

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

Emissions other than CO2 include methane emissions from natural gas production and transmission, coal mine operation, landfills, and livestock operations; nitrous oxide emissions

from agriculture and, to a lesser degree, transportation; and HFC, PFC, and SF6 gases from

industrial activities.

Non-CO2 GHG/Source 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Methane Emissions 623 634 630 625 611

Natural Gas 116 115 115 117 119

Coal Mines 70 73 72 71 66

Landfills 214 219 213 202 186

Livestock Operations 163 167 171 175 178

Other 61 60 59 61 62

High GWP Substances 124 170 208 290 410

ODS Substitutes (HFCs) 58 119 171 266 392

Aluminum (PFCs) 8 7 6 6 5

HCFC-22 (HFC-23) 30 11 6 3 0

Stewardship Programs 28 33 24 15 13

(Semiconductors, Magnesium,

Electric Power Systems, New

Programs; HFCs, PFCs, SF6

)

Nitrous Oxide 433 447 464 483 504

Agriculture 317 326 336 343 350

Mobile Combustion 62 62 66 74 83

Other 54 59 62 66 71

Total 1,180 1,250 1,302 1,398 1,686

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

CO2 Eq. in 2000 to 611 Tg CO2 Eq. in

2020—a decrease of 2.1 percent.

HFCs, PFCs, and SF6

Emissions of HFCs, PFCs, and SF6

are estimated by EPA for 1990, 2000,

and over the 5-year interval benchmarks of 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020

(U.S. EPA 2001e). While total emissions are projected to rise from 124 Tg

CO2 Eq. in 2000 to 410 Tg CO2 Eq. in

2020, this increase is expected to be

predominantly from the use of HFCs as

replacements for ozone-depleting substances (ODS). Growth in the use of

HFCs will allow rapid phase-out of

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and

halons in a number of important applications where other alternatives are not

available. 

HFCs are expected to be selected

for applications where they provide

superior technical (reliability) or safety
TABLE 5-9 Adjustments to U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tg CO2 Eq.)

Adjustments to the emissions reported in this chapter include adding the emissions—predominantly fuel-related—occurring in U.S. territories, and subtracting the international use

of bunker fuels, both military and civilian. 

Type of Adjustment 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Emissions in U.S. Territories + 51 + 59 + 69 + 79 + 92

International Bunker Fuels -110 -117 -128 - 136 -143

Net Adjustments - 59 - 58 - 59 - 57 - 51

78 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

TABLE 5-8 Projections of Carbon Sequestration (Tg CO2)

Improved management practices on forest and agricultural lands and the regeneration of

previously cleared forests resulted in annual net uptake (i.e., sequestration) of carbon during the 1990s. These practices are expected to continue throughout the projection period.

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Carbon Sequestration (-) 1,205 1,175 1,144 1,049 1,053

Note: The above land-use sequestration estimates and projections are based on the U.S. government’s August 1,

2000, submission to the UNFCCC on methodological issues related to the treatment of carbon sinks (U.S. DOS

2000). The projections are not directly comparable to the estimates provided in Chapter 3 of this report for two

reasons: (1) the values provided in Chapter 3 use updated inventory information, and these projections have not

been revised to reflect this new information; and (2) these projections are for a slightly different set of forest

areas and activities than are accounted for in the national greenhouse gas inventory. A new set of projections

that will be consistent with updated inventory estimates will be available from the USDA’s Forest Service in

early 2002. The trends provided in these projections serve to illustrate the impact of forces that are likely to

influence carbon sequestration rates over the next decades.

CO2 Eq. in 2020.2 Bunker fuels in

excludable uses are estimated to produce emissions of 110 Tg CO2 Eq. in

2000 and 143 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020.3

Future of the President’s 

February 2002 Climate 

Change Initiative

On February 14, 2002, the President

committed the United States to reduce

its greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent over the next decade and

announced a series of voluntary programs to achieve that goal. This

includes proposed enhancements to the

existing emissions registry under section 1605(b) of the 1992 Energy Policy

Act that would both protect entities

that register reductions from penalty

under a future climate policy, and create

transferable credits for companies that

show real emission reductions. It also

included expanding sectoral challenges

and renewed support for renewable

energy and energy efficiency tax credits

contained in the National Energy Policy.

The President indicated that progress

would be evaluated in 2012 and that

additional policies, including a broad,

programs, which have focused on

planting trees, improving timber management activities, combating soil 

erosion, and converting marginal croplands to forests. These efforts were

maintained throughout the 1990s, and

are expected to continue through the

projection period. In addition, because

most of the timber that is harvested

from U.S. forests is used in wood products, and much of the discarded wood

products are disposed of in landfills

rather than by incineration, significant

quantities of this harvested carbon are

being transferred to long-term storage

pools, rather than being released to the

atmosphere.

Adjustments to Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions

Adjustments to the emissions

reported in this chapter include adding

the emissions—predominantly fuelrelated—occurring in U.S. territories,

and subtracting the international use of

bunker fuels, both military and civilian

(Table 5-9). Emissions from fuel use in

U.S. territories are projected to grow

from 51 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000 to 92 Tg

(low toxicity and flammability) performance. In many cases, HFCs provide

equal or better energy efficiency compared to other available alternatives,

and their acceptance in the market will

reduce long-term environmental

impacts. HFCs are expected to replace a

significant portion of past and current

demand for CFCs and HCFCs in insulating foams, refrigeration and airconditioning, propellants used in

metered dose inhalers, and other applications. Emissions of HFCs, PFCs, and

SF6 from all other industrial sources are

expected to be reduced significantly

below 1990 levels, despite high growth

rates of manufacturing in some sectors. 

Nitrous Oxide

Nitrous oxide emissions are expected

to rise from 433 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2000 to

504 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2020—an increase of

16.3 percent over the 20-year projection

period. Although the largest single

source of these emissions is agricultural

soils, emissions from this source are projected to grow at only 9.8 percent. The

fastest-growing sources of nitrous oxide

emissions are the transportation sector

and adipic and nitric acid production.

Emissions from each of these sources are

projected to grow by about 33 percent

over the 20-year period (U.S. EPA

2001b). 

Carbon Sequestration

Improved management practices on

forest and agricultural lands and the

regeneration of previously cleared

forests resulted in annual net uptake

(i.e., sequestration) of carbon during

the 1990s (Table 5-8). Land-use decisions influence net carbon uptake long

after their application. 

A trend toward managed growth on

private land since the early 1950s has

resulted in a near doubling of the biomass density in eastern U.S. forests.

More recently, the 1970s and 1980s saw

a resurgence of federally sponsored forest management and soil conservation

2 The projected annual growth rate is 3 percent 

(U.S. DOE). 3 The projected annual growth rate is 1.3 percent 

(U.S. DOE).
Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions ■ 79

market-based program, would be considered in light of the adequacy of these

voluntary programs and developments

in our understanding of the science surrounding climate change. The consequences of this announcement have not

yet been incorporated in current emission forecasts.

KEY UNCERTAINTIES 

AFFECTING PROJECTIONS

Any projection of future emissions is

subject to considerable uncertainty. In

the short term (less than 5 years), the

key factors that can increase or

decrease estimated net emissions

include unexpected changes in retail

energy prices, shifts in the price relationship between natural gas and coal

used for electricity generation, changes

in the economic growth path, abnormal

winter or summer temperatures, and

imperfect forecasting methods. Additional factors may influence emission

rates over the longer term, such as technology developments, shifts in the

composition of economic activity, and

changes in government policies. 

Technology Development (+ or -)

Forecasts of net U.S. emissions of

greenhouse gases take into consideration likely improvements in technology

over time. For example, technologybased energy efficiency gains, which

have contributed to reductions in U.S.

energy intensity for more than 30 years,

are expected to continue. However,

while long-term trends in technology

are often predictable, the specific 

areas in which significant technology

improvements will occur and the specific

new technologies that will become dominant in commercial markets are impossible to forecast accurately, especially over

the long term. 

Unexpected scientific breakthroughs

can cause technology changes and shifts

in economic activity that have sometimes had dramatic effects on patterns of

energy production and use. Such breakthroughs could enable the United States

to dramatically reduce future greenhouse

gas emissions. While government and

private support of research and development efforts can accelerate the rate of

technology change, the effect of such

support on specific technology developments is difficult to predict. 

The Administration has established a

National Climate Change Technology

Initiative (NCCTI) to strengthen basic

research and develop advanced mitigation technologies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Success under the

NCCTI could dramatically expand lowcost emission-reduction opportunities

for the United States and the rest of the

world. 

In a modest high-technology case

examined as part of the projections,

energy use in 2020 under the high-technology regime is 5.6 percent lower than

T

he May 2001 National Energy Policy (NEP) is a long-term, comprehensive strategy to

increase energy supplies; advance the development of new, environmentally friendly,

energy-conservation technologies; and encourage cleaner, more efficient energy use

(NEPD Group 2001). The NEP identified the major energy challenges facing the United

States and developed 105 recommendations for addressing these challenges. When fully

implemented, many of these recommendations will reduce domestic and international

greenhouse gas emissions. Following is a snapshot of the NEP’s proposed initiatives.

Reduce U.S. Energy Consumption

• Expand the ENERGY STAR® program to additional buildings, equipment, and services.

• Improve energy efficiency for appliances, and expand the scope of the appliance standards program.

• Encourage the use of combined heat-and-power operations and other clean-energy

forms.

• Mitigate transportation congestion by both roadway improvements and information

technology.

• Promote the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles, including fuel-cell power plants for personal and heavy vehicles.

• Increase energy conservation in government facilities.

Increase U.S. Energy Supplies

• Enhance the reliability of U.S. energy supplies, and reduce U.S. reliance on energy

imports. 

• Increase domestic production of oil, natural gas, and coal.

• Expand support for advanced clean-coal technology research.

• Support the expansion of safe nuclear power technologies.

• Increase funding for research and development of renewable and alternative energy

resources.

• Optimize the use of hydroelectric generation.

• Undertake long-term education and research into hydrogen fuels, advanced fuel cells,

and fusion power.

• Extend tax credits for the production of electricity from biomass and wind resources.

• Create federal tax incentives to encourage landfill methane recovery.

Strengthen Global Alliances

• Expand international cooperation for energy research and development.

• Promote continued research on the science of global climate change.

• Cooperate with allies to develop cutting-edge technologies, market-based incentives,

and other innovative approaches to address climate change. 

Sample National Energy Policy Initiatives
80 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

growth economy is 8.8 percent

larger than the reference economy,

and carbon emissions from energy

use are 462 Tg CO2 Eq. greater than

in the reference case.

• In the low-growth case 2020 energy

use is 5.4 percent lower than in the

reference case. By 2020, the lowgrowth economy is 9.7 percent

smaller than the reference economy,

and carbon emissions from energy

use are 395 Tg CO2 Eq. lower than

in the reference case.

Faster-than-expected growth during

the late 1990s was the major cause of

higher-than-expected U.S. greenhouse

gas emissions during this period. The

U.S. economic slowdown in 2001 and

post-September 11 fallout may well

result in lower-than-expected greenhouse gas emissions during 2002 and

the immediately following years. However, the long-run economic growth

path remains unchanged.

Weather (+ or -)

Energy use for heating and cooling is

directly responsive to weather variation. The forecast of emissions assumes

30-year average values for populationweighted heating and cooling degreedays. Unlike other sources of

uncertainty, for which deviations

between assumed and actual trends may

follow a persistent course over time, the

effect of weather on energy use and

emissions in any particular year is

largely independent year to year. For

the United States, a swing in either

direction of the magnitude experienced

in individual years during the 1990s

could raise or lower annual emissions by

70 Tg CO2 Eq. relative to a year with

average weather that generates typical

heating and cooling demands. While

small relative to total emissions, a

change of this magnitude is significant

relative to the year-to-year growth of

total emissions. 

in the reference case. By 2020, carbon

emissions from energy use are 507 Tg

CO2 lower than in the reference case.

Regulatory or Statutory 

Changes (+ or -)

The current forecast of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions does not include

the effects of any legislative or regulatory action that was not finalized

before July 1, 2001. Consequently, the

forecast does not include any increase

in the stringency of equipment efficiency standards, even though existing

law requires DOE to periodically

strengthen its existing standards and

issue new standards for other products.

Similarly, the forecast does not assume

any future increase in new building or

auto fuel economy standards, even

though such increases are required by

law or are under consideration. Electric

utility regulation is another area where

further federal and state regulatory policy changes are anticipated, but are not

reflected in the emissions forecast.

Finally, the U.S. Congress is considering a broad range of legislative proposals, including many contained in the

National Energy Policy, that will affect

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Until

specific legislative mandates are

enacted, the forecast of emissions will

not reflect their likely effects.

Energy Prices (+ or -)

The relationship between energy

prices and emissions is complex. Lower

energy prices generally reduce the

incentive for energy conservation and

tend to encourage increased energy use

and related emissions. However, reduction in the price of natural gas relative

to other fuels also encourages fuel

switching that can reduce carbon emissions.

The AEO 2002 projections do not

assume any dramatic changes in the

energy price trends or the inter-fuel

prices ratio that existed during most of

the 1990s (U.S. DOE/EIA 2001a). Nor

do they assume that the dramatic

increases in energy prices that occurred

from mid-2000 through the beginning

of 2001 will persist. This view is supported by the precipitous decline in oil

prices that occurred during the second

half of 2001. 

While some analysts project that further decreases in delivered energy

prices will result from increased competition in the electric utility sector and

improved technology, others project

that large energy price increases may

result from the faster-than-expected

depletion of oil and gas resources, or

from political or other disruptions in

oil-producing countries.

Economic Growth (+ or -)

Faster economic growth increases

the future demand for energy services,

such as vehicle miles traveled, amount

of lighted and ventilated space, and

process heat used in industrial production. However, faster growth also stimulates capital investment and reduces

the average age of the capital stock,

increasing its average energy efficiency.

The energy-service demand and

energy-efficiency effects of higher

growth work in offsetting directions.

The effect on service demand is the

stronger of the two, so that levels of primary energy use are positively correlated with the size of the economy.

In addition to the reference case

used in developing the updated baseline, the AEO 2002 provides high and

low economic growth cases, which vary

the annual GDP growth rate from the

reference case. The high-growth case

raises the GDP growth rate by 0.4 percent. The low-growth case reduces the

GDP growth rate by 0.6 percent.

• In the high-growth case 2020 energy

use is 5.6 percent higher than in the

reference case. By 2020, the high-
Chapter 6 

Impacts and

Adaptation

I

n its June 2001 report, the Committee

on the Science of Climate Change,

which was convened by the National

Research Council (NRC) of the

National Academy of Sciences, concluded that “[h]uman-induced warming

and associated sea level rises are

expected to continue through the 21st

century.” The Committee recognized

that there remains considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how

climate varies naturally and will

respond to projected, but uncertain,

changes in the emissions of greenhouse

gases and aerosols. It also noted that

the “impacts of these changes will be

critically dependent on the magnitude

of the warming and the rate with which

it occurs” (NRC 2001a).

SUMMARY OF THE 

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT

To develop an initial understanding

of the potential impacts of climate

change for the United States during the

One of the weakest links in our knowledge is the connection between global and regional

predictions of climate change. The National Research Council’s response to the President’s

request for a review of climate change policy specifically noted that fundamental scientific questions remain regarding the specifics of regional and local projections (NRC 2001a).

Predicting the potential impacts of climate change is compounded by a lack of understanding of the sensitivity of many environmental systems and resources—both managed

and unmanaged—to climate change. (See Chapter 1, page 6.)

Uncertainties in Regional and Local Projections of Climate Change

While current analyses are unable to predict with confidence the timing, magnitude, or

regional distribution of climate change, the best scientific information indicates that if

greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, changes are likely to occur. The U.S.

National Research Council has cautioned, however, that “because there is considerable

uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts

to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of

future warmings should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either

upward or downward)” (NRC 2001a). Moreover, there is perhaps even greater uncertainty

regarding the social, environmental, and economic consequences of changes in climate.

(See Chapter 1, page 4, “The Science” box.)

Uncertainties in Estimates of the Timing, Magnitude, and Distribution 

of Future Warming
82 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

21st century, the U.S. Global Change

Research Program has sponsored a

wide-ranging set of assessment activities since the submission of the Second

National Communication in 1997.

These activities examined regional, sectoral, and national components of the

potential consequences for the environment and key societal activities in

the event of changes in climate consistent with projections drawn from the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC). Regional studies

ranged from Alaska to the Southeast

and from the Northeast to the Pacific

Islands. Sectoral studies considered the

potential influences of climate change

on land cover, agriculture, forests,

human health, water resources, and

coastal areas and marine resources. A

national overview drew together the

findings to provide an integrated and

comprehensive perspective.

These assessment studies recognized that definitive prediction of

potential outcomes is not yet feasible as

a result of the wide range of possible

future levels of greenhouse gas and

aerosol emissions, the range of possible

climatic responses to changes in atmospheric concentration, and the range of

possible environmental and societal

responses. These assessments, therefore, evaluated the narrower question

concerning the vulnerability of the

United States to a specified range of

climate warming, focusing primarily on

the potential consequences of climate

scenarios that project global average

warming of about 2.5 to almost 4oC

(about 4.5–7oF). While narrower than

the IPCC’s full 1.4–5.8oC (2.5–10.4oF)

range of estimates of future warming,

the selection of the climate scenarios

that were considered recognized that it

is important to treat a range of conditions about the mid-range of projected

warming, which was given by the NRC

as 3oC (5.4oF). Similarly, assumption of

a mid-range value of sea level rise of

about 48 cm (19 inches) was near the

middle of the IPCC’s range of 9–88 cm

(about 4–35 inches) (2001d).

Because of these ranges and their

uncertainties, and because of uncertainties in projecting potential impacts, it is

important to note that this chapter cannot present absolute probabilities of

what is likely to occur. Instead, it can

only present judgments about the relative plausibility of outcomes in the

event that the projected changes in climate that are being considered do

occur. To the extent that actual emissions of greenhouse gases turn out to be

lower than projected, or that climate

change is at the lower end of the projected ranges and climate variability

about the mean varies little from the

past, the projected impacts of climate

change are likely to be reduced or

delayed, and continued adaptation and

technological development are likely to

reduce the projected impacts and costs

of climate change within the United

States. Even in this event, however, the

long lifetimes of greenhouse gases

already in the atmosphere and the

momentum of the climate system are

projected to cause climate to continue

to change for more than a century.

Conversely, if the changes in climate

are toward the upper end of the projected ranges and occur rapidly or lead

to unprecedented conditions, the level

of disruption is likely to be increased.

Because of the momentum in the climate system and natural climate variability, adapting to a changing climate

is inevitable. The question is whether

we adapt poorly or well. With either

weak or strong warming, however, the

U.S. economy should continue to grow,

with impacts being reduced if actions

are taken to prepare for and adapt to

future changes.

Although successful U.S. adaptation

to the changing climate conditions during the 20th century provides some

context for evaluating potential U.S.

vulnerability to projected changes, the

assessments indicate that the challenge

of adaptation is likely to be greater during the 21st century than in the past.

Natural ecosystems appear to be the

most vulnerable to climate change

because generally little can be done to

help them adapt to the projected rate

and amount of change. Sea level rise at

mid-range rates is projected to cause

additional loss of coastal wetlands, particularly in areas where there are

obstructions to landward migration, and

put coastal communities at greater risk

of storm surges, especially in the southeastern United States. Reduced snowpack is very likely to alter the timing and

amount of water supplies, potentially

exacerbating water shortages, particularly throughout the western United

States, if current water management

practices cannot be successfully altered

or modified. Increases in the heat index

(which combines temperature and

humidity) and in the frequency of heat

waves are very likely. At a minimum,

these changes will increase discomfort,

particularly in cities; however, their

health impacts can be ameliorated

through such measures as the increased

availability of air conditioning.

At the same time, greater wealth and

advances in technologies are likely to

help facilitate adaptation, particularly for

human systems. In addition, highly managed ecosystems, such as crops and timber plantations, appear more robust than

natural and lightly managed ecosystems,

such as grasslands and deserts. 

Some potential benefits were also

identified in the assessments. For example, due to increased carbon dioxide

(CO2) in the atmosphere and an

extended growing season, crop and forest productivities are likely to increase

where water and nutrients are sufficient,

at least for the next few decades. As a

result, the potential exists for an increase

in exports of some U.S. food products,

depending on impacts in other foodgrowing regions around the world.

Increases in crop production in fertile

areas could cause prices to fall, benefiting consumers. Other potential benefits

could include extended seasons for construction and warm-weather recreation,

and reduced heating requirements and

cold-weather mortality.

While most studies conducted to

date have primarily had an internal

focus, the United States also recognizes

that its well-being is connected to the

world through the global economy, the

common global environment, shared

resources, historic roots and continuing
Impacts and Adaptation ■ 83

family relations, travel and tourism,

migrating species, and more. As a result,

in addition to internal impacts, the

United States is likely to be affected,

both directly and indirectly and both

positively and detrimentally, by the

potential consequences of climate

change on the rest of the world. To better understand those potential consequences and the potential for adaptation

worldwide, we are conducting and participating in research and assessments

both within the United States and internationally (see Chapter 8). To alleviate

vulnerability to adverse consequences,

we are undertaking a wide range of activities that will help nationally and internationally, from developing medicines

for dealing with infectious disease to

promoting worldwide development

through trade and assistance. As

described in Chapter 7, the United

States is also offering many types of

assistance to the world community,

believing that information about and

preparation for climate change can help

reduce adverse impacts.

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter provides an overview of

the potential impacts of climate change

affecting the United States. The chapter

also summarizes current measures and

future adaptation and response options

that are designed to increase resilience to

climate variations and reduce vulnerability to climate change. The chapter is not

intended to serve as a separate assessment in and of itself, but rather is drawn

largely from analyses prepared for the

U.S. National and IPCC Assessments,

where more detailed consideration and

specific references to the literature can

be found (see NAST 2000, 2001 and

IPCC 2001d, including the review of

these results presented in NRC 2001a

and IPCC 2001a).

As indicated by the findings presented here, considerable scientific

progress has been made in gaining an

understanding of the potential consequences of climate change. At the same

time, considerable uncertainties remain

because the actual impacts will depend

on how emissions change, how the climate responds at global to regional

scales, how societies and supporting

technologies evolve, how the environment and society are affected, and how

much ingenuity and commitment societies show in responding to the potential impacts. While the range of

possible outcomes is very broad, all

projections prepared by the IPCC

(2001d) indicate that the anthropogenic contribution to global climate

change will be greater during the 21st

century than during the 20th century.

Although the extents of climate change

and its impacts nationally and regionally remain uncertain, it is generally

possible to undertake “if this, then that”

types of analyses. Such analyses can

then be used to identify plausible

impacts resulting from projected

changes in climate and, in some cases,

to evaluate the relative plausibility of

various outcomes.

Clear and careful presentation of

uncertainties is also important. Because

the information is being provided to

policymakers and because the limited

scientific understanding of the

processes involved generally precludes

a fully quantitative analysis, extensive

consideration led both the IPCC and

the National Assessment experts to

express their findings in terms of the

relative likelihood of an outcome’s

occurring. To integrate the wide variety

of information and to differentiate

more likely from less likely outcomes, a

common lexicon was developed to

express the considered judgment of the

National Assessment experts about the

relative likelihood of the results. An

advantage of this approach is that it

moves beyond the vagueness of illdefined terms, such as may or might,

which allow an interpretation of the

likelihood of an outcome’s occurring to

range from, for example, 1 to 99 percent, and so provide little basis for differentiating the most plausible from the

least plausible outcomes. 

In this chapter, which uses a lexicon

similar to that developed for the

National Assessment, the term possible is

intended to indicate there is a finite

likelihood of occurrence of a potential

consequence, the term likely is used to

indicate that the suggested impact is

more plausible than other outcomes,

and the term very likely is used to indicate

that an outcome is much more plausible

than other outcomes. Although the

degree of scientific understanding

regarding most types of outcomes is not

complete, the judgments included here

have been based on an evaluation of the

consistency and extent of available scientific studies (e.g., field experiments,

model simulations), historical trends,

physical and biological relationships,

and the expert judgment of highly qualified scientists actively engaged in relevant research (see NAST 2000, 2001).

Because such judgments necessarily

have a subjective component, the indications of relative likelihood may

change as additional information is

developed or as new approaches to

adaptation are recognized.

Because this chapter is an overview,

it generally focuses on types of outcomes that are at least considered likely,

leaving discussion of the consequences

of potential outcomes with lower likelihood to the more extensive scientific

and assessment literature. However, it is

important to recognize that there are

likely to be unanticipated impacts of

climate change that occur. Such “surprises,” positive or negative, may stem

from either (1) unforeseen changes in

the physical climate system, such as

major alterations in ocean circulation,

cloud distribution, or storms; or (2)

unpredicted biological consequences of

these physical climate changes, such as

pest outbreaks. For this reason, the set

of suggested consequences presented

here should not be considered comprehensive. In addition, unexpected social

or economic changes, including major

changes in wealth, technology, or political priorities, could affect society’s ability to respond to climate change.

This chapter first describes the

weather and climate context for the

analysis of impacts, and then provides a

summary of the types of consequences

that are considered plausible across a

range of sectors and regions. The 

chapter then concludes with a brief
84 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

summary of actions being taken at the

national level to learn more about the

potential consequences of climate

change and to encourage steps to

reduce vulnerability and increase

resilience to its impacts. Although the

federal government can support

research that expands understanding

and the available set of options and that

provides information about the potential consequences of climate change and

viable response strategies, many of the

adaptation measures are likely to be

implemented at state and local levels

and by the private sector. For these reasons and because of identified uncertainties, the results presented should not be

viewed as definitive. Nonetheless, the

more plausible types of consequences

and impacts resulting from climate

change and the types of steps that might

be taken to reduce vulnerability and

increase adaptation to climate variations

and change are identified.

WEATHER AND 

CLIMATE CONTEXT

The United States experiences a

wide variety of climate conditions.

Moving across from west to east, the climates range from the semi-arid and arid

climates of the Southwest to the continental climates of the Great Plains and

the moister conditions of the eastern

United States. North to south, the climates range from the Arctic climate of

northern Alaska to the extensive forests

of the Pacific Northwest to the tropical

climates in Hawaii, the Pacific Islands,

and the Caribbean. Although U.S. society and industry have largely adapted to

the mean and variable climate conditions of their region, this has not been

without some effort and cost. In addition, various extreme events each year

still cause significant impacts across the

nation. Weather events causing the most

death, injury, and damage include hurricanes (or more generally tropical

cyclones) and associated storm surges,

lightning, tornadoes and other windstorms, hailstorms, severe winter storms,

deep snow and avalanches, and extreme

summer temperatures. Heat waves,

floods, landslides, droughts, fires, land

subsidence, coastal inundation and erosion, and even dam failures also can

result when extremes persist over time.

To provide an objective and quantitative basis for an assessment of the potential consequences of climate change, the

U.S. National Assessment was organized

around the use of climate model scenarios that specified changes in the climate

that might be experienced across the

United States (NAST 2001). Rather

than simply considering the potential

influences of arbitrary changes in temperature, precipitation, and other variables, the use of climate model scenarios

ensured that the set of climate conditions considered was internally consistent and physically plausible. For the

National Assessment, the climate scenarios were primarily drawn from results

available from the climate models developed and used by the United Kingdom’s

Hadley Centre and the Canadian Centre

for Climate Modeling and Analysis. In

addition, some analyses also drew on

results from model simulations carried

out at U.S. centers, including the

National Center for Atmospheric

Research, the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s)

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, and the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Use of these model results is not

meant to imply that they provide accurate predictions of the specific changes in

climate that will occur over the next

100 years. Rather, the models are considered to provide plausible projections of

potential changes for the 21st century.1

For some aspects of climate, all models,

as well as other lines of evidence, are in

agreement on the types of changes to

be expected. For example, compared to

changes during the 20th century, all climate model results suggest that warming during the 21st century across the

country is very likely to be greater, that

sea level and the heat index are going to

rise more, and that precipitation is more

likely to come in the heavier categories

experienced in each region. Also,

although there is not yet close agreement about how regional changes in climate can be expected to differ from

larger-scale changes, the model simulations indicate some agreement in projections of the general seasonal and

subcontinental patterns of the changes

(IPCC 2001d). 

This consistency has lent some confidence to these results. For some

aspects of climate, however, the model

results differ. For example, some models, including the Canadian model,

project more extensive and frequent

drought in the United States, while

others, including the Hadley model, do

not. As a result, the Canadian model

suggests a hotter and drier Southeast

during the 21st century, while the

Hadley model suggests warmer and

wetter conditions. Where such differences arise, the primary model scenarios provide two plausible, but different

alternatives. Such differences proved

helpful in exploring the particular sensitivities of various activities to uncertainties in the model results.

Projected Changes in 

the Mean Climate

The model scenarios used in the

National Assessment project that the

continuing growth in greenhouse gas

emissions is likely to lead to annualaverage warming over the United States

that could be as much as several degrees

Celsius (roughly 3–9oF) during the 21st

century. In addition, both precipitation

and evaporation are projected to

increase, and occurrences of unusual

warmth and extreme wet and dry conditions are expected to become more

frequent. For areas experiencing these

changes, they would feel similar to an

overall northern shift in weather 

1 For the purposes of this chapter, prediction is meant to indicate forecasting of an outcome that will occur as a result of

the prevailing situation and recent trends (e.g., tomorrow’s weather or next winter’s El Niño event), whereas projection

is used to refer to potential outcomes that would be expected if some scenario of future conditions were to come about

(e.g., concerning greenhouse gas emissions). In addition to uncertainties in how the climate is likely to respond to a

changing atmospheric concentration, projections of climate change necessarily encompass a wide range because of

uncertainties in projections of future emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols and because of the potential effects

of possible future agreements that might limit such emissions.
Impacts and Adaptation ■ 85

enced more periods of very wet or very

dry conditions, and most areas experienced more intense rainfall events.

While warming over the 48 contiguous

states amounted to about 0.6oC (about

1oF), warming in interior Alaska was as

much as 1.6oC (about 3oF), causing

changes ranging from the thawing of

permafrost to enhanced coastal erosion

resulting from melting of sea ice.

Model simulations project that minimum temperatures are likely to continue to rise more rapidly than

maximum temperatures, extending the

trend that started during the 20th century. Although winter temperatures are

projected to increase somewhat more

rapidly than summer temperatures, the

summertime heat index is projected to

rise quite sharply because the rising

absolute humidity will make summer

conditions feel much more uncomfortable, particularly across the southern

and eastern United States.

Although a 0.6oC (1oF) warming may

systems and climate condition. For

example, the central tier of states would

experience climate conditions roughly

equivalent to those now experienced in

the southern tier, and the northern tier

would experience conditions much like

the central tier. Figure 6-1 illustrates

how the summer climate of Illinois

might change under the two scenarios.

While the two models roughly agree on

the amount of warming, the differences

between them arise because of differences in projections of changing summertime precipitation.

Recent analyses indicate that, as a

result of an uncertain combination of

natural and human-induced factors,

changes of the type that are projected

for the 21st century were occurring to

some degree during the 20th century.

For example, over the last 100 years

most areas in the contiguous United

States warmed, although there was

cooling in the Southeast. Also, during

the 20th century, many areas experinot seem large compared to daily variations in temperature, it caused a decline

of about two days per year in the number of days that minimum temperatures

fell below freezing. Across the United

States, this change was most apparent in

winter and spring, with little change in

autumn. The timing of the last spring

frost changed similarly, with earlier cessation of spring frosts contributing to a

lengthening of the frost-free season over

the country. Even these seemingly small

temperature-related changes have had

some effects on the natural environment,

including shorter duration of lake ice, a

northward shift in the distributions of

some species of butterflies, changes in

the timing of bird migrations, and a

longer growing season.

With respect to changes in precipitation, observations for the 20th century indicate that total annual

precipitation has been increasing, both

worldwide and over the country. For

the contiguous United States, total

annual precipitation increased by an

estimated 5–10 percent over the past

100 years. With the exception of localized decreases in parts of the upper

Great Plains, the Rocky Mountains, and

Alaska, most regions experienced

greater precipitation (Figure 6-2). This

increased precipitation is evident in

daily precipitation rates and in the

number of rain days. It has caused widespread increases in stream flow for all

levels of flow conditions, particularly

during times of low to moderate flow

conditions—changes that have generally improved water resource conditions and have reduced situations of

hydrologic drought.

For the 21st century, models project a

continuing increase in global precipitation, with much of the increase occurring in middle and high latitudes. The

models also suggest that the increases

are likely to be evident in rainfall events

that, based on conditions in each region,

would be considered heavy (Figure 6-3).

However, estimates of the regional pattern of changes vary significantly. While

there are some indications that wintertime precipitation in the southwestern

United States is likely to increase due to

FIGURE 6-1 Potential Effects of 21st-Century Warming on the Summer Climate 

of Illinois

This schematic illustrates how the summer climate of Illinois would shift under two plausible

climate scenarios. Under the Canadian Climate Centre model’s hot-dry climate scenario, the

changes in summertime temperature and precipitation in Illinois would resemble the current

climatic conditions in southern Missouri by the 2030s and in Oklahoma by the 2090s. For the

warm-moist climate scenario projected by U.K.’s Hadley Centre model, summer in Illinois

would become more like current summer conditions in the central Appalachians by the 2030s

and North Carolina by the 2090s. Both shifts indicate warming of several degrees, but the scenarios differ in terms of projected changes in precipitation.

Note: The baseline climatic values are for the period 1961–90.

Source: D.J. Wuebbles, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, as included in NAST 2000.

Total Summer Precipitation (inches) Average Summer Temperatures (°F)

70°F

75°F

80°F

10"

10"

15"

15" 2030s

2090s

20"

Canadian Model

70°F

75°F

80°F

10"

10"

15"

15"

20"

Hadley Model

2030s

2090s
86 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

FIGURE 6-2 Observed Changes in Precipitation: 1901–1998

The geographical pattern of observed changes in U.S. annual precipitation during the 20th

century indicates that, although local variations are occurring, precipitation has been

increasing in most regions. The results are based on data from 1,221 Historical Climatology

Network stations. These data are being used to derive estimates of a 100-year trend for

each U.S. climate division. 

+10

+20

+40

-10

-20

-40

Trends (%/100 Years)

FIGURE 6-3 Projected Changes in the Intensity of U.S. Precipitation for the 21st Century 

The projected changes in precipitation over the United States as calculated by two models indicate that most of the increase is likely to occur in

the locally heaviest categories of precipitation. Each bar represents the percentage change of precipitation in a different category of storm intensity. For example, the two bars on the far right indicate that the Canadian Centre model projects an increase of over 20 percent in the 5 percent

most intense rainfall events in each region, whereas the Hadley Centre model projects an increase of over 55 percent in such events. Because

both historic trends and future projections from many global climate models indicate an increase in the fraction of precipitation occurring during

the heaviest categories of precipitation events in each region, a continuation of this trend is considered likely. Although this does not necessarily

translate into an increase in flooding, higher river flows are likely to be a consequence.

Source: Byron Gleason, NOAA National Climatic Data Center (updated from NAST 2000).

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Trends (% change in precipitation per century)

Canadian Model

Hadley Model

Lightest 5%

Moderate

Heaviest 5%

2.6

-6.0 -6.2

0.1

-4.7

-6.5

2.5 4.0 3.1 2.9 1.5

4.7 5.1 4.5

6.5 7.9 8.6

6.5

8.8 7.9 6.4

8.3

10.6

22.8

-4.3

-10.0

-5.4 -6.9

-9.0 -9.0

-5.7

-7.7

-3.8 -3.0

0.3

1.3

3.7

11.6

20.3

57.2

warming of the Pacific Ocean, changes

across key U.S. forest and agricultural

regions remain uncertain.

Soil moisture is critical for agriculture, vegetation, and water resources.

Projections of changes in soil moisture

depend on precipitation and runoff;

changes in the timing and form of the

precipitation (i.e., rain or snow); and

changes in water loss by evaporation,

which in turn depends on temperature

change, vegetation, and the effects of

changes in CO2 concentration on 

evapotranspiration. As a result of the

many interrelationships, projections

remain somewhat uncertain of how

changes in precipitation are likely to

affect soil moisture and runoff, although

the rising summertime temperature is

likely to create additional stress by significantly increasing evaporation.

Note: All stations/trends are displayed, 

regardless of statistical significance.

Sources: Groisman et al. 2001; NOAA National 

Climatic Data Center.
Impacts and Adaptation ■ 87

Projected Changes in 

Climate Variability

As in other highly developed nations,

U.S. communities and industries have

made substantial efforts to reduce their

vulnerability to normal weather and climate fluctuations. However, adaptation

to potential changes in weather extremes

and climate variability is likely to be

more difficult and costly. Unfortunately,

projections of such changes remain quite

uncertain, especially because variations

in climate differentially affect different

regions of the country. Perhaps the bestknown example of a natural variation of

the climate is caused by the El

Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO),

which is currently occurring every several years. ENSO has reasonably wellestablished effects on seasonal climate

conditions across the country. For example, in the El Niño phase, unusually high

sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) in the

eastern and central equatorial Pacific act

to suppress the occurrence of Atlantic

hurricanes (Figure 6-4) and result in

higher-than-average wintertime precipitation in the southwestern and southeastern United States, and in

above-average temperatures in the Midwest (Figure 6-5). During a strong El

Niño, effects can extend into the northern Great Plains.

During the La Niña phase, which is

characterized by unusually low SSTs off

the west coast of South America, higherthan-average wintertime temperatures

prevail across the southern half of the

United States, more hurricanes occur in

the tropical Atlantic, and more tornadoes occur in the Ohio and Tennessee

valleys (Figures 6-4 and 6-5). During the

summer, La Niña conditions can contribute to the occurrence of drought in

the eastern half of the United States.

Other factors that affect the interannual variability of the U.S. climate

include the Pacific Decadal Oscillation

(PDO) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). 

The PDO is a phenomenon similar

to ENSO, but is most apparent in the

SSTs of the North Pacific Ocean. The

PDO has a periodicity that is on the

order of decades and, like ENSO, has

The frequency at which various numbers of hurricanes struck the United States during the 20th

century has been found to depend on whether El Niño or La Niña events were occurring.

Because of this observed relationship, changes in the frequency and intensity of these events

are expected to affect the potential for damaging hurricanes striking the United States.

FIGURE 6-4 Likelihood of Hurricanes to Strike the United States Based on El Niño and 

La Niña Occurrence Chance of Occurence (%)

La Niña

El Niño

Number of Hurricanes per Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 or

more 2 ormore 3 ormore 4 ormore 5 ormore 6 ormore 7 ormore

90

76

67

27

39

0 000 0

19

8

3 1

Source: Bove et al. 1998.

Source: Florida State University, Center for Ocean–Atmospheric Prediction Studies. <http://www.coaps.fsu.edu>

FIGURE 6-5 Climatic Tendencies across North America during El Niño and 

La Niña Events

Temperature and precipitation across North America have tended to vary from normal 

wintertime conditions as a result of El Niño (warmer-than-normal) and La Niña (colder-thannormal) events in the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean. For many regions, the state of ocean

temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean has been found to be the most important

determinant of whether winter conditions are relatively wet or dry, or relatively warm or

cold. For example, winters in the Southeast tend to be generally cool and wet during El Niño

(warm) events, and warm and dry during La Niña (cold) events.

Dry

Very Dry

Wet

Very Wet

COLD

Cold-Event Winter (La Niña)

WARM

COLD

Warm-Event Winter (El Niño)

WARM

COLD
88 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

two distinct phases—a warm phase and

a cool phase. In the warm phase,

oceanic conditions lead to an intensification of the storm-generating Aleutian

Low, higher-than-average winter temperatures in the Pacific Northwest, and

relatively high SSTs along the Pacific

Coast. The PDO also leads to dry winters in the Pacific Northwest, but wetter conditions both north and south of

there. Essentially, the opposite conditions occur during the cool phase. 

The NAO is a phenomenon that displays a seesaw in temperatures and

atmospheric pressure between Greenland and northern Europe. However,

the NAO also includes effects in the

United States. For example, when

Greenland is warmer than normal, the

eastern United States is usually colder,

particularly in winter, and vice-versa.

Given these important and diverse

interactions, research is being intensified

to improve model simulations of natural

climate variations, especially to improve

projections of how such variations are

likely to change. Although projections

remain uncertain, the climate model of

the Max Planck Institute in Germany,

which is currently considered to provide

the most realistic simulation of the

ENSO cycle, calculates stronger and

wider swings between El Niño and La

Niña conditions as the global climate

warms (Timmermann et al. 1999), while

other models simply project more El

Niño-like conditions over the eastern

tropical Pacific Ocean (IPCC 2001d).

Either type of result would be likely to

cause important climate fluctuations

across the United States.

Using the selected model scenarios

as guides, but also examining the potential consequences of a continuation of

past climate trends and of the possibility of exceeding particular threshold

conditions, the National Assessment

focused its analyses on evaluating the

potential environmental and societal

consequences of the climate changes

projected for the 21st century, as

described in the next section.

POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES 

OF AND ADAPTATION TO 

CLIMATE CHANGE

Since the late 1980s, an increasing

number of studies have been undertaken

to investigate the potential impacts of

climate change on U.S. society and the

environment (e.g., U.S. EPA 1989, U.S.

Congress 1993) and as components of

international assessments (e.g., IPCC

1996a, 1998). While these studies have

generally indicated that many aspects of

the U.S. environment and society are

likely to be sensitive to changes in climate, they were unable to provide indepth perspectives of how various types

of impacts might evolve and interact. In

1997, the interagency U.S. Global

Change Research Program (USGCRP)

initiated a National Assessment process

to evaluate and synthesize available

information about the potential impacts

of climate change for the United States,

to identify options for adapting to climate change, and to summarize research

needs for improving knowledge about

vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation

(see Chapter 8). The findings were also

undertaken to provide a more in-depth

analysis of the potential time-varying

consequences of climate change for consideration in scheduled international

assessments (IPCC 2001a) and to contribute to fulfilling obligations under sections 4.1(b) and (e) of the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The U.S. National Assessment was

carried out recognizing that climate

change is only one among many potential stresses that society and the environment face, and that, in many cases,

adaptation to climate change can be

accomplished in concert with efforts to

adapt to other stresses. For example, climate variability and change will interact

with such issues as air and water pollution, habitat fragmentation, wetland

loss, coastal erosion, and reductions in

fisheries in ways that are likely to compound these stresses. In addition, an

aging national populace and rapidly

growing populations in cities, coastal

areas, and across the South and West are

social factors that interact with and in

some ways can increase the sensitivity of

society to climate variability and change.

In both evaluating potential impacts and

developing effective responses, it is

therefore important to consider interactions among the various stresses.

In considering the potential impacts

of climate change, however, it is also

important to recognize that U.S. climate conditions vary from the cold of

an Alaskan winter to the heat of a Texas

summer, and from the year-round nearconstancy of temperatures in Hawaii to

the strong variations in North Dakota.

Across this very wide range of climate

conditions and seasonal variation,

American ingenuity and resources have

enabled communities and businesses to

develop, although particular economic

sectors in particular regions can experience losses and disruptions from

extreme conditions of various types. For

example, the amount of property damage from hurricanes has been rising,

although this seems to be mainly due to

increasing development and population

in vulnerable coastal areas. On the

other hand, the number of deaths each

year from weather extremes and from

climatically dependent infectious diseases has been reduced sharply compared to a century ago, and total deaths

relating to the environment are currently very small in the context of total

deaths in the United States, even

though the U.S. population has been

rising. In addition, in spite of climate

change, the productivity of the agriculture and forest sectors has never been

higher and continues to rise, with

excess production helping to meet

global demand.

This adaptation to environmental

variations and extremes has been accomplished because the public and private

sectors have applied technological

change and knowledge about fluctuating

climate to implement a broad series of

steps that have enhanced resilience and

reduced vulnerability. For example, these

steps have ranged from better design and

construction of buildings and communities to greater availability of heating in
Impacts and Adaptation ■ 89

winter and cooling in summer, and from

better warnings about extreme events to

advances in public health care. Because

of this increasing resilience to climate

variations and relative success in adapting to the modest changes in climate

that were observed during the 20th century, information about likely future climate changes and continuing efforts to

plan for and adapt to these changes are

likely to prove useful in minimizing

future impacts and preparing to take

advantage of the changing conditions.

With these objectives in mind, the

U.S. National Assessment process,

which is described more completely in

Chapter 8, initiated a set of regional, sectoral, and national activities. This page

presents an overview of key national

findings, and the following subsections

elaborate on these findings, covering

both potential consequences and the

types of adaptive steps that are underway

or could be pursued to moderate or deal

with adverse outcomes. The subsections

summarize the types of impacts that are

projected, covering initially the potential

impacts on land cover; then the potential

impacts on agriculture, forest, and water

resources, which are key natural

resource sectors on which society

depends; then potential impacts associated with coastal regions and human

health that define the environment in

which people live; and finally summarization of the primary issues that are

specific to particular U.S. regions. A full

list of regional, sectoral, and national

reports prepared under the auspices of

the U.S. National Assessment process

and additional materials relating to

research and assessment activities can

be found at http://www.usgcrp.gov. 

Potential Interactions 

with Land Cover

The natural vegetative cover of the

United States is largely determined by

the prevailing climate and soil. Where

not altered by societal activities, climate

conditions largely determine where

individual species of plants and animals

can live, grow, and reproduce. Thus, the

collections of species that we are familiar

with—e.g., the southeastern mixed

Increased warming is projected for the 21st century—Assuming continued growth in

world greenhouse gas emissions, the primary climate models drawn upon for the analyses

carried out in the U.S. National Assessment projected that temperatures in the contiguous

United States will rise 3–5°C (5–9°F) on average during the 21st century. A wider range of

outcomes, including a smaller warming, is also possible.

Impacts will differ across regions—Climate change and its potential impacts are likely to

vary widely across the country. Temperature increases are likely to vary somewhat among

regions. Heavy precipitation events are projected to become more frequent, yet some

regions are likely to become drier. 

Ecosystems are especially vulnerable—Many ecosystems are highly sensitive to the projected rate and magnitude of climate change, although more efficient water use will help

some ecosystems. A few ecosystems, such as alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains

and some barrier islands, are likely to disappear entirely in some areas. Other ecosystems,

such as southeastern forests, are likely to experience major species shifts or break up into

a mosaic of grasslands, woodlands, and forests. Some of the goods and services lost

through the disappearance or fragmentation of natural ecosystems are likely to be costly

or impossible to replace.

Widespread water concerns arise—Water is an issue in every region, but the nature of the

vulnerabilities varies. Drought is an important concern virtually everywhere. Floods and

water quality are concerns in many regions. Snowpack changes are likely to be especially

important in the West, Pacific Northwest, and Alaska.

Food supply is secure—At the national level, the agriculture sector is likely to be able to

adapt to climate change. Mainly because of the beneficial effects of the rising carbon dioxide levels on crops, overall U.S. crop productivity, relative to what is projected in the

absence of climate change, is very likely to increase over the next few decades. However,

the gains are not likely to be uniform across the nation. Falling prices are likely to cause difficulty for some farmers, while benefiting consumers.

Near-term forest growth increases—Forest productivity is likely to increase over the next

several decades in some areas as trees respond to higher carbon dioxide levels by increasing water-use efficiency. Such changes could result in ecological benefits and additional

storage of carbon. Over the longer term, changes in larger-scale processes, such as fire,

insects, droughts, and disease, could decrease forest productivity. In addition, climate

change is likely to cause long-term shifts in forest species, such as sugar maples moving

north out of the country.

Increased damage occurs in coastal and permafrost areas—Climate change and the

resulting rise in sea level are likely to exacerbate threats to buildings, roads, power lines,

and other infrastructure in climate-sensitive areas. For example, infrastructure damage is

expected to result from permafrost melting in Alaska and from sea level rise and storm

surges in low-lying coastal areas.

Adaptation determines health outcomes—A range of negative health impacts is possible

from climate change. However, as in the past, adaptation is likely to help protect much of

the U.S. population. Maintaining our nation’s public health and community infrastructure,

from water treatment systems to emergency shelters, will be important for minimizing the

impacts of water-borne diseases, heat stress, air pollution, extreme weather events, and

diseases transmitted by insects, ticks, and rodents.

Other stresses are magnified by climate change—Climate change is very likely to modify

the cumulative impacts of other stresses. While it may magnify the impacts of some stresses, such as air and water pollution and conversion of habitat due to human development

patterns, it may increase agricultural and forest productivity in some areas. For coral reefs,

the combined effects of increased CO2 concentration, climate change, and other stresses

are very likely to exceed a critical threshold, causing large, possibly irreversible impacts.

Uncertainties remain and surprises are expected—Significant uncertainties remain in the

science underlying regional changes in climate and their impacts. Further research would

improve understanding and capabilities for projecting societal and ecosystem impacts.

Increased knowledge would also provide the public with additional useful information

about options for adaptation. However, it is likely that some aspects and impacts of climate

change, both positive and negative, will be totally unanticipated as complex systems

respond to ongoing climate change in unforeseeable ways.

Sources: NAST 2000, 2001.

Key National Findings Adapted from the U.S. National Assessment
90 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

deciduous forest, the desert ecosystems

of the arid Southwest, the productive

grasslands of the Great Plains—are primarily a consequence of present climate

conditions. Past changes in ecosystems

indicate that some species are so

strongly influenced by the climate to

which they are adapted that they are

vulnerable even to modest changes in

climate. For example, alpine meadows at

high elevations in the West exist where

they do entirely because the plants that

comprise them are adapted to cold conditions that are too harsh for other

species in the region. The desert vegetation of the Southwest is adapted to the

region’s high summer temperatures and

aridity. Similarly, the forests in the East

tend to have adapted to relatively high

rainfall and soil moisture; if drought conditions were to persist, grasses and

shrubs could begin to out-compete tree

seedlings, leading to completely different ecosystems.

To provide a common base of information about potential changes in vegetation across the nation for use in the

National Assessment (NAST 2000), specialized ecosystem models were used to

evaluate the potential consequences of

climate change and an increasing CO2

concentration for the dominant vegetation types. Biogeography models were

used to simulate potential shifts in the

geographic distribution of major plant

species and communities (ecosystem

structure). And biogeochemistry models

were used to simulate changes in basic

ecosystem processes, such as the cycling

of carbon, nutrients, and water (ecosystem function). Each type of model was

used in considering the potential consequences of the two primary model-based

climate scenarios. These scenarios represented conditions across much of the

United States that were generally either

warmer and moister, or hotter and drier.

The results from both types of models

indicated that changes in ecosystems

would be likely to be significant.

Climate changes that affect the land

surface and terrestrial vegetation will

also have implications for fresh-water

and coastal marine ecosystems that

depend on the temperature of runoff

water, on the amount of erosion, and

on other factors dependent on the land

cover. For example, in aquatic ecosystems, many fish can breed only in water

that falls within a narrow range of temperatures. As a result, species of fish

that are adapted to cool waters can

quickly become unable to breed successfully if water temperatures rise. As

another example, because washed-off

soil and nutrients can benefit wetland

species (within limits) and harm estuarine ecosystems, changes in the frequency or intensity of runoff events

caused by changes in land cover can 

be important. Such impacts are

described in the subsections dealing

with climate change interactions with

water resources and the coastal environment, while issues affecting terrestrial land cover are covered in the

following subsection.

Redistribution of Land Cover

The responses of ecosystems to projected changes in climate and CO2 are

made up of the individual responses of

their constituent species and how they

interact with each other. Species in current ecosystems can differ substantially

in their tolerances to changes in temperature and precipitation, and in their

responses to changes in the CO2 concentration. As a result, the ranges of

individual species are likely to shift at

different rates, and different species are

likely to have different degrees of success in establishing themselves in new

locations and environments. While

changes in climate projected for the

coming hundred years are very likely to

alter current ecosystems, projecting

these kinds of biological and ecological

responses and the structure and functioning of the new plant communities is

very difficult.

Analyses of present ecosystem distributions and of past shifts indicate

that natural ecosystems are sensitive to

changes in surface temperature, precipitation patterns, and other climate

parameters and changes in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. For example,

changes in temperature and precipitation of the magnitude being projected

are likely to cause shifts in the areas

occupied by dominant vegetation types

relative to their current distribution.

Some ecosystems that are already constrained by climate, such as alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains, are likely

to face extreme stress and disappear

entirely in some places. Other more

widespread ecosystems are also likely to

be sensitive to climate change. For

example, both climate model scenarios

suggest that the southwestern United

States will become moister, allowing

more vegetation to grow (Figure 6-6).

Such a change is likely to transform

desert landscapes into grasslands or

shrublands, altering both their potential

use and the likelihood of fire. In the

northeastern United States, both climate scenarios suggest changes mainly

in the species composition of the forests,

including the northward displacement

of sugar maples, which could lead to loss

in some areas. However, the studies also

indicate that conditions in this region

will remain conducive to maintaining a

forested landscape, mainly oak and hickory. In the southeastern United States, 

however, there was less agreement

among the models: the hot-dry climate

scenario was projected to lead to 

conditions that would be conducive to

the potential breakup of the forest landscape into a mosaic of forests, savannas,

and grasslands; in contrast, the warmmoist scenario was projected to lead to a

northward expansion of the southeastern mixed forest cover. (See additional

discussion in the Forest subsection.)

Basically, changes in land cover were

projected to occur, at least to some

degree, in all locations, and these

changes cannot generally be prevented

if the climate changes and vegetation

responds as much as projected.

Effects on the Supply of Vital

Ecosystem Goods and Services

In addition to the value of natural

ecosystems in their own right, ecosystems of all types, from the most natural

to the most extensively managed, 

provide a variety of goods and services

that benefit society. Some products of

ecosystems enter the market and 
Impacts and Adaptation ■ 91

contribute directly to the economy. For

example, forests serve as sources of timber and pulpwood, and agro-ecosystems

serve as sources of food. Ecosystems

also provide a set of unpriced services

that are valuable but that typically are

not traded in the marketplace. Although

there is no current market, for example,

for the services that forests and wetlands provide for improving water quality, regulating stream flow, providing

some measure of protection from

floods, and sequestering carbon, some

of these services are very valuable to

society. Ecosystems are also valued for

recreational, aesthetic, and ethical reasons. For example, the bird life of the

coastal marshes of the Southeast and

the brilliant autumn colors of the New

England forests are treasured components of the nation’s regional heritages

and important elements of our quality

of life.

Based on the studies carried out,

changes in land cover induced by 

climate change, along with an increased

level of disturbances, could have varied

impacts on ecosystem services, including the abilities of ecosystems to

cleanse the air and water, stabilize landscapes against erosion, and store carbon. Even in such regions as the

Southwest, where vegetation is

expected to increase as a result of

increased rainfall and enhanced plant

growth due to the rising CO2 concentration, an important potential consequence is likely to be a heightened

frequency and intensity of fires during

the prolonged summer season. Increased fire frequency would likely be a

threat not only to the natural land

cover, but also to the many residential

structures being built in vulnerable suburban and rural areas, and later would

increase vulnerability to mudslides as a

result of denuded hills. Considering the

full range of available results, it is plausible that climate change-induced alterations to natural ecosystems could

affect the availability of some ecosystem goods and services.

Effects of an Increased CO2

Concentration on Plants

The ecosystem models used in the

National Assessment considered the

potential effects of increases in the

atmospheric CO2 concentration because the CO2 concentration affects

plant species via a direct physiological

effect on photosynthesis (the process by

which plants use CO2 to create new biological material). Higher CO2 concentrations generally enhance plant growth

if the plants also have sufficient water

and nutrients (such as nitrogen) that are

needed to sustain this enhanced growth.

For example, the CO2 level in commercial greenhouses is sometimes boosted to

stimulate plant growth. In addition to

enhancing plant growth, higher CO2

levels can raise the efficiency with which

plants use water and reduce their susceptibility to damage by air pollutants.

As a result of these various influences,

different types of plants respond at different rates to increases in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, resulting in a

divergence of growth rates. Most species

grow faster and increase biomass; however, the nutritional value of some of

these plants could be altered. Both

because of biochemical processing and

because warming temperatures increase

plant respiration, the beneficial effects of

increased CO2 on plants are also projected to flatten at some higher level of

CO2 concentration, beyond which continuing increases in the CO2 concentration would not enhance plant growth.

While there is still much to be

learned about the CO2 “fertilization”

effect, including its limits and its direct

and indirect implications, many ecosystems are projected to benefit from a

higher CO2 concentration, and plants

will use water more efficiently.

Effects on Storage of Carbon

In response to changes in climate and

the CO2 concentration, the biogeoBoth the Hadley and the Canadian models project increasing wintertime precipitation in the U.S. Southwest toward the end of the 21st 

century and a conversion of desert ecosystems to shrub and grassland ecosystems. 

FIGURE 6-6 Potential Effects of Projected Climate Change on Ecosystem Distribution 

Current Ecosystems Canadian Model Hadley Model

Alpine

Forest

Savanna

Shrubland

Grassland

Arid Land

Source: R.P. Neilson, USDA Forest Service, 

Corvallis, Oregon, as presented in NAST 2000.
92 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

chemistry models used in the National

Assessment generally simulated increases in the amount of carbon stored

in vegetation and soils for the continental United States. The calculated

increases were relatively small, however,

and not uniform across the country. For

example, one of the biogeochemistry

models, when simulating the effects of

hotter and drier conditions, projected

that the southeastern forests would lose

more carbon by respiration than they

would gain by increased photosynthesis,

causing an overall carbon loss of up to

20 percent by 2030. Such a loss would

indicate that the forests were in a state of

decline. The same biogeochemistry

model, however, when calculating the

potential effects of the warmer and

moister climate scenario, projected that

forests in the same part of the Southeast

would likely gain between 5 and 10 percent in carbon over the next 30 years,

suggesting a more vigorous forest.

Susceptibility of Ecosystems 

to Disturbances

Prolonged stress due to insufficient

soil moisture can make trees more susceptible to insect attack, lead to plant

death, and increase the probability of

fire as dead plant material adds to an

ecosystem’s “fuel load.” The biogeography models used in this analysis simulated at least part of this sequence of

climate-triggered events in ecosystems

as a prelude to calculating shifts in the

geographic distribution of major plant

species. 

For example, one of the biogeography models projected that a hot, dry

climate in the Southeast would be likely

to result in the replacement of the current mixed evergreen and deciduous

forests by savanna/woodlands and

grasslands, with much of the change

effected by an increased incidence of

fire. Yet the same biogeography model

projected a slight northward expansion

of the mixed evergreen and deciduous

forests of the Southeast in response to

the warm, moist climate scenario, with

no significant contraction along the

southern boundary. Thus, in this

region, changes in the frequency and

intensity of such disturbances as fire are

likely to be major determinants of the

type and rapidity of the conversion of

the land cover to a new state.

As explained more fully in the sections on the interactions of climate

change with coastal and water

resources, aquatic ecosystems are also

likely to be affected by both climate

change and unusual disturbances, such

as storms and storm surges.

Potential Adaptation Options to

Preserve Prevailing Land Cover

The National Assessment concluded

that the potential vulnerability of natural ecosystems is likely to be more

important than other types of potential

impacts affecting the U.S. environment

and society. This importance arises

because in many cases little can be done

to help these ecosystems adapt to the

projected rate and amount of 

climate change. While adjustments in

how some systems are managed can

perhaps reduce the potential impacts,

the complex, interdependent webs that

have been naturally generated over very

long periods are not readily shifted

from one place to another or easily

recreated in new locations, even to

regions of similar temperature and

moisture. Although many regions have

experienced changes in ecosystems as a

result of human-induced changes in

land cover, and people have generally

become adapted to—and have even

become defenders of—the altered conditions (e.g., reforestation of New England), the climate-induced changes

during the 21st century are likely to

affect virtually every region of the

country—both the ecosystems where

people live, as well as those in the protected areas that have been created as

refuges against change. 

Potential Interactions 

with Agriculture

U.S. croplands, grassland pasture,

and range occupy about 420 million

hectares (about 1,030 million acres), 

or nearly 55 percent of the U.S. land

area, excluding Alaska and Hawaii

(USDA/ERS 2000). Throughout the

20th century, agricultural production

shifted toward the West and Southwest.

This trend allowed regrowth of some

forests and grasslands, generally enhancing wildlife habitats, especially in the

Northeast, and contributing to sequestration of carbon in these regions.

U.S. food production and distribution comprise about 10 percent of the

U.S. economy. The value of U.S. agricultural commodities (food and fiber)

exceeds $165 billion at the farm level

and over $500 billion after processing

and marketing, Because of the productivity of U.S. agriculture, the United

States is a major supplier of food and

fiber for the world, accounting for more

than 25 percent of total global trade in

wheat, corn, soybeans, and cotton.

Changes in Agricultural

Productivity

U.S. agricultural productivity has

improved by over 1 percent a year since

1950, resulting in a decline in both production costs and commodity prices,

limiting the net conversion of natural

habitat to cropland, and freeing up land

for the Conservation Reserve Program.

Although the increased production and

the two-thirds drop in real commodity

prices have been particularly beneficial

to consumers inside and outside the

United States and have helped to

reduce hunger and malnourishment

around the world, the lower prices have

become a major concern for producers

and have contributed to the continuing

decline in the number of small farmers

across the country. Continuation of

these trends is expected, regardless of

whether climate changes, with continuing pressures on individual producers to

further increase productivity and

reduce production costs.

On the other hand, producers consider anything that might increase their

costs relative to other producers or that

might limit their markets as a threat to

their economic well-being. Issues of

concern include regulatory actions,

such as efforts to control the off-site

consequences of soil erosion, agricultural chemicals, and livestock wastes;

extreme weather or climate events; new
Impacts and Adaptation ■ 93

pests; and the development of pest

resistance to existing pest control

strategies. 

Future changes in climate are

expected to interact with all of these

issues. In particular, although some factors may tend to limit growth in yields,

rising CO2 concentrations and continuing climate change are projected, on

average, to contribute to extending the

persistent upward trend in crop yields

that has been evident during the second

half of the 20th century. In addition, if

all else remains equal, these changes

could change supplies of and requirements for irrigation water, increase the

need for fertilizers to sustain the gain in

carbon production, lead to changes in

surface-water quality, necessitate

increased use of pesticides or other

means to limit damage from pests, and

alter the variability of the climate 

to which the prevailing agricultural 

sector has become accustomed. However, agricultural technology is currently undergoing rapid change, and

future production technologies and

practices seem likely to be able to contain or reduce these impacts.

Assuming that technological advances continue at historical rates, that

there are no dramatic changes in federal

policies or in international markets, that

adequate supplies of nutrients are available and can be applied without exacerbating pollution problems, and that no

prolonged droughts occur in major

agricultural regions, U.S. analyses indicate that it is unlikely that climate

change will imperil the ability of the

United States to feed its population and

to export substantial amounts of foodstuffs (NAAG 2002). These studies

indicate that, at the national level, overall agricultural productivity is likely to

increase as a result of changes in the

CO2 concentration and in climate projected for at least the next several

decades. The crop models used in these

studies assume that the CO2 fertilization effect will be strongly beneficial

and will also allow for a limited set of

on-farm adaptation options, including

changing planting dates and varieties,

in res-ponse to the changing conditions. These adaptation measures contribute small additional gains in yields of

dry-land crops and greater gains in

yields of irrigated crops. However,

analyses performed to date have neither

considered all of the consequences of

possible changes in pests, diseases,

insects, and extreme events that may

result, nor been able to consider the full

range of potential adaptation options

(e.g., genetic modification of crops to

enhance resistance to pests, insects, and

diseases). 

Recognizing these limitations, available evaluations of the effects of 

anticipated changes in the CO2 concentration and climate on crop production

and yield and the adaptive actions by

farmers generally show positive results

for cotton, corn for grain and silage,

soybeans, sorghum, barley, sugar beets,

and citrus fruits (Figure 6-7). The productivity of pastures may also increase as

a result of these changes. For other

crops, including wheat, rice, oats, hay,

sugar cane, potatoes, and tomatoes,

yields are projected to increase under

some conditions and decrease under

others, as explained more fully in the

agriculture assessment (NAAG 2002). 

The studies also indicate that not all

U.S. agricultural regions are likely to be

affected to the same degree by the projected changes in climate that have been

investigated. In general, northern areas,

such as the Midwest, West, and Pacific

Northwest, are projected to show large

gains in yields, while influences on crop

yields in other regions vary more widely,

depending on the climate scenario and

time period. For example, projected

wheat yields in the southern Great Plains

could decline if the warming is not

accompanied by sufficient precipitation.

These analyses used market-scale

economic models to evaluate the overall

economic implications for various crops.

These models allow for a wide range of

adaptations in response to changing productivity, prices, and resource use,

including changes in irrigation, use of

fertilizer and pesticides, crops grown

and the location of cropping, and a variety of other farm management options.

Based on studies to date, unless there is

inadequate or poorly distributed precipitation, the net effects of climate change

on the agricultural segment of the U.S.

economy over the 21st century are generally projected to be positive. These

studies indicate that, economically, consumers are likely to benefit more from

lower prices than producers suffer from

the decline in profits. Complicating the

analyses, however, the studies indicate

that producer versus consumer effects

will depend on how climate change

affects production of these crops elsewhere in the world. For example, for

crops grown in the United States, economic losses to farmers due to lower

commodity prices are offset under some

conditions by an increased advantage of

U.S. farmers over foreign competitors,

leading to an increased volume of

exports.

Because U.S. food variety and supplies depend not only on foodstuffs produced nationally, the net effect of

climate change on foods available for

U.S. consumers will also depend on the

effects of climate change on global production of these foodstuffs. These

effects will in turn depend not only on

international markets, but also on how

farmers around the world are able to

adapt to climate change and other factors they will face. While there are likely

to be many regional variations, experience indicates that research sponsored

by the United States and other nations

has played an important role in promoting the ongoing, long-term increase in

global agricultural productivity. Further

research, covering opportunities ranging

from genetic design to improving the

salt tolerance of key crops, is expected

to continue to enhance overall global

production of foodstuffs.

Changes in Water Demands 

by Agriculture

Within the United States, a key

determinant of agricultural productivity

will be the ongoing availability of sufficient water where and when it is

needed. The variability of the U.S. climate has provided many opportunities

for learning to deal with a wide range of

climate conditions, and the U.S. regions
94 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

FIGURE 6-7 Effects of Potential Changes in Climate on U.S Crop Yields 

Results for 16 crops, given as the percentage differences between future yields for two periods (2030s and 2090s) and current yields indicate that

warmer climate conditions are likely to lead to increased yields for most crops. The results consider the physiological responses of the crops to

future climate conditions under either dry-land or irrigated cultivation, assuming a limited set of reasonable adaptive response by producers.

Climate scenarios are drawn from two different climate models that are likely to span the range of changes of future conditions, ranging from the

warm-moist changes projected by the U.K.’s Hadley Centre model (version 2) to the hot-dry changes projected by the Canadian Climate Centre

model. The most positive responses resulted when conditions were warmer and wetter in key growing regions (e.g., cotton), when frost occurrence was reduced (e.g., grapefruit), and when northern areas warmed (e.g., silage from pasture improvement).

Source: NAAG 2002.

-30% 0% 30% 60% 90% 120% 150%

0%

Cotton

Corn

Soybeans

Spring Wheat

Winter Weat

Sorghum

Rice

Barley

Oats

Hay

Sugar Cane

Sugar Beets

Potatoes

Tomatoes,

Processed

Oranges,

Processed

Grapefruit,

Processed

1%

36%

122%

56%

102%

1% 9%

23%

33%

23%

40%

-1%

-6%

7%

10%

-1%

0%

8%

16%

22%

8% 22%

21%

7%

4%

9%

18%

3%

-16%

28%

40%

3%

24%

23%

2%

6%

23%

22%

7%

-6%

-15%

17%

33%

7%

16%

39%

42%

-4% -21%

-1%

-8%

10%

44%

10%

17%

13%

15%

120%

112%

28% 49%

29%

53%

Canadian Scenario, 2090s

Canadian Scenario, 2030s

Hadley Scenario, 2090s

Hadley Scenario, 2030s
Impacts and Adaptation ■ 95

where many crops are grown have

changed over time without disrupting

production. In addition, steps to build up

the amount of carbon in soils—which is

likely to be one component of any carbon mitigation program—will enhance

the water-holding capacity of soils and

decrease erosion and vulnerability to

drought, thereby helping to improve

overall agricultural productivity. For

areas that are insufficiently moist, irrigation has been used to enhance crop productivity. In addition, about 27 percent

of U.S. cultivated land is currently under

reduced tillage. Several projects, such as

the Iowa Soil Carbon Sequestration Project, that are underway to promote conservation tillage practices as a means to

mitigate climate change will have the

ancillary benefits of reducing soil erosion and runoff while increasing soil

water and nitrogen retention.

Analyses conducted for the National

Assessment project that climate change

will lead to changes in the demand for

irrigation water and, if water resources

are insufficient, to changes in the crops

being grown. Although regional differences will likely be substantial, model

projections indicate that, on average for

the nation, agriculture’s need for irrigation water is likely to slowly decline. At

least two factors are responsible for this

projected reduction: (1) precipitation

will increase in some agricultural areas,

and (2) faster development of crops due

to higher temperatures and an increased

CO2 concentration is likely to result in a

shorter growing period and consequently

a reduced demand for irrigation water.

Moreover, a higher CO2 concentration

generally enhance a plant’s water-use efficiency. These factors can combine to

compensate for the increased transpiration and soil water loss due to higher air

temperatures. However, a decreased

period of crop growth also leads to

decreased yields, although it may be possible to overcome this disadvantage

through crop breeding.

Changes in Surface-Water 

Quality due to Agriculture

Potential changes in surface-water

quality as a result of climate change is an

issue that has only started to be investigated. For example, in recent decades,

soil erosion and excess nutrient runoff

from crop and livestock production have

severely degraded Chesapeake Bay, a

highly valuable natural resource. In simulations for the National Assessment,

loading of excess nitrogen from corn

production into Chesapeake Bay is projected to increase due to both the change

in average climate conditions and the

effects of projected changes in extreme

weather events, such as floods or heavy

downpours that wash large amounts of

fertilizers and animal manure into surface

waters. Across the country, changes in

future farm practice (such as no-till or

reduced-till agriculture) that enhance

buildup and retention of soil moisture,

and better matching of the timing of 

a crop’s need for fertilizer with the 

timing of application are examples of

approaches that could reduce projected

adverse impacts on water quality. In addition, the potential for reducing adverse

impacts of fertilizer application and soil

erosion by using genetically modified

crops has not yet been considered.

Changes in Pesticide 

Use by Agriculture

Climate change is projected to cause

farmers in most regions to increase their

use of pesticides to sustain the productivity of current crop strains. While this

increase is expected to result in slightly

poorer overall economic performance,

this effect is minimal because pesticide

expenditures are a relatively small share

of production costs. Neither the potential changes in environmental impacts as

a result of increased pesticide use nor the

potential for genetic modification to

enhance pest resistance have yet been

evaluated.

Effects of Changes in Climate

Variability on Agriculture

Based on experience, agriculture is

also likely to be affected if the extent and

occurrence of climate fluctuations and

extreme events change. The vulnerability

of agricultural systems to climate and

weather extremes varies with location

because of differences in soils, production systems, and other factors. Changes

in the form (rain, snow, or hail), timing,

frequency, and intensity of precipitation,

and changes in wind-driven events (e.g.,

wind storms, hurricanes, and tornadoes)

are likely to have significant consequences in particular regions. For example, in the absence of adaptive measures,

an increase in heavy precipitation events

seems likely in some areas to aggravate

erosion, water-logging of soils, and

leaching of animal wastes, pesticides,

fertilizers, and other chemicals into surface and ground water. Conversely,

lower precipitation in other areas may

reduce some types of impacts.

A major source of U.S. climate variability is the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The effects of ENSO

events vary widely across the country,

creating wet conditions in some areas

and dry conditions in others that can

have significant impacts on agricultural

production. For example, over the past

several decades, average corn yield has

been reduced by about 15–30 percent

in years with widespread floods or

drought. Better prediction of such variations is a major focus of U.S. and international research activities (e.g.,

through the International Research

Institute for Climate Prediction)

because, in part, such information could

increase the range of adaptive responses

available to farmers. For example, given

sufficient warning of climate anomalies

(e.g., of conditions being warm and dry,

cool and moist, etc.), crop species and

crop planting dates could be optimized

for the predicted variation, helping to

reduce the adverse impact on yields and

overall production. Because long-term

projections suggest that ENSO variations may become even stronger as

global average temperature increases,

achieving even better predictive skill in

the future will be especially important

to efforts to maximize production in

the face of climate fluctuations.

Potential Adaptation 

Strategies for Agriculture

To ameliorate the deleterious effects

of climate change generally, such adaptation strategies as changing planting
96 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

dates and varieties are likely to help to

significantly offset economic losses and

increase relative yields. Adaptive measures are likely to be particularly critical

for the Southeast because of the large

reductions in yields projected for some

crops if summer precipitation declines.

With the wide range of growing conditions across the United States, specific

breeding for response to CO2 is likely

to be required to more fully benefit

from the CO2 fertilization effect

detected in experimental crop studies.

Breeding for tolerance to climatic stress

has already been exploited, and varieties that do best under ideal conditions usually also out-perform other

varieties under stress conditions.

Although many types of changes

can likely be adapted to, some adaptations to climate change and its impacts

may have negative secondary effects.

For example, an analysis of the potential effects of climate change on water

use from the Edward’s aquifer region

near San Antonio, Texas, found

increased demand for ground-water

resources. Increased water use from this

aquifer would threaten endangered

species dependent on flows from

springs supported by the aquifer.

In addition, in the absence of

genetic modification of available crop

species to counter these influences,

pesticide and herbicide use is likely to

increase with warming. Greater chemical inputs would be expected to

increase the potential for chemically

contaminated runoff reaching prairie

wetlands and ground water, which, if

not controlled by on-site measures,

could pollute rivers and lakes, drinkingwater supplies, coastal waters, recreation areas, and waterfowl habitat.

As in the past, farmers will need to

continue to adapt to the changing conditions affecting agriculture, and

changing climate is likely to become an

increasingly influential factor. Presuming adaptation to changing climate

conditions is successful, the U.S. agricultural sector should remain strong—

growing more on less land while

continuing to lower prices for the consumer, exporting large amounts of food

to help feed the world, and storing carbon to enhance resilience to drought

and contribute to the slowing of climate

change.

Potential Interactions 

with Forests

Forests cover nearly one-third of the

United States, providing wildlife habitat; clean air and water; carbon storage;

and recreational opportunities, such as

hiking, camping, and fishing. In addition, harvested products include timber,

pulpwood, fuelwood, wild game, ferns,

mushrooms, berries, and much more.

This wealth of products and services

depends on forest productivity and biodiversity, which are in turn strongly

influenced by climate. 

Across the country, native forests 

are adapted to the local climates in

which they developed, such as the coldtolerant boreal forests of Alaska, the

summer drought-tolerant forests of the

Pacific Northwest, and the droughtadapted piñon-juniper forests of the

Southwest. Given the overall importance of the nation’s forests, the potential impacts from climate change are

receiving close attention, although it is

only one of several factors meriting

consideration.

A range of human activities causes

changes in forests. For example, significant areas of native forests have been

converted to agricultural use, and

expansion of urban areas has fragmented forests into smaller, less contiguous patches. In some parts of the

country, intensive management and

favorable climates have resulted in

development of highly productive

forests, such as southern pine plantations, in place of the natural land cover.

Fire suppression, particularly in southeastern, midwestern, and western

forests, has also led to changes in forest

area and in species composition. Harvesting methods have also changed

species composition, while planting

trees for aesthetic and landscaping purposes in urban and rural areas has

expanded the presence of some species.

In addition, large areas, particularly in

the Northeast, have become reforested

as forests have taken over abandoned

agricultural lands, allowing reestablishment of the ranges of many wildlife

species.

Changes in climate and in the CO2

concentration are emerging as important human-induced influences that are

affecting forests. These factors are

interacting with factors already causing

changes in forests to further affect the

socioeconomic benefits and the goods

and services forests provide, including

the extent, composition, and productivity of forests; the frequency and

intensity of such natural disturbances as

fire; and the level of biodiversity

(NFAG 2001). Based on model projections of moderate to large warming,

Figure 6-8 gives an example of the general character of changes that could

occur for forests in the eastern United

States by the late 21st century.

Effects on Forest Productivity

A synthesis of laboratory and field

studies and modeling indicates that the

fertilizing effect of atmospheric CO2

will increase forest productivity. However, increases are likely to be strongly

tempered by local conditions, such as

moisture stress and nutrient availability.

Across a wide range of scenarios, modest warming is likely to result in

increased carbon storage in most U.S.

forests, although under some of the

warmer model scenarios, forests in the

Southeast and the Northwest could

experience drought-induced losses of

carbon, possibly exacerbated by

increased fire disturbance. These

potential gains and losses of carbon

would be in addition to changes resulting from changes in land use, such as

the conversion of forests to agricultural

lands or development.

Other components of environmental change, such as nitrogen deposition

and ground-level ozone concentrations, are also affecting forest

processes. Models used in the forest

sector assessment suggest a synergistic

fertilization response between CO2

and nitrogen enrichment, leading to

further increases in productivity

(NFAG 2001). However, ozone acts in
Impacts and Adaptation ■ 97

the opposite direction. Current ozone

levels, for example, have important

effects on many herbaceous species and

are estimated to decrease production in

southern pine plantations by 5 percent,

in northeastern forests by 10 percent,

and in some western forests by even

more. Interactions among these physical and chemical changes and other

components of global change will be

important in projecting the future state

of U.S. forests. For example, a higher

CO2 concentration can tend to suppress the impacts of ozone on plants.

Effects on Natural Disturbances

Natural disturbances having the

greatest effects on forests include

insects, disease, non-native species, fires,

droughts, hurricanes, landslides, wind

storms, and ice storms. While some tree

species are very susceptible to fire, 

others, such as lodgepole pine, are

dependent on occasional fires for successful reproduction. 

Over millennia, local, regional, and

global-scale changes in temperature

and precipitation have influenced the

occurrence, frequency, and intensity of

these natural disturbances. These

changes in disturbance regimes are a

natural part of all ecosystems. However,

as a consequence of climate change,

forests may soon be facing more rapid

alterations in the nature of these disturbances. For example, unless there is a

large increase in precipitation, the seasonal severity of fire hazard is projected

to increase during the 21st century over

much of the country, particularly in the

Southeast and Alaska.

The consequences of drought

depend on annual and seasonal climate

changes and whether the current adaptations of forests to drought will offer

resistance and resilience to new conditions. The ecological models used in

the National Assessment indicated that

increases in drought stresses are most

likely to occur in the forests of the

Southeast, southern Rocky Mountains,

and parts of the Northwest. Hurricanes,

ice storms, wind storms, landslides,

insect infestations, disease, and introduced species are also likely to be 

climate-modulated influences that

affect forests. However, projection of

changes in the frequencies, intensities,

and locations of such factors and their

influences are difficult to project. What

is clear is that, as climate changes, alterations in these disturbances and in their

effects on forests are possible.

Effects on Forest Biodiversity

In addition to the very large influences of changes in land cover, changes

in the distribution and abundance of

plant and animal species are a result of

both (1) the birth, growth, death, and

dispersal rates of individuals in a population and (2) the competition between

individuals of the same species and other

species. These can all be influenced in

turn by weather, climate, contaminants,

nutrients, and other abiotic factors.

When aggregated, these processes can

result in the local disappearance or 

Note: All cases were calculated using the DISTRIB tree species distribution model, which calculates the most likely dominant types of vegetation for the given climatic conditions,

assuming they have persisted for several decades. 

Source: A.M. Prasad and L. R. Iverson, Northeastern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Delaware, Ohio, as reported in NAST 2000.

Both the warm-moist climate change scenario from the Hadley climate model and the hot-dry scenario from the Canadian climate model suggest a significant northward shift in prevailing forest types. For example, the maple-beech-birch forest type is projected to shift north into

Canada and no longer be dominant in the late 21st century in the northeastern United States.

FIGURE 6-8 Potential Effects of Projected Climate Change on Dominant Forest Types

White-Red-Jack Pine

Spruce-Fir

Longleaf-Slash Pine

Loblolly-Shortleaf Pine

Oak-Pine

Oak-Hickory

Oak-Gum-Cypress

Elm-Ash-Cottonweed

Maple-Beech-Birch

Aspen-Birch No Data

Current ó 1960ñ1990 Canadian Scenario ó 2070ñ2100 Hadley Scenario ó 2070ñ2100
98 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

introduction of a species, and ultimately

determine the species’ range and influence its population. 

Although climate and soils exert

strong controls on the establishment and

growth of plant species, the response of

plant and animal species to climate

change will be the result of many interacting and interrelated processes operating over several temporal and spatial

scales. Movement and migration rates,

changes in disturbance regimes and abiotic environmental variables, and interactions within and between species will

all affect the distributions and populations of plants and animals. 

Analyses conducted using ecological

models indicate that plausible climate

scenarios are very likely to cause shifts

in the location and area of the potential

habitats for many tree species. For

example, potential habitats for trees

acclimated to cool environments are

very likely to shift northward. Habitats

of alpine and sub-alpine spruce-fir in

the contiguous United States are likely

to be reduced and, possibly in the long

term, eliminated as their mountain

habitats warm. The extents of aspen,

eastern birch, and sugar maple are

likely to contract dramatically in the

United States and largely shift into

Canada, with the shift in sugar maple

causing loss of syrup production in

northern New York and New England.

In contrast, oak/hickory and oak/pine

could expand in the East, and Ponderosa pine and arid woodland communities could expand in the West. How

well these species track changes in their

potential habitats will be strongly influenced by the viability of their mechanisms for dispersal to other locations

and the disturbances to these alternative environments. 

Because of the dominance of nonforest land uses along migration routes,

the northward shift of some native

species to new habitats is likely to be

disrupted if the rate of climate change is

too rapid. For example, conifer

encroachment, grazing, invasive

species, and urban expansion are currently displacing sagebrush and aspen

communities. The effects of climate

change on the rate and magnitude of

disturbance (forest damage and

destruction associated with fires,

storms, droughts, and pest outbreaks)

will be important factors in determining

whether transitions from one forest

type to another will be gradual or

abrupt. If the rate and type of disturbances in New England do not increase,

for example, a smooth transition from

the present maple, beech, and birch

tree species to oak and hickory may

occur. Where the frequency or intensity of disturbances increases, however,

transitions are very likely to occur more

rapidly. As these changes occur, invasive (weedy) species that disperse rapidly are likely to find opportunities in

newly forming ecological communities.

As a result, the species composition of

these communities will likely differ significantly in some areas from those

occupying similar habitats today.

Changes in the composition of

ecosystems may, in turn, have important effects on wildlife. For example, to

the extent that climate change and a

higher CO2 concentration increase forest productivity, this might result in

reduced overall land disturbance and

improved water quality, tending to help

wildlife, at least in some areas. However, changes in composition can also

affect predator–prey relationships, pest

types and populations, the potential for

non-native species, links in the chain of

migratory habitats, the health of keystone species, and other factors. Given

these many possibilities, much remains

to be examined in projecting influences

of climate change on wildlife.

Socioeconomic Impacts

North America is the world’s leading

producer and consumer of wood products. U.S. forests provide for substantial

exports of hardwood lumber, wood

chips, logs, and some types of paper.

Coming the other way, the United

States imports, for example, about 35

percent of its softwood lumber and

more than half of its newsprint from

Canada. 

The U.S. market for wood products

will be highly dependent upon the

future area in forests, the species composition of forests, future supplies of

wood, technological changes in production and use, the availability of such

substitutes as steel and vinyl, national

and international demands for wood

products, and competitiveness among

major trading partners. Analyses indicate that, for a range of climate scenarios, forest productivity gains are very

likely to increase timber inventories

over the next 100 years (NFAG 2001).

Under these scenarios, the increased

wood supply leads to reductions in log

prices, helping consumers, but

decreasing producers’ profits. The projected net effect on the economic welfare of participants in timber markets

increases by about 1 percent above

current values.

Analyses conducted for the forest

sector assessment indicate that land use

will likely shift between forestry and

agriculture as these economic sectors

adjust to climate-induced changes in

production. U.S. hardwood and softwood production is projected to generally increase, although the projections

indicate that softwood output will only

increase under moderate warming. Timber output is also projected to increase

more in the South than in the North,

and saw-timber volume is projected to

increase more than pulpwood volume.

Patterns and seasons of outdoor, 

forest-oriented recreation are likely to

be modified by the projected changes in

climate. For example, changes in forestoriented recreation, as measured by

aggregate days of activities and total

economic value, are likely to be affected

and are likely to vary by type of recreation and location. In some areas, higher

temperatures are likely to shift typical

summer recreation activities, such as

hiking, northward or to higher elevations and into other seasons. In winter,

downhill skiing opportunities are very

likely to shift geographically because of

fewer cold days and reduced snowpack

in many existing ski areas. Therefore,

costs to maintain skiing opportunities

are likely to rise, especially for the more

southern areas. Effects on fishing are

also likely to vary. For example, warmer
Impacts and Adaptation ■ 99

waters are likely to increase fish production and opportunities to fish for some

warm-water species, but decrease habitat and opportunities to fish for coldwater species.

Possible Adaptation 

Strategies to Protect Forests

Even though forests are likely to be

affected by the projected changes in

climate, the motivation for adaptation

strategies is likely to be most strongly

influenced by the level of U.S. economic activity. This level, in turn, is

intertwined with the rate of population

growth, changes in taste, and general

preferences, including society’s perceptions about these changes. Market

forces have proven to be powerful

when it comes to decisions involving

land use and forestry and, as such, will

strongly influence adaptation on private lands. For forests valued for their

current biodiversity, society and land

managers will have to decide whether

more intense management is necessary

and appropriate for maintaining plant

and animal species that may be

affected by climate change and other

factors.

If new technologies and markets are

recognized in a timely manner, timber

producers could adjust and adapt to

climate change under plausible climate

scenarios. One possible adaptation

measure could be to salvage dead and

dying timber and to replant species

adapted to the changed climate conditions. The extent and pattern of U.S.

timber harvesting and prices will also

be influenced by the global changes in

forest productivity and prices of overseas products.

Potential climate-induced changes

in forests must also be put into the

context of other human-induced pressures, which will undoubtedly change

significantly over future decades.

While the potential for rapid changes

in natural disturbances could challenge

current management strategies, these

changes will occur simultaneously with

human activities, such as agricultural

and urban encroachment on forests,

multiple uses of forests, and air pollution. Given these many interacting factors, climate-induced changes should

be manageable if planning is proactive.

Potential Interactions 

with Water Resources

Water is a central resource supporting human activities and ecosystems,

and adaptive management of this

resource has been an essential aspect of

societal development. Increases in

global temperatures during the 20th

century have been accompanied by

more precipitation in the middle and

high latitudes in many regions of North

America. For example, U.S. precipitation increased by 5–10 percent, predominantly from the spring through the

autumn. Much of this increase resulted

from a rise in locally heavy and very

heavy precipitation events, which has

led to the observed increases in low to

moderate stream flow that have been

characteristic of the warm season across

most of the contiguous United States.

Local to global aspects of the hydrologic cycle, which determine the availability of water resources, are likely to

be altered in important ways by climate

change (NWAG 2000). Because higher

concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases tend to warm the surface,

all models project that the global totals

of both evaporation and precipitation

will continue to increase, with increases

particularly likely in middle and high

latitudes. 

The regional patterns of the projected changes in precipitation remain

uncertain, however, although there are

some indications that changes in atmospheric circulation brought on by such

factors as increasing Pacific Ocean temperatures may bring more precipitation

to the Southwest and more winter precipitation to the West. Continuing

trends first evident during the 20th century, model simulations project that

increases in precipitation are likely to

be most evident in the most intense

rainfall categories typical of various

regions. To the extent such increases

occur during the warm season when

stream flows are typically low to moderate, they could augment available

water resources. If increases in precipitation occur during high stream flow or

saturated soil conditions, the results

suggest a greater potential for flooding

in susceptible areas where additional

control measures are not taken, especially because under these conditions

the relative increase in runoff is generally observed to be greater than the relative increase in precipitation.

Effects on Available 

Water Supplies

Water is a critical national resource,

providing services to society for refreshment, irrigation of crops, nourishment of

ecosystems, creation of hydroelectric

power, industrial processing, and more.

Many U.S. rivers and streams do not

have enough water to satisfy existing

water rights and claims. Changing public

values about preserving in-stream flows,

protecting endangered species, and settling Indian water rights claims have

made competition for water supplies

increasingly intense. Depending on how

water managers are able to take adaptive

measures, the potential impacts of climate change could include increased

competition for water supplies, stresses

on water quality in areas where flows are

diminished, adverse impacts on groundwater quantity and quality, an increased

possibility of flooding in the winter and

early spring, a reduced possibility of

flooding later in the spring, and more

water shortages in the summer. In some

areas, however, an increase in precipitation could outweigh these factors and

increase available supplies.

Significant changes in average temperature, precipitation, and soil moisture

resulting from climate change are also

likely to affect water demand in most

sectors. For example, demand for water

associated with electric power generation is projected to increase due to the

increasing demand for air conditioning

with higher summer temperatures. 

Climate change is also likely to reduce

water levels in the Great Lakes and summertime river levels in the central United

States, thereby adversely affecting navigation, general water supplies, and populations of aquatic species.
100 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Effects on Water Quality

Increases in heavy precipitation

events are likely to flush more contaminants and sediments into lakes and

rivers, degrading water quality. Where

uptake of agricultural chemicals and

other nonpoint sources could be exacerbated, steps to limit water pollution

are likely to be needed. In some

regions, however, higher average flows

will likely dilute pollutants and, thus,

improve water quality. In coastal

regions where river flows are reduced,

increased salinity could also become

more of a problem. Flooding can also

cause overloading of storm-water and

wastewater systems, and can damage

water and sewage treatment facilities,

mine tailing impoundments, and landfills, thereby increasing the risks of contamination and toxicity.

Because the warmer temperatures will

lead to increased evaporation, soil moisture is likely to be reduced during the

warm season. Although this effect is

likely be alleviated somewhat by

increased efficiency in water use and

reduced demand by native plants for

water, the drying is likely to create a

greater susceptibility to fire and then

loss of the vegetation that helps to 

control erosion and sediment flows. In

agricultural areas, the CO2-induced

improvement of water-use efficiency by

crops is likely to decrease demands for

water, particularly for irrigation water. In

addition, in some regions, increasing notill or reduced-till agriculture is likely to

improve the water-holding capacity of

soils, regardless of whether climate

changes, thereby reducing the susceptibility of agricultural lands to erosion

from intensified heavy rains (NAAG

2002, NWAG 2000).

Effects on Snowpack 

Rising temperatures are very likely to

affect snowfall and increase snowmelt

conditions in much of the western and

northern portions of the country that

depend on winter snowpack for runoff.

This is particularly important because

snowpack provides a natural reservoir

for water storage in mountainous areas,

gradually releasing its water in spring

and even summer under current climate

conditions. 

Model simulations project that snowpack in western mountain regions is

likely to decrease as U.S. climate warms

(Figure 6-9). These reductions are projected, despite an overall increase in precipitation, because (1) a larger fraction of

precipitation will fall as rain, rather than

snow; and (2) the snowpack is likely to

develop later and melt earlier. The

resulting changes in the amount and timing of runoff are very likely to have significant implications in some basins for

water management, flood protection,

power production, water quality, and the

availability of water resources for irrigation, hydropower, communities, industry, and the sustainability of natural

habitats and species.

Effects on Ground-Water 

Quantity and Quality

Several U.S. regions, including

parts of California and the Great

Plains, are dependent on dwindling

ground-water supplies. Although

ground-water supplies are less susceptible to short-term climate variability

than surface-water supplies, they are

more affected by long-term trends.

Ground water serves as the base flow

for many streams and rivers. Especially

in areas where springtime snow cover

is reduced and where higher summer

temperatures increase evaporation and

use of ground water for irrigation,

ground-water levels are very likely to

fall, thus reducing seasonal stream

flows. River and stream temperatures

fluctuate more rapidly with reduced

volumes of water, affecting fresh-water

and estuarine habitats. Small streams

that are heavily influenced by ground

water are more likely to have reduced

flows and changes in seasonality of

flows, which in turn is likely to damage

existing wetland habitats.

Pumping ground water at a faster rate

than it can be recharged is already a

major concern, especially in parts of the

country where other water resources are

limited. In the Great Plains, for example,

model projections indicate that drought

is likely to be more frequent and intense,

which will create additional stresses

because ground-water levels are already

dropping in parts of important aquifers,

such as the Ogallala.

The quality of ground water is being

diminished by a variety of factors,

including chemical contamination. Saltwater intrusion is another key groundwater quality concern, particularly in

coastal areas where changes in freshwater flows and increases in sea level will

both occur. As ground-water pumping

increases to serve municipal demand

along the coast and less recharge occurs,

coastal ground-water aquifers are

increasingly being affected by sea-water

intrusion. Because the ground-water

resource has been compromised by

many factors, managers are increasingly

looking to surface-water supplies, which

are more sensitive to climate change and

variability.

Effects on Floods, Droughts, and

Heavy Precipitation Events

Projected changes in the amount,

timing, and distribution of rainfall and

snowfall are likely to lead to changes in

the amount and timing of high and low

water flows—although the relationships of changes in precipitation rate to

changes in flood frequency and intensity are uncertain, especially due to

uncertainties in the timing and persistence of rainfall events and river levels

and capacities. Because changes in climate extremes are more likely than

changes in climate averages to affect

the magnitude of damages and raise the

need for adaptive measures at the

regional level, changes in the timing of

precipitation events, as well as increases

in the intensity of precipitation events,

are likely to become increasingly

important considerations.

Climate change is likely to affect the

frequency and amplitude of high stream

flows, with major implications for 

infrastructure and emergency management in areas vulnerable to flooding.

Although projections of the number of

hurricanes that may develop remain

uncertain, model simulations indicate

that, in a warmer climate, hurricanes

that do develop are likely to have
Impacts and Adaptation ■ 101

higher wind speeds and produce more

rainfall. As a result, they are likely to

cause more damage, unless more extensive (and therefore more costly) adaptive measures are taken, including

reducing the increasing exposure of

property to such extreme events. Historical records indicate that improved

warning has been a major factor in

reducing the annual number of deaths

due to storms, and that the primary

cause of the increasing property damage in recent decades has been the

increase in at-risk structures, such as

widespread construction of vacation

homes on barrier islands.

Despite the overall increase in precipitation and past trends indicating an

increase in low to moderate stream

flow, model simulations suggest that

increased air temperatures and more

intense evaporation are likely to cause

many interior portions of the country

to experience more frequent and longer

dry conditions. To the extent that the

frequency and intensity of these conditions lead to an increase in droughts,

some areas are likely to experience

wide-ranging impacts on agriculture,

water-based transportation, and ecosystems, although the effects on vegetation (including crops and forests) are

likely to be mitigated under some conditions by increased efficiency in water

use due to higher CO2 levels.

Water-driven Effects 

on Ecosystems

Species live in the larger context of

ecosystems and have differing environmental needs. In some ecosystems,

existing stresses could be reduced if

increases in soil moisture or the incidence of freezing conditions are

reduced. Other ecosystems, including

some for which extreme conditions are

critical, are likely to be most affected

by changes in the frequency and 

intensity of flood, drought, or fire

events. For example, model projections

indicate that changes in temperature,

moisture availability, and the water

demand from vegetation are likely to

lead to significant changes in some

ecosystems in the coming decades

Source: Redrawn from McCabe and Wolock 1999, as presented in NAST 2000.

FIGURE 6-9 Projected Reductions in Western Snowpack Resulting from Potential

Changes in Climate

Climate model scenarios for the 21st century project significant decreases from the

1961–1990 baseline in the average April 1 snowpack for four mountainous areas in the

western United States. Scenarios from the Canadian model, which simulates warming

toward the upper end of IPCC projections, and from the Hadley model, which simulates

warming near the middle of IPCC projections, provide similar results. Such a steep reduction in the April 1 snowpack would significantly shift the time of peak runoff and reduce

average river flows in spring and summer.

1999

2015

2031

2047

2063

2079

2095

20

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

1999

2015

2031

2047

2063

2079

2095

20

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Canadian Model

Pacific Northwest a c o w

Southern Rocky Mountains Southern Rocky Mountains o R k M t s

Central Rocky Mountains e a o u i

Sierra Nevada

g

g

Hadley Model

Percent Change from 1961–1990 Baseline Percent Change from 1961–1990 Baseline
102 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

(NAST 2000). As specific examples, the

natural ecosystems of the Arctic, Great

Lakes, Great Basin, and Southeast, and

the prairie potholes of the Great Plains

appear highly vulnerable to the projected changes in climate (see Figures

6-6 and 6-8).

The effects of changes in water temperatures are also important. For example, rising water temperatures are likely

to force out some cold-water fish

species (such as salmon and trout) that

are already near the threshold of their

viable habitat, while opening up additional areas for warm-water species.

Increasing temperatures are also likely

to decrease dissolved oxygen in water,

degrade the health of ecosystems,

reduce ice cover, and alter the mixing

and stratification of water in lakes—all

of which are key to maintaining optimal habitat and suitable nutrient levels.

In addition, warmer lake waters combining with excess nutrients from agricultural fertilizers (washed into lakes by

heavy rains) would be likely to create

algal blooms on the lake surfaces, further depleting some lake ecosystems of

life-sustaining oxygen.

Potential Adaptation Options to

Ensure Adequate Water Resources

In contrast to the vulnerability of natural ecosystems, humans have exhibited

a significant ability to adapt to the 

availability of different amounts of

water. There are many types of water

basins across the country, and many

approaches are already in use to ensure

careful management of water resources.

For example, more than 80,000 dams

and reservoirs and millions of miles of

canals, pipes, and tunnels have been

developed to store and transport water.

Some types of approaches that studies

have indicated might prove useful are

highlighted on this page. 

Strategies for adapting to climate

change and other stresses include changing the operation of dams and reservoirs,

re-evaluating basic engineering assumptions used in facility construction, and

building new infrastructure (although 

for a variety of reasons, large dams are

no longer generally viewed as a costeffective or environmentally acceptable

solution to water supply problems).

Other potentially available options

include conserving water; changing

water pricing; using reclaimed wastewater; using water transfers; and developing markets for water, which can lead

to increased prices that discourage

wasteful practices. 

Existing or new infrastructure can

also be used to dampen the impacts of

climate-induced influences on flow

regimes and aquatic ecosystems of many

of our nation’s rivers. While significant

adaptation is possible, its cost could 

be reduced if the probable effects of 

climate change are factored in before

making major long-term investments in

repairing, maintaining, expanding, and

operating existing water supply and

management infrastructure.

Because of the uncertainties associated with the magnitude and direction of

changes in precipitation and runoff due

to climate change, more flexible institutional arrangements may be needed to

ensure optimal availability of water as

supplies and demand change. Although

social, equity, and environmental considerations must be addressed, market

solutions offer the potential for resolving

supply problems in some parts of the

country. However, because water rights

systems vary from state to state and even

locally, water managers will need to take

the lead in selecting the most appropriate adaptive responses. 

Because the United States shares

water resources with Canada and Mexico, it participates in a number of institutions designed to address common

water issues. These institutions, which

include the U.S.–Canada Great Lakes

Commission and joint commissions and

agreements covering the Colorado and

Rio Grande rivers, could provide the

framework for designing adaptive

measures for responding to the effects

of climate change. For example, the

U.S.–Canada Great Lakes Commission

has already conducted studies to evaluate options for dealing with the potential for increased evaporation, shorter

duration of lake ice, and other climate

changes that are projected to affect the

Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River basin.

Close coordination will be needed to

efficiently manage the levels of these

crucial water resources to ensure adequate water supplies for communities

and irrigation, high water quality,

needed hydroelectric power, high

enough levels for recreation and 

F

ollowing are some potential adaptation

options for water management in

response to climate change and other

stresses:

• Improve capacity for moving water

within and between water-use sectors

(including agriculture to urban).

• Use pricing and market mechanisms

proactively to decrease waste.

• Incorporate potential changes in

demand and supply in long-term planning and infrastructure design.

• Create incentives to move people and

structures away from flood plains.

• Identify ways to sustainably manage

supplies, including ground water, surface water, and effluent.

• Restore and maintain watersheds to

reduce sediment loads and nutrients in

runoff, limit flooding, and lower water

temperature.

• Encourage the development of institutions to confer property rights to

water. This would be intended to

encourage conservation, recycling,

and reuse of water by all users, as well

as to provide incentives for research

and development of such conservation

technologies.

• Reduce agricultural demand for water

by focusing research on development

of crops and farming practices for

minimizing water use, for example, via

precision agricultural techniques that

closely monitor soil moisture.

• Reuse municipal wastewater, improve

management of urban storm-water

runoff, and promote collection of rain

water for local use.

• Increase the use of forecasting tools

for water management. Some weather

patterns, such as those resulting from

El Niño, can now be predicted, allowing for more efficient management of

water resources.

• Enhance monitoring efforts to improve

data collection for weather, climate,

and hydrologic modeling to aid understanding of water-related impacts and

management strategies.

Source: Adapted from NWAG 2000.

Potential Adaptation Options for 

Water Management
Impacts and Adaptation ■ 103

shipping, low enough levels to protect

communities and shorelines from

flooding and wave-induced erosion,

and more.

Potential Interactions 

with Coastal Areas 

and Marine Resources

The United States has over 95,000

miles of coastline and over 3.4 million

square miles of ocean within its territorial waters. These areas provide a wide

range of goods and services to the U.S.

economy. Approximately 53 percent of

the U.S. population lives on the 17 percent of land in counties that are adjacent to or relatively near the coast.

Over recent decades, populations in

these coastal counties have been growing more rapidly than elsewhere in the

country. As a result of this population

growth and increased wealth, demands

on coastal and marine resources for

both leisure activities and economic

benefits are rapidly intensifying, while

at the same time exposure to coastal

hazards is increasing.

Coastal and marine environments

are intrinsically linked to the prevailing

climate in many ways. Heat given off

by the oceans warms the land during

the winter, and ocean waters help to

keep coastal regions cooler during the

summer. Moisture evaporated from the

oceans is the ultimate source of precipitation, and the runoff of precipitation

carries nutrients, pollutants, and other

materials from the land to the ocean.

Sea level exerts a major influence on

the coastal zone, shaping barrier

islands and pushing salt water up estuaries and into aquifers. For example,

cycles of beach and cliff erosion along

the Pacific Coast have been linked to

the natural sequence of El Niño events

that alter storm tracks and temporarily

raise average sea levels by several

inches in this region (NCAG 2000).

During the 1982–83 and 1997–98 El

Niño events, erosion damage was widespread along the Pacific coastline.

Climate change will affect interactions among conditions on the land and

sea and in the atmosphere. Warming is

likely to alter coastal weather and could

affect the intensity, frequency, and

extent of severe storms. Melting of glaciers and ice sheets and thermal expansion of ocean waters will cause sea level

to rise, which is likely to intensify erosion and endanger coastal structures.

Rising sea level and higher temperatures are also likely to affect the ecology of estuaries and coastal wetlands.

Higher temperatures coupled with

increasing CO2 concentrations are

likely to severely stress coral reefs, and

the changing temperature patterns are

likely to cause fisheries to relocate and

alter fish migration patterns. While

quantifying these consequences is difficult, indications of the types of outcomes that are possible have emerged

from U.S. assessments (NCAG 2000).

Effects on Sea Level

Global sea level rose by 10–20 cm

(about 4–8 inches) during the 20th

century, which was significantly more

than the rate of rise that was typical

over the last few thousand years. Even

in the absence of a change in Atlantic

storminess, the deeper inundation that

has resulted from recent storms has

exacerbated flooding and has led to

damage to fixed coastal structures from

storms that were previously inconsequential. 

Looking to the future, climate models project that global warming will

increase sea level by 9–88 cm (4–35

inches) during the 21st century, with

mid-range values more likely than the

very high or very low estimates (IPCC

2001d). Because of the long time constants involved in ocean warming and

glacier and ice sheet melting, further

sea level rise is likely for several centuries, even after achieving significant

limitations in emissions of CO2 and

other greenhouse gases. However,

these global changes are only one factor in what determines sea level change

at any particular coastal location. For

example, along the Mid-Atlantic coast,

where land levels are subsiding, relative

sea level rise will be somewhat greater;

conversely, in New England, where

land levels are rising, relative sea level

rise will be somewhat less.

Not surprisingly, an increased rate of

global sea level rise is likely to have the

most dramatic impacts in regions where

subsidence and erosion problems

already exist. Estuaries, wetlands, and

shorelines along the Atlantic and Gulf

coasts are especially vulnerable.

Impacts on fixed structures will intensify, even in the absence of an increase

in storminess. However, because the

slope of these areas is so gentle, even a

small rise in sea level can produce a

large inland shift of the shoreline. The

rise will be particularly important if the

frequency or intensity of storm surges

or hurricanes increases. 

Increases in the frequency or intensity of El Niño events would also likely

exacerbate the impacts of long-term sea

level rise. Coastal erosion increases the

threats to coastal development, transportation infrastructure, tourism, freshwater aquifers, fisheries (many of which

are already stressed by human activities), and coastal ecosystems. Coastal

cities and towns, especially those in

storm-prone regions, such as the Southeast, are particularly vulnerable. Intensive residential and commercial

development in these regions is placing

more and more lives and property at

risk (Figure 6-10).

Effects on Estuaries

Climate change and sea level rise

could present significant threats to valuable, productive coastal ecosystems. For

example, estuaries filter and purify water

and provide critical nursery and habitat

functions for many commercially important fish and shellfish populations.

Because the temperature increase is projected to be greater in the winter than in

the summer, a narrowing of the annual

water temperature range of many estuaries is likely. This, in turn, is likely to

cause a shift in species’ ranges and to

increase the vulnerability of some estuaries to invasive species (NCAG 2000).

Changes in runoff are also likely to

adversely affect estuaries. Unless new

agricultural technologies allow reduced

use of fertilizers, higher rates of runoff

are likely to deliver greater amounts 

of nutrients such as nitrogen and 
104 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

FIGURE 6-10 Projected Rates of Annual Erosion along U.S. Shorelines

Source: U.S. Geological Survey Coastal Geology Program, as presented in NAST 2000.

Relatively Stable

Severely Eroding

Moderately Eroding

The U.S. coastal areas that are most vulnerable to future increases in sea level are those

with low relief and those that are already experiencing rapid erosion rates, such as the

Southeast and Gulf Coast.

phosphorus to estuaries, while simultaneously increasing the stratification

between fresh-water runoff and marine

waters. Such conditions would be likely

to increase the potential for algal

blooms that deplete the water of oxygen. These conditions would also

increase stresses on sea grasses, fish,

shellfish, and other organisms living in

lakes, streams, and oceans (NCAG

2000, and regional assessment reports

listed at http://www.usgcrp.gov). In

addition, decreased runoff is likely to

reduce flushing, decrease the size of

estuarine nursery zones, and increase

the range of estuarine habitat susceptible to predators and pathogens of

shellfish.

Effects on Wetlands

Coastal wetlands (marshes and

mangroves) are highly productive

ecosystems, particularly because they

are strongly linked to the productivity

of fisheries. Dramatic losses of coastal

wetlands have occurred along the Gulf

Coast due to subsidence, alterations in

flow and sediment load caused by

dams and levees, dredge and fill activities, and sea level rise. Louisiana alone

has been losing land at rates of about

68–104 square kilometers (24–40

square miles) per year for the last 40

years, accounting for as much as 80

percent of the total U.S. coastal wetland loss. 

In general, coastal wetlands will survive if soil buildup equals the rate of relative sea level rise or if they are able to

migrate inland (although this migration

necessarily displaces other ecosystems

or land uses). However, if soil accumulation does not keep pace with sea level

rise, or if bluffs, coastal development,

or shoreline protective structures (such

as dikes, sea walls, and jetties) block

wetland migration, wetlands may be

excessively inundated and, thus, lost.

The projected increase in the current

rate of sea level rise is very likely to

exacerbate the nationwide rate of loss

of existing coastal wetlands, although

the extent of impacts will vary among

regions, and some impacts may be

moderated by the inland formation of

new wetlands.

Effects on Coral Reefs

The demise or continued deterioration of reefs could have profound implications for the United States. Coral

reefs play a major role in the environment and economies of Florida and

Hawaii as well as in most U.S. territories in the Caribbean and Pacific. They

support fisheries, recreation, and

tourism and protect coastal areas. In

addition, coral reefs are one of the

largest global storehouses of marine

biodiversity, sheltering one-quarter of

all marine life and containing extensive

untapped genetic resources. 

The last few years have seen unprecedented declines in the health of coral

reefs. The 1998 El Niño was associated

with record sea-surface temperatures

and associated coral bleaching (which

occurs when coral expel the algae that

live within them and that are necessary

to their survival). In some regions, as

much as 70 percent of the coral may

have died in a single season. There has

also been an upsurge in the variety, incidence, and virulence of coral diseases in

recent years, with major die-offs in

Florida and much of the Caribbean

region (NCAG 2000).

Other factors that are likely to be

contributing to the decline of coral

reefs include increased sediment deposition, sewage and agricultural runoff,

excessive harvesting of fish, and damage from ships and tourists. In addition

to the potential influences of further

global warming, increasing atmospheric

CO2 concentrations are likely to

decrease the calcification rates of the

reef-building corals, resulting in weaker

skeletons, reduced growth rates, and

increased vulnerability to wave-induced

damage. Model results suggest that these

effects would likely be most severe at the

current margins of coral reef distribution, meaning that it is unlikely coral

reefs will be able to spread northward to

reach cooler waters. While steps can be

taken to reduce the impacts of some

types of stress on coral reefs (e.g., by

creating Marine Protected Areas, as

called for in Executive Order 13158, and

constructing artificial reefs to provide

habitat for threatened species), damage

to coral reefs from climate change and

the increasing CO2 concentration may

be moderated to some extent only by

significantly reducing other stresses.

Effects on Marine Fisheries

Based on studies summarized in the

coastal sector assessment, recreational

and commercial fishing has contributed

approximately $40 billion a year to the

U.S. economy, with total marine 
Impacts and Adaptation ■ 105

landings averaging about 4.5 million

metric tons over the last decade. Climate change is very likely to substantially alter the distribution and

abundance of major fish stocks, many

of which are a shared international

resource. 

Along the Pacific Coast, impacts to

fisheries related to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation illustrate how climate

directly affects marine fisheries on short

time scales. For example, elevated seasurface temperatures associated with

the 1997–98 El Niño had a tremendous

impact on the distribution and abundance of market squid. Although California’s largest fishery by volume, squid

landings fell to less than 1,000 metric

tons in the 1997–98 season, down from

a record-breaking 110,000 metric tons

in the 1996–97 season. Many other

unusual events occurred during this

same El Niño as a result of elevated seasurface temperatures. Examples include

widespread deaths of California sea lion

pups, catches of warm-water marlin in

the usually frigid waters off Washington State, and poor salmon returns in

Bristol Bay, Alaska.

The changes in fish stocks resulting

from climate change are also likely to

have important implications for

marine populations and ecosystems.

Changes over the long term that will

affect all nations are likely to include

poleward shifts in distribution of

marine populations, and changes in

the timing, locations, and, perhaps,

viability of migration paths and nesting and feeding areas for marine mammals and other species.

With changing ocean temperatures

and conditions, shifts in the distribution of commercially important species

are likely, affecting U.S. and international fisheries. For example, model

projections suggest that several species

of Pacific salmon are likely to have

reduced distribution and productivity,

while species that thrive in warmer

waters, such as Pacific sardine and

Atlantic menhaden, are likely to show

an increased distribution. Presuming

that the rate of climate change is gradual, the many efforts being made to better manage the world’s fisheries might

promote adaptation to climate change,

along with helping to relieve the many

other pressures on these resources.

Potential Adaptation Options 

for Coastal Regions

Because climate variability is currently a dominant factor in shaping

coastal and marine systems, projecting

the specific effects of climate change

over the next few decades and evaluating

the potential effectiveness of possible

response options is particularly challenging. Effects will surely vary greatly

among the diverse coastal regions of the

nation. Human-induced disturbances

also influence coastal and marine systems, often reducing the ability of systems to adapt, so that systems that might

ordinarily be capable of responding to

variability and change are less able to do

so. In this context, climate change is

likely to add to the cumulative impact of

both natural and human-caused stresses

on ecological systems and resources. As

a result, strategies for adapting to the

potential consequences of long-term climate change in the overall context of

coastal development and management

are only beginning to be considered

(NCAG 2000).

However, as further plans are made

for development of land in the coastal

zone, it is especially urgent for governing bodies at all levels to begin to 

consider the potential changes in 

the coastal climate and sea level. For

example, the U.S. Geological Survey 

is expanding its gathering and assembly

of relevant coastal information, and 

the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency’s Sea Level Rise project is 

dedicated to motivating adaptation to

rising sea level. This project has

assessed the probability and has 

identified and mapped vulnerable lowelevation coastal zones. In addition,

cost-effective strategies and land-use

planning approaches involving landward migration of wetlands, levee

building, incorporation of sea level rise

in beach conservation plans, engineered

landward retreats, and sea walls have all

been developed.

Several states have already included

sea level rise in their planning, and

some have already implemented adaptation activities. For example, in New

Jersey, where relative sea level is rising

approximately one inch (2.5 cm) every

six years, $15 million is now set aside

each year for shore protection, and the

state discourages construction that

would later require sea walls. In addition, Maine, Rhode Island, South 

Carolina, and Massachusetts have

implemented various forms of “rolling

easement” policies to ensure that wetlands and beaches can migrate inland as

sea level rises, and that coastal

landowners and conservation agencies

can purchase the required easements.

Other states have modified regulations

on, for example, beach preservation,

land reclamation, and inward migration

of wetlands and beaches. Wider consideration of potential consequences is

especially important, however, because

some regulatory programs continue to

permit structures that may block the

inland shift of wetlands and beaches,

and in some locations shoreline movement is precluded due to the high

degree of coastal development.

To safeguard people and better manage resources along the coast, NOAA

provides weather forecasts and

remotely sensed environmental data to

federal, state, and local governments,

coastal resource managers and scientists, and the public. As part of its mandate and responsibilities to administer

the National Flood Insurance Program,

the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) prepares Flood Insurance Rate Maps that identify and delineate areas subject to severe (1 percent

annual chance) floods. FEMA also maps

coastal flood hazard areas as a separate

flood hazard category in recognition of

the additional risk associated with wave

action. In addition, FEMA is working

with many coastal cities to encourage

steps to reduce their vulnerability to

storms and floods, including purchasing

vulnerable properties. 

University and state programs are

also underway across the country. This

is particularly important because most
106 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

coastal planning in the United States is

the responsibility of state and local

governments, with the federal government interacting with these efforts

through the development of coastal

zone management plans.

Potential Interactions 

with Human Health

Although the overall susceptibility

of Americans to environmental health

concerns dropped dramatically during

the 20th century, certain health outcomes are still recognized to be associated with the prevailing environmental

conditions. These adverse outcomes

include illnesses and deaths associated

with temperature extremes; storms and

other heavy precipitation events; air

pollution; water contamination; and

diseases carried by mosquitoes, ticks,

and rodents. As a result of the potential

consequences of these stresses acting

individually or in combination, it is

possible that projected climate change

will have measurable beneficial and

adverse impacts on health (see NHAG

2000, 2001). 

Adaptation offers the potential to

reduce the vulnerability of the U.S.

population to adverse health outcomes—including possible outcomes of

projected climate change—primarily by

ensuring strong public health systems,

improving their responsiveness to

changing weather and climate conditions, and expanding attention given to

vulnerable subpopulations. Although

the costs, benefits, and availability of

resources for such adaptation must be

found, and further research into key

knowledge gaps on the relationships

between climate/weather and health is

needed, to the extent that the U.S. population can keep from putting itself at

greater risk by where it lives and what it

does, the potential impacts of climate

change on human health can likely be

addressed as a component of efforts to

address current vulnerabilities.

Projections of the extent and direction of potential impacts of climate

variability and change on health are

extremely difficult to make with confidence because of the many confounding and poorly understood factors associated with potential health outcomes.

These factors include the sensitivity of

human health to aspects of weather and

climate, differing vulnerability of various

demographic and geographic segments

of the population, the international

movement of disease vectors, and how

effectively prospective problems can be

dealt with. For example, uncertainties

remain about how climate and associated environmental conditions may

change. Even in the absence of improving medical care and treatment, while

some positive health outcomes—

notably, reduced cold-weather mortality—are possible, the balance between

increased risk of heat-related illnesses

and death and changes in winter illnesses and death cannot yet be confidently assessed. In addition to

uncertainties about health outcomes, it

is very difficult to anticipate what

future adaptive measures (e.g., vaccines,

improved use of weather forecasting to

further reduce exposure to severe conditions) might be taken to reduce the

risks of adverse health outcomes.

Effects on Temperature-Related

Illnesses and Deaths

Episodes of extreme heat cause more

deaths in the United States than any

other category of deaths associated

with extreme weather. In one of the

most severe examples of such an event,

the number of deaths rose by 85 percent during a five-day heat wave in

1995 in which maximum temperatures

in Chicago, Illinois, ranged from 34 to

40°C (93 to 104°F) and minimum temperatures were nearly as high. At least

700 excess deaths (deaths in that population beyond those expected for that

period) were recorded, most of which

were directly attributable to heat. 

For particular years, studies in certain urban areas show a strong association between increases in mortality and

increases in heat, measured by maximum or minimum daily temperature

and by heat index (a measure of temperature and humidity). Over longer

periods, determination of trends is

often difficult due to the episodic

nature of such events and the presence

of complicating health conditions, as

well as because many areas are taking

steps to reduce exposure to extreme

heat. Recognizing these complications,

no nationwide trend in deaths directly

attributed to extreme heat is evident

over the past two decades, even though

some warming has occurred.

Based on available studies, heat stroke

and other health effects associated with

exposure to extreme and prolonged heat

appear to be related to environmental

temperatures above those to which the

population is accustomed. Thus, the

regions expected to be most sensitive to

projected increases in severity and frequency of heat waves are likely to be

those in which extremely high temperatures occur only irregularly. Within heatsensitive regions, experience indicates

that populations in urban areas are most

vulnerable to adverse heat-related health

outcomes. Daily average heat indices

and heat-related mortality rates are

higher in these urban core areas than in

surrounding areas, because urban areas

remain warmer throughout the night

compared to outlying suburban and rural

areas. The absence of nighttime relief

from heat for urban residents has been

identified as a factor in excessive heatrelated deaths. The elderly, young children, the poor, and people who are

bedridden, who are on certain medications, or who have certain underlying

medical conditions are at particular risk.

Plausible climate scenarios project

significant increases in average summer

temperatures, leading to new record

highs. Model results also indicate that

the frequency and severity of heat

waves would be very likely to increase

along with the increase in average temperatures. The size of U.S. cities and

the proportion of U.S. residents living

in them are also projected to increase

through the 21st century. Because cities

tend to retain daytime heat and so are

warmer than surrounding areas, climate

change is very likely to lead to an

increase in the population potentially at

risk from heat events. While the potential risk may increase, heat-related illnesses and deaths are largely preventable
Impacts and Adaptation ■ 107

through behavioral adaptations, including use of air conditioning, increased

fluid intake, and community warning

and support systems. The degree to

which these adaptations can be even

more broadly made available and

adopted than in the 20th century, especially for sensitive populations, will

determine if the long-term trend

toward fewer deaths from extreme heat

can be maintained.

Death rates not only vary with summertime temperature, but also show a

seasonal dependence, with more deaths

in winter than in summer. This relationship suggests that the relatively large

increases in average winter temperature

could reduce deaths in winter months.

However, the relationship between

winter weather and mortality is not as

clear as for summertime extremes.

While there should be fewer deaths

from shoveling snow and slipping on

ice, many winter deaths are due to respiratory infections, such as influenza,

and it is not clear how influenza transmission would be affected by higher

winter temperatures. As a result, the net

effect on winter mortality from milder

winters remains uncertain.

Influences on Health Effects

Related to Extreme Weather Events

Injury and death also result from

natural disasters, such as floods and

hurricanes. Such outcomes can result

both from direct bodily harm and from

secondary influences, such as those

mediated by changes in ecological systems (such as bacterial and fungal proliferation) and in public health

infrastructures (such as reduced availability of safe drinking water).

Projections of climate change for

the 21st century suggest a continuation

of the 20th-century trend toward

increasing intensity of heavy precipitation events, including precipitation

during hurricanes. Such events, in addition to the potential consequences

listed above, pose an increased risk of

floods and associated health impacts.

However, much can be done to prepare

for powerful storms and heavy precipitation events, both through community

design and through warning systems.

As a result of such efforts, the loss of

life and the relative amounts of damage

have been decreasing. For the future,

therefore, the net health impacts of

extreme weather events hinge on continuing efforts to reduce societal vulnerabilities. For example, FEMA’s Safe

Communities program is promoting

implementation of stronger building

codes and improved warning systems,

as well as enhancing the recovery

capacities of the natural environment

and the local population, which are also

being addressed through disaster assistance programs.

Influences on Health Effects

Related to Air Pollution 

Current exposures to air pollution

exceed health-based standards in many

parts of the country. Health assessments indicate that ground-level ozone

can exacerbate respiratory diseases and

cause short-term reductions in lung

function. Such studies also indicate that

exposure to particulate matter can

aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, alter the body’s

defense systems against foreign materials, damage lung tissue, lead to premature death, and possibly contribute to

cancer. Health effects of exposure to

carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and

nitrogen dioxide have also been related

to reduced work capacity, aggravation

of existing cardiovascular diseases,

effects on breathing, respiratory illnesses, lung irritation, and alterations in

the lung’s defense systems.

Projected changes in climate would

be likely to affect air quality in several

ways, some of which are likely to be

dealt with by ongoing changes in technology, and some of which can be dealt

with, if necessary, through changes in

regulations. For example, changes in

the weather that affect regional pollution emissions and concentrations can

be dealt with by controlling sources of

emissions. However, adaptation will be

needed in response to changes in natural sources of air pollution that result

from changes in weather. Analyses

show that hotter, sunnier days tend to

increase the formation of ground-level

ozone, other conditions being the

same. This creates a risk of higher concentrations of ground-level ozone in

the future, especially because higher

temperatures are frequently accompanied by stagnating circulation patterns.

However, more specific projections of

exposure to air pollutants cannot be

made with confidence without more

accurate projections of changes in local

and regional weather and projections of

the amounts and locations of future

emissions, which will in turn be affected

by the implementation and success of

air pollution control policies designed

to ensure air quality. Also, more extensive health-warning systems could help

to reduce exposures, decreasing any

potential adverse consequences.

In addition to affecting exposure to

air pollutants, there is some chance that

climate change will play a role in 

exposure to airborne allergens. For

example, it is possible that climate

change will alter pollen production in

some plants and change the geographic

distribution of plant species. Consequently, there is some chance that climate change will affect the timing or

duration of seasonal allergies. The

impact of pollen and of pollen changes

on the occurrence and severity of

asthma, the most common chronic disease among children, is currently very

uncertain.

Effects on Water- and 

Food-borne Diseases

In the United States, the incidence

of and deaths due to waterborne diseases declined dramatically during the

20th century. While much less frequent

or lethal nowadays, exposure to waterborne disease can still result from drinking contaminated water, eating seafood

from contaminated water, eating fresh

produce irrigated or processed with

contaminated water, and participating

in such activities as fishing or swimming

in contaminated water. Water-borne

pathogens of current concern include

viruses, bacteria (such as Vibrio vulnificus,

a naturally occurring estuarine bacterium responsible for a high 
108 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

FIGURE 6-11 Reported Cases of Dengue

Fever: 1980–1999

In 1922, there were an estimated 500,000

cases of dengue fever in Texas. The mosquitoes that transmit this viral disease

remain abundant. The striking contrast in 

incidence in Texas over the last two

decades, and in three Mexican states that

border Texas, illustrates the importance of

factors other than climate in the incidence

of vector-borne diseases.

Sources: National Institute of Health, Mexico, Texas

Department of Health, U.S. Public Health Service, and

unpublished data analyzed by the National Health

Assessment Group and presented in NAST 2001.

Mexico

3 Mexican

Border States:

62,514 Cases

Texas:

64 Cases

percentage of the deaths associated

with shellfish consumption), and protozoa (such as Cryptosporidium, associated

with gastrointestinal illnesses). 

Because changes in precipitation,

temperature, humidity, salinity, and

wind have a measurable effect on water

quality, future changes in climate have

the potential to increase exposure to

water-borne pathogens. In 1993, for

example, Cryptosporidium contaminated

the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, drinkingwater supply. As a result, 400,000 people became ill. Of the 54 individuals

who died, most had compromised

immune systems because of HIV infection or other illness. A contributing 

factor in the contamination, in addition

to treatment system malfunctions, was

heavy rainfall and runoff that resulted 

in a decline in the quality of raw 

surface water arriving at the Milwaukee

drinking-water plants. 

In another example, during the

strong El Niño winter of 1997–98,

heavy precipitation and runoff greatly

elevated the counts of fecal bacteria

and infectious viruses in Florida’s

coastal waters. In addition, toxic red

tides proliferate as sea-water temperatures increase. Reports of marinerelated illnesses have risen over the past

two and a half decades along the East

Coast, in correlation with El Niño

events. Therefore, climate changes projected to occur in the next several

decades—in particular, the likely

increase in heavy precipitation

events—raise the risk of contamination

events.

Effects on Insect-, Tick-, and

Rodent-borne Diseases

Malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever,

and other diseases transmitted between

humans by blood-feeding insects, ticks,

and mites were once common in the

United States. The incidence of many

of these diseases has been significantly

reduced, mainly because of changes in

land use, agricultural methods, residential patterns, human behavior, vector

control, and public health systems.

However, diseases that may be transmitted to humans from wild animals

continue to circulate in nature in many

parts of the country. Humans may

become infected with the pathogens

that cause these diseases through transmission by insects or ticks (such as

Lyme disease, which is tick-borne) or

by direct contact with the host animals

or their body fluids (such as hantaviruses, which are carried by numerous rodent species and transmitted to

humans through contact with rodent

urine, droppings, and saliva). The

organisms that directly transmit these

diseases are known as vectors.

The ecology and transmission

dynamics of vector-borne infections are

complex, and the factors that influence

transmission are unique for each

pathogen. Most vector-borne diseases

exhibit a distinct seasonal pattern,

which clearly suggests that they are

weather-sensitive. Rainfall, temperature, and other weather variables affect

both vectors and the pathogens they

transmit in many ways. For example,

epidemics of malaria are associated

with rainy periods in some parts of the

world, but with drought in others.

Higher temperatures may increase or

reduce vector survival rate, depending

on each specific vector, its behavior,

ecology, and many other factors. In

some cases, specific weather patterns

over several seasons appear to be associated with increased transmission

rates. For example, in the Midwest, outbreaks of St. Louis encephalitis (a viral

infection of birds that can also infect

and cause disease in humans) appear to

be associated with the sequence of

warm, wet winters, cold springs, and

hot, dry summers. Although the potential for such diseases seems likely to

increase, both the U.S. National

Assessment (NHAG 2000, 2001) and a

special report prepared by the National

Research Council (NRC 2001b) agree

that significant outbreaks of these diseases as a result of climate change are

unlikely because of U.S. health and

community standards and systems.

However, even with actions to limit

breeding habitats of mosquitoes and

other disease vectors and to carefully

monitor for infectious diseases, the

continued occurrence of local, isolated

incidences of such diseases probably

cannot be fully eliminated.

Although the United States has been

able to reduce the incidence of such 

climatically related diseases as dengue

and malaria, these diseases continue 

to extract a heavy toll elsewhere 

(Figure 6-11). Accordingly, the U.S.

government and other governmental

and nongovernmental organizations are

actively supporting efforts to reduce

the incidence and impacts of such diseases. For instance, U.S. agencies and

philanthropies are in the forefront of

malaria research, including the search

for vaccines and genome sequencing of

the anopheles mosquitoes and the

malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum.

Efforts such as these should help to

reduce global vulnerability to malaria

and other vector-borne diseases, and

need to be considered in global adaptation strategies. 

The results from this work will serve

the world in the event that humaninduced climate change, through whatever mechanism, increases the potential

for malaria. This work will also be 
Impacts and Adaptation ■ 109

beneficial for U.S. residents because our

nation cannot be isolated from diseases

occurring elsewhere in the world. Of

significant importance, the potential for

disease vectors to spread into the United

States via travel and trade is likely to

increase just as the natural, cold-winter

conditions that have helped to protect

U.S. residents are moderating. 

Potential Adaptation Options 

to Ensure Public Health

The future vulnerability of the U.S.

population to the health impacts of climate change will largely depend on

maintaining—if not enhancing—the

nation’s capacity to adapt to potential

adverse changes through legislative,

administrative, institutional, technological, educational, and research-related

measures. Examples include basic

research into climate-sensitive diseases,

building codes and zoning to prevent

storm or flood damage, severe weather

warning systems to allow evacuation,

improved disease surveillance and 

prevention programs, improved sanitation systems, education of health professionals and the public, and research

addressing key knowledge gaps in 

climate–health relationships.

Many of these adaptive responses

are desirable from a public health perspective, irrespective of climate change.

For example, reducing air pollution

obviously has both short- and longterm health benefits. Improving warning systems for extreme weather events

and eliminating existing combined

sewer and storm-water drainage systems are other measures that can ameliorate some of the potential adverse

impacts of current climate extremes and

of the possible impacts of climate

change. Improved disease surveillance,

prevention systems, and other public

health infrastructure at the state and

local levels are already needed. Because

of this, we expect awareness of the

potential health consequences of climate change to allow adaptation to

proceed in the normal course of social

and economic development.

Potential Impacts in 

Various U.S. Regions

While some appreciation can be

gained about the potential national

consequences of climate change by

looking at sectors such as the six considered above, the United States is a

very large and diverse nation. There are

both important commonalities and

important differences in the climaterelated issues and in the potential economic and environmental consequences

faced by different regions across the

country. Therefore, there are many different manifestations of a changing climate in terms of vulnerability and

impacts, and the potential for adaptation. For example, while all coastal

regions are at risk, the magnitude of the

vulnerabilities and the types of adaptation necessary will depend on particular

coastal conditions and development.

Water is a key issue in virtually all

regions, but the specific changes and

impacts in the West, in the Great Lakes,

and in the Southeast will differ.

With this variability in mind, 20

regional workshops that brought

together researchers, stakeholders, and

community, state, and national leaders

were conducted to help identify key

issues facing each region and to begin

identifying potential adaptation strategies. These workshops were followed

by the initiation of 16 regionally based

assessment studies, some of which are

already completed and others of which

are nearing completion. Each of the

regional studies has examined the

potential consequences that would

result from the climate model scenarios

used in the national level analysis 

(the first finding in the Key National

Findings on page 89), and from model

simulations of how such climate

changes would affect the types and distributions of ecosystems. The following

page provides highlights of what has

been learned about the regional mosaic

of consequences from these studies. A

much more comprehensive presentation of the results is included in the 

National Assessment regional reports

(see http://www.usgcrp.gov).

In summarizing potential consequences for the United States, it is

important to recognize that the U.S.

government represents not only the 50

states, but also has trust responsibility

for a number of Caribbean and Pacific

islands and for the homelands of Native

Americans. In particular, the U.S. government has responsibilities of various

types for Puerto Rico, the American Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands, Guam, and more than 565 tribal

and Alaska Native governments that are

recognized as “domestic dependent

nations.” 

For the island areas, the potential

consequences are likely to be quite similar to those experienced by nearby U.S.

states. With regard to Native Americans,

treaties, executive orders, tribal legislation, acts of Congress, and decisions of

the federal courts determine the relationships between the tribes and the federal government. These agreements

cover a range of issues that will be

important in facing the potential consequences of climate change, including use

and maintenance of land and water

resources. Although the diversity of land

areas and tribal perspectives and situations makes generalizations difficult, a

number of key issues have been identified for closer study concerning how climate variability and change will affect

Native populations and their communities. These issues include tourism and

community development; human health

and extreme events; rights to and availability of water and other natural

resources; subsistence economies and

cultural resources; and cultural sites,

wildlife, and natural resources. Closer

examination of the potential consequences for tribes in the Southwest is the

topic of one of the regional assessments

now underway.

FEDERAL RESEARCH 

ACTIVITIES

The types and nature of impacts of

climate change that are projected to

affect the United States make clear that

climate change is likely to become an
110 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

T

he following key vulnerability and consequence issues were identified across the set of

regions considered in the U.S. National Assessment. Additional details may be found in

the regional reports indexed at http://www.usgcrp.gov.

Northeast, Southeast, and Midwest—Rising temperatures are likely to increase the heat

index dramatically in summer. Warmer winters are likely to reduce cold-related stresses.

Both types of changes are likely to affect health and comfort.

Appalachians—Warmer and moister air is likely to lead to more intense rainfall events in

mountainous areas, increasing the potential for flash floods.

Great Lakes—Lake levels are likely to decline due to increased warm-season evaporation,

leading to reduced water supply and degraded water quality. Lower lake levels are also

likely to increase shipping costs, although a longer shipping season is likely. Shoreline

damage due to high water levels is likely to decrease, but reduced wintertime ice cover is

likely to lead to higher waves and greater shoreline erosion.

Southeast—Under warmer, wetter scenarios, the range of southern tree species is likely

to expand. Under hotter, drier scenarios, it is likely that grasslands and savannas will eventually displace southeastern forests in many areas, with the transformation likely accelerated by increased occurrence of large fires.

Southeast Atlantic Coast, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands—Rising sea level and higher storm surges are likely to cause loss of many coastal ecosystems that now provide an

important buffer for coastal development against the impacts of storms. Currently and

newly exposed communities are more likely to suffer damage from the increasing intensity of storms.

Midwest/Great Plains—A rising CO2 concentration is likely to offset the effects of rising

temperatures on forests and agriculture for several decades, increasing productivity and

thereby reducing commodity prices for the public. To the extent that overall production is

not increased, higher crop and forest productivity is likely to lead to less land being farmed

and logged, which may promote recovery of some natural environments.

Great Plains—Prairie potholes, which provide important habitat for ducks and other

migratory waterfowl, are likely to become much drier in a warmer climate.

Southwest—With an increase in precipitation, the desert ecosystems native to this region

are likely to be replaced in many areas by grasslands and shrublands, increasing both fire

and agricultural potential.

Northern and Mountain Regions—It is very likely that warm-weather recreational opportunities like hiking will expand, while cold-weather activities like skiing will contract.

Mountain West—Higher winter temperatures are very likely to reduce late winter snowpack. This is likely to cause peak runoff to be lower, which is likely to reduce the potential

for spring floods associated with snowmelt. As the peak flow shifts to earlier in the spring,

summer runoff is likely to be reduced, which is likely to require modifications in water management to provide for flood control, power production, fish runs, cities, and irrigation.

Northwest—Increasing river and stream temperatures are very likely to further stress

migrating fish, complicating current restoration efforts.

Alaska—Sharp winter and springtime temperature increases are very likely to cause continued melting of sea ice and thawing of permafrost, further disrupting ecosystems, infrastructure, and communities. A longer warm season could also increase opportunities for

shipping, commerce, and tourism.

Hawaii and Pacific Trust Territories—More intense El Niño and La Niña events are possible and would be likely to create extreme fluctuations in water resources for island citizens and the tourists who sustain local economies.

increasingly important factor in the

future management of our land and

water resources. To better prepare for

coming changes, it is important to

enhance the basis of understanding

through research and to start to consider

the potential risks that may be created

by these impacts in the making of shortand long-term decisions in such areas as

planning for infrastructure, land use, and

other natural resource management. To

promote these steps, the U.S. government sponsors a wide range of related

activities reaching across federal agencies and on to the states, communities,

and the general public.

Interagency Research 

Subcommittees

At the federal level, climate change

and, even more generally, global environmental change and sustainability are

topics that have ties to many agencies

across the U.S. government. To ensure

coordination, the U.S. Congress passed

the Global Change Research Act of

1990 (Public Law 101-606). This law

provides for the interagency coordination of global change activities, including research on how the climate is likely

to change and on the potential consequences for the environment and society. Responsibility is assigned to the

Executive Office of the President and is

implemented under the guidance of the

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). To implement this coordination, OSTP has established several

interagency subcommittees. The U.S.

Global Change Research Program

(USGCRP) provides a framework for

coordination of research to reduce

uncertainties about climate change and

potential impacts on climate, ecosystems, natural resources, and society (see

Chapter 8). A number of the activities of

the other subcommittees are also related

to the issues of vulnerability and adaptation to global climate change:

• Natural Disaster Reduction—This subcommittee promotes interagency

efforts to assemble and analyze data

and information about the occurrence

and vulnerability of the United States

to a wide range of weather- and 

Key Regional Vulnerability and Consequence Issues
Impacts and Adaptation ■ 111

climate-related events. Through its

participating agencies, the subcommittee is also promoting efforts by

communities, universities, and others

to increase their preparation for, and

resilience to, natural disasters. In that

climate change may alter the intensity, frequency, duration and location

of such disasters, enhancing resilience

and flexibility will assist in coping

with climate change.

• Air Quality—This subcommittee promotes interagency efforts to document and investigate the factors

affecting air quality on scales from

regional and subcontinental to intercontinental and global, focusing particularly on tropospheric ozone and

particulate matter, both of which

contribute to climate change as well

as being affected by it.

• Ecological Systems—This subcommittee

promotes interagency efforts to

assemble information about ecological systems and services and their

coupling to society and environmental change. It is sponsoring assessments that document the current

state of the nation’s ecosystems, and

that provide scenarios of future conditions under various management

and policy options, providing a baseline for the National Assessment studies concerning how ecosystems are

likely to change over the long term.

Individual Agency 

Research Activities

In addition to their interagency

activities, many of the USGCRP agencies have various responsibilities relating to the potential consequences of

climate change and of consideration of

responses and means for coping with

and adapting to climate change. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Research sponsored by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

focuses on understanding terrestrial systems and the effects of global change

(including water balance, atmospheric

deposition, vegetative quality, and UV-B

radiation) on food, fiber, and forestry

production in agricultural, forest, and

range ecosystems. USDA research also

addresses how resilient managed agricultural, rangeland, and forest ecosystems

are to climate change and what adaptation strategies will be needed to adjust to

a changing climate. Programs include

long-term studies addressing the structure, function, and management of forest

and grassland ecosystems; research in

applied sciences, including soils, climate,

food and fiber crops, pest management,

forests and wildlife, and social sciences;

implementation of ecosystem management on the national forests and grasslands; and human interaction with

natural resources.

For example, U.S. Forest Service

research has established a national plan

of forest sustainability to continue to

provide water, recreation, timber, and

clean air in a changing environment.

Two goals of this program are to improve

strategies for sustaining forest health

under multiple environmental stresses

and to develop projections of future forest water quality and yield in light of

potential changes in climate. 

Similarly, research at the U.S. Agricultural Research Service (ARS) looks to

determine the impacts of increased

atmospheric CO2 levels, rising temperatures, and water availability on crops and

their interactions with other biological

components of agricultural ecosystems.

ARS also conducts research on characterizing and measuring changes in

weather and the water cycles at local and

regional scales, and determining how to

manage agricultural production systems

facing such changes.

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) supports

in situ and remote sensing and monitoring, research, and assessment to improve

the accuracy of forecasts of weather and

intense storms, and projections of climate change; to improve the scientific

basis for federal, state, and local management of the coastal and marine environment and its natural resources; and to

ensure a safe and productive marine

transportation system. In addition to

direct responsibilities for managing

National Marine Sanctuaries and for

protecting threatened, endangered, and

trust resources, NOAA works with states

to implement their coastal zone management plans and with regional councils to

ensure sustained productivity of marine

fisheries. Climate change and variability

influence all areas of NOAA’s responsibilities, both through direct effects and

through intensification of other stresses,

such as pollution, invasive species, and

land and resource use.

U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services

Through the National Institutes of

Health, the Department of Health and

Human Services sponsors research on a

wide variety of health-related issues

ranging from research on treatments for

existing and emerging diseases to studies

of risks from exposures to environmental

stresses. For example, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

(NIEHS) conducts research on the

effects of exposure to environmental

agents on human health. The core programs of the NIEHS provide data and

understanding for risk assessments due

to changes in human vulnerability and

exposures. Climate change raises issues

of susceptibility to disease and needs for

ensuring public health services. Changes

in crop production techniques can

increase human exposures to toxic

agents and to disease vectors.

U.S. Department of the Interior

The U.S. Department of the Interior

(DOI) is the largest manager of land

and the associated biological and other

natural resources within the United

States. Its land management agencies,

which include the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, and the National Park Service,

cumulatively manage over 180 million

hectares (445 million acres) or 20 

percent of the nation’s land area for a

variety of purposes, including preservation, tourism and recreation, timber 

harvesting, migratory birds, fish,

wildlife, and a multiplicity of other

functions and uses. 
112 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

DOI’s Bureau of Reclamation is the

largest supplier and manager of water in

the 17 western states, delivering water

to over 30 million people for agricultural, municipal, industrial, and domestic uses. The Bureau also generates over

a billion dollars worth of hydroelectric

power and is responsible for multipurpose projects encompassing flood

control, recreation, irrigation, fish, and

wildlife. Management of land, water,

and other natural resources is of necessity an exercise in adaptive management (IPCC 1991). 

Research related to climate change

conducted by DOI’s U.S. Geological Survey includes efforts to identify which

parts of the natural and human-controlled

landscapes, ecosystems, and coastlines

are at the highest risk under potential

changes in climate and climate variability,

water availability, and different land and

resource management practices.

U.S. Department of Transportation 

The U.S. Department of Transportation has recognized that many of the

nation's transportation facilities and

operations, which are now generally

exposed to weather extremes, are also

likely to be affected as the climate

changes. Among a long list of potential

impacts, sea level rise is likely to affect

many port facilities and coastal airports;

higher peak stream flows are likely to

affect bridges and roadways, whereas

lower summertime levels of rivers and

the Great Lakes are likely to inhibit

barge and ship traffic; and higher peak

temperatures and more intense storms

are likely to adversely affect pavements

and freight movement. An assessment

of the potential significance of changes

for the U.S. transportation system and

of guidelines for improving resilience is

being organized.

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) works closely with other

federal agencies, state and local governments, and Native American tribes to

develop and enforce regulations under

existing environmental laws, such as

the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water

Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

In line with EPA’s mission to protect

human health and safeguard the natural

environment, EPA’s Global Change

Research Program is assessing the consequences of global change for human

health, aquatic ecosystem health, air

quality, and water quality. Recognizing

the need for “place-based” information,

these assessments will focus on impacts

at appropriate geographic scales (e.g.,

regional, watershed). In addition, EPA

is supporting three integrated regional

assessments in the Mid-Atlantic, Great

Lakes, and Gulf Coast regions. Finally,

in support of these assessments, EPA

laboratories and centers conduct

research through intramural and extramural programs.

OTHER RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

In addition to federal activities, a

number of local, state, and regional activities are underway. Many of these activities have developed from the various

regional assessments sponsored by the

USGCRP or with the encouragement of

various federal agencies. In addition, the

USGCRP and federal agencies have been

expanding their education and outreach

activities to the public and private sectors, as described in Chapter 9.

Recognizing our shared environment

and the resources it provides, it is important that the nations of the world work

together in planning and coordinating

their steps to adapt to the changing climate projected for coming decades. As

part of this effort, the United States has

been co-chair of Working Group II of

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, which is focused on impacts,

adaptation, and vulnerability. For the

IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the

United States will co-chair IPCC Working Group I on Climate Science. 

The United States is also a leader in

organizing the Arctic Climate Impact

Assessment (ACIA), which is being carried out under the auspices of the eightnation Arctic Council to “evaluate and

synthesize knowledge on climate variability, climate change, and increased

ultraviolet radiation and their consequences.... The ACIA will examine possible future impacts on the environment

and its living resources, on human health,

and on buildings, roads and other infrastructure” (see http://www.acia.uaf.edu/).

These and other assessments need to

continue to be pursued in order to ensure

the most accurate information possible

for preparing for the changing climate.
Chapter 7 

Financial

Resources and

Transfer of

Technology

T

he United States is committed to

working with developing countries

and countries with economies in

transition to address the challenge of

global climate change. The U.S. government has participated actively in the

Technology Transfer Consultative

Process under the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC), and has implemented international programs and

activities to facilitate the transfer of

environmentally sound technologies

and practices that reduce growth in

greenhouse gas emissions and address

vulnerability to climate impacts.

Under Article 4.5 of the UNFCCC,

Annex I Parties, such as the United

States, committed to “take all practicable steps to promote, facilitate and

finance, as appropriate, the transfer of,

or access to, environmentally sound

technologies and know-how to other

Parties.” The Parties defined technology

transfer at the Second Meeting of the
114 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Conference of the Parties to the FCCC

(COP-2) in Geneva as follows: 

The term “transfer of technology”

encompasses practices and processes such

as “soft” technologies, for example, capacity building, information networks, training and research; as well as “hard”

technologies, for example, equipment to

control, reduce, or prevent anthropogenic

emissions of greenhouse gases in energy,

transport, forestry, agriculture, and

industry sectors, to enhance removal by

sinks, and to facilitate adaptation. 

This chapter summarizes efforts

undertaken by the United States in support of its strong commitment to technology cooperation and transfer. It also

reports financial flows from the United

States to different international bodies,

foreign governments, and institutions

that support climate-friendly activities. 

Between 1997 and 2000, the U.S.

government appropriated $285.8 million

to the Global Environment Facility

(GEF). A significant portion of overall

GEF financing has been dedicated to climate-related activities. It provided

nearly $4.5 billion to multilateral institutions and programs, such as the United

Nations and affiliated multilateral banks,

to address climate change and related

international development priorities. 

In addition, during the years

1997–2000 U.S. direct, bilateral, and

regional assistance in support of climate

change mitigation, adaptation, and

crosscutting activities totaled $4.1 billion. Commercial sales for technologies

that supported emissions mitigation and

reduced vulnerability amounted to $3.6

billion. Over this same period, the

United States leveraged $954.3 million

in indirect financing through U.S. 

government-based financial instruments. 

Some important highlights of U.S.

assistance described in this chapter

include:

• The U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation, accepting 52 pioneering

projects in 26 countries, with substantial cooperation and support

from U.S. and host-country governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the private

sector. 

• The U.S. Country Studies Program,

which has helped 56 countries meet

their UNFCCC obligations to

report climate trends.

• The U.S. Agency for International

Development’s Climate Change Initiative, a program to leverage $1 billion in development assistance to

address climate change through

activities supporting renewable- and

clean-energy activities, energy efficiency, forest and biodiversity conservation, and reduced vulnerability

to climate impacts. 

• A variety of public–private partnership programs that provide access to

funding and expertise from the private sector, government, and NGOs

to facilitate cooperation and foster

innovation in climate-friendly sustainable development.

• Targeted programs to assist developing countries that are particularly

vulnerable to the adverse effects of

climate change, through weather

forecasting and warning systems, climate and vulnerability modeling,

and disaster preparedness and

response.

This chapter also provides success

stories to illustrate programs that

demonstrate significant achievement

and innovation in climate change mitigation and adaptation activities under

U.S. leadership. 

TYPES AND SOURCES OF 

U.S. ASSISTANCE

The United States recognizes that

effectively addressing global climate

change requires assistance to developing countries and countries with

economies in transition to limit their

net greenhouse gas emissions and

reduce their vulnerability to climate

impacts. As such, U.S. government

agencies, private foundations, NGOs,

research institutions, and businesses

channel significant financial and technical resources to these countries to

promote technology transfer that helps

address the challenges posed by global

climate change. In addition to the

transfer of “hard” technologies, the

United States supports extensive “soft”

technology transfer, such as the sharing

of technical experience and know-how

for targeted capacity building and

strengthening of in-country institutions. 

U.S. financial flows to developing

and transition economies that support

the diffusion of climate-friendly technologies include official development

assistance (ODA) and official aid (OA),

government-based project financing,

foundation grants, NGO resources, 

private-sector commercial sales, commercial lending, foreign direct investment, foreign private equity

investment, and venture capital. Financial resources are also provided 

indirectly in the forms of U.S. government-supported credit enhancements

(loan and risk guarantees) and investment insurance. U.S. ODA and OA

provide grants for a variety of technology transfer programs, while U.S. government-supported project financing

and credit enhancements, commercial

sales, commercial lending, foreign private equity investment, and foreign

direct investment typically involve

investments in physical capital, such as

plants and equipment.1 Note that this

chapter provides only a partial monetary accounting of the flow types mentioned above, and does not account for

commercial lending, foreign private

equity investment, or venture capital,

except for some brief illustrative examples. Further detail on how these flows

are accounted is provided in the section

of this chapter entitled “U.S. Financial

Flow Information: 1997–2000.”

ODA and OA are important to help

create the economic, legal, and regulatory environment that is necessary to

attract potential foreign investors, and

enable larger flows of private financial

resources to be leveraged in recipient

countries. Private-sector participation is

critical to the successful transfer of

much-needed technical know-how and

technologies in most regions of the

world because it finances, produces,

and supplies most climate-friendly

1 The financial flow types reported in this chapter

reflect those described in chapter 2 of IPCC 2000.
Financial Resources and Transfer of Technology ■ 115

technologies, and thus can provide

much of the human and financial capital for their effective deployment. U.S.

government agencies, foundations,

NGOs, and businesses each play a different role in promoting climate technology transfer to developing and

transition economies. 

U.S. Government Assistance

The U.S. government has facilitated

technology transfer initiatives in developing and transition economies by

forming partnerships and creating

incentives for investment in climatefriendly technologies. U.S. government

climate change projects support core

U.S. development assistance priorities

and the essential elements needed to

achieve sustainable development. These

priorities include supporting economic

growth and social development that

protects the resources of the host country; supporting the design and implementation of policy and institutional

frameworks for sustainable development; and strengthening in-country

institutions that involve and empower

citizenry. 

Official Development 

Assistance and Official Aid

The U.S. government provides ODA

and OA to foreign governments and provides financial support to U.S. and hostcountry NGOs that have expertise in

climate change mitigation and adaptation measures. Through this kind of assistance, the U.S. government has

facilitated technology transfer in developing and transition economies by

advancing the market for climatefriendly technologies and by forming

partnerships and creating incentives for

investment in climate-friendly technologies. U.S. ODA and OA strive to build

local capacity as well as the policy frameworks and regulatory reforms needed to

ensure that developing and transition

economies can grow economically while

limiting their net greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. ODA and OA are especially

important in sectors where private-sector

flows are comparatively low. 

U.S. Agency for International Development. To date, U.S. bilateral assistance

has primarily been implemented

through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the

foreign assistance arm of the U.S. government. Since 1997, USAID has

implemented many new programs in

developing and transition economies to

address climate change. Specifically,

USAID launched a $1 billion Climate

Change Initiative to expand the

Agency’s already extensive efforts to

help developing and transition

economies. The goals of this initiative

have been to help USAID-assisted

countries reduce their net greenhouse

gas emissions and their vulnerability to

the impacts of climate change, and

increase their participation in the

UNFCCC. Between 1998 (when the

initiative began) and 2000, USAID had

committed $478.6 million to support

climate change objectives throughout

its programs and $6.3 million in leveraged credit. (Additional information

about USAID’s Climate Change

Initiative is provided in the following

sections.) USAID also works closely

with other U.S. government agencies

to leverage additional resources and

expertise in addressing a variety of climate-related issues.

U.S. Department of Energy. In addition

to providing funding support for interagency activities such as the U.S.

Initiative on Joint Implementation

(USIJI), the U.S. Country Studies

Program (CSP), and the Technology

Cooperation Agreement Pilot Project

(TCAPP), the U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE) works directly with foreign governments and institutions to

promote dissemination of energy-efficiency, renewable-energy, and cleanenergy technologies and practices.

DOE’s International Clean Cities program, for example, works with foreign

governments, industry, and NGOs to

help them implement viable activities

that address climate change, transportation needs, local air quality, and related

health risks. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) supports bilateral climate

change programs, as well as such international programs as USIJI, CSP, and

TCAPP. EPA is instrumental in designing and implementing innovative 

programs on a variety of global environmental challenges, including efforts

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and

local air pollution and efforts to protect

marine resources. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. The

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

supports international efforts to promote

forest conservation and sustainable

forestry, agroforestry, and improved

agricultural practices. Such activities

have provided meaningful benefits in

addressing both climate change mitigation, through improved carbon sequestration, and adaptation to climate

impacts, often related to food supply and

conservation of agricultural resources.

USDA is also instrumental in establishing food security warning systems. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. The National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) has played an important role as

a world leader in the study and provision

of meteorological and hydrological forecasting and modeling; satellite imaging

and analysis; climate change assessment,

analysis, and modeling; and hazardous

weather prediction. Critical information

gained from these activities is made

available to developing and transition

country partners to address areas of vulnerability to climate-related impacts. 

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration. Like NOAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) provides important

technical information; satellite imaging

and other surveillance; analysis and

research related to climate changes,

predictions, and weather trends; as 

well as analysis of shifts in the conditions of forests, natural areas, and agricultural zones.
116 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Trade and Development Financing

U.S. government agencies also provide trade and development financing to

developing and transition economies.

These agencies facilitate the transfer of

climate-friendly technologies by providing OA, export credits, project financing, risk and loan guarantees, and

investment insurance to U.S. companies

as well as credit enhancements for hostcountry financial institutions. Trade and

development financing leverages foreign

direct investment, foreign private equity

investment, or host-country and nonU.S. private capital by decreasing the

risk involved in long-term, capital-intensive projects or projects in nontraditional

sectors. Several agencies engage in this

type of financing.

Overseas Private Investment Corporation. The Overseas Private Investment

Corporation (OPIC) provides project

financing, political risk insurance, and

investment guarantees for U.S. company

projects covering a range of investments,

including clean-energy projects in developing countries. OPIC also supports a

variety of funds that make direct equity

and equity-related investments in new,

expanding, and privatizing companies in

emerging market economies. 

Export-Import Bank. The Export–

Import Bank (Ex–Im) provides loan

guarantees to U.S. exporters, guarantees the repayment of loans, and makes

loans to foreign purchasers of U.S.

goods and services. It also provides

credit insurance that protects U.S.

exporters against the risks of nonpayment by foreign buyers for political or

commercial reasons. Ex–Im has provided project loans and risk guarantees

related to climate change mitigation for

clean-energy and renewable-energy

projects in developing and transition

economies. 

USAID Development Credit Authority.

USAID’s Development Credit Authority (DCA) provides partial loans and

risk guarantees to host-country and

international financial intermediaries to

encourage project finance in nontraditional sectors, such as energy efficiency.

In addition to this immediate financial

leverage benefit, DCA facilitates longterm relationships with the private sector that outlive USAID’s project

involvement, allowing USAID to contribute to the direction of investment of

the ever-increasing global private capital flows. 

U.S. Trade and Development Agency.

The U.S. Trade and Development

Agency (TDA) helps U.S. companies

pursue overseas business opportunities

through OA. By supporting feasibility

studies, orientation visits, specialized

training grants, business workshops,

and technical assistance, TDA enables

American businesses to compete for

infrastructure and industrial projects in

developing countries. TDA has promoted the transfer of climate-friendly

technology in the energy, environment,

and water resources sectors. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. The

U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)

recently established an International

Clean Energy Initiative that links U.S.

companies with foreign markets to

facilitate dissemination of clean-energy

technologies, products, and services.

The initiative seeks to realize a vision

for enhanced exports of clean-energy

technology. 

NGO Assistance

U.S. foundations and NGOs have

played a pivotal role in helping countries undertake sustainable development projects that have increased their

ability to mitigate and adapt to the

effects of global climate change. These

organizations help improve hostcountry capacity by implementing

small-scale, targeted initiatives related

to the mitigation of and adaptation to

climate change impacts. Following are

some examples of these organizations.

W. Alton Jones Foundation

The W. Alton Jones Foundation 

supports the development of climatefriendly energy in developing countries. The Foundation also seeks to

build the capacity of entrepreneurs in

developing countries to bring renewable-energy technologies to market. 

Rockefeller Brothers Fund

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund seeks

to help developing countries define and

pursue locally appropriate development

strategies. In East Asia, the Fund provides grants for coastal zone management and integrated watershed

planning efforts that will help these

countries prepare to adapt to the effects

of global climate change. 

The Nature Conservancy 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC), in

partnership with the U.S. private sector,2 is working to lower net CO2 emissions in Belize (the Río Bravo Carbon

Sequestration Pilot Project) and Bolivia

(the Noel Kempff Mercado Climate

Action Project) through the prevention

of deforestation and sustainable forest

management practices. These projects

are also helping to conserve local biodiversity, improve local environmental

quality, and meet sustainable development goals. 

Conservation International

Through its innovative partnerships

with donors, businesses, and foundations, Conservation International (CI)

protects biodiversity and promotes costeffective emission reductions with a special emphasis on conservation and

restoration of critical forest ecosystems.

CI implements programs through its

conservation financing mechanism, the

Conservation Enterprise Fund. It has also

established the Center for Environmental Leadership in Business, a CI/Ford

Motor Company joint venture that promotes collaborative business practices

that reduce industry’s ecological impacts,

contribute to conservation efforts, and

create economic value for the companies that adopt them. 

2 U.S. private-sector investors participating in these

activities have included Cinergy, Detroit Edison,

PacifiCorp, Suncor, Utilitree Carbon Company, Wisconsin Electric/Wisconsin Gas (formerly Wisconsin

Electric Power Company), and American Electric

Power.
Financial Resources and Transfer of Technology ■ 117

Private-Sector Assistance

As part of their normal business

practices, many U.S. private-sector

entities seek opportunities to expand

their markets outside of the United

States. As a result, these companies are

contributing to the transfer of climatefriendly technologies through foreign

direct investment, commercial lending,

private equity investment, venture capital investment, and commercial sales of

“hard” technology in developing and

transition economies. Consequently,

many technologies have been transferred to the industrial, energy supply,

transportation, agriculture, and water

supply sectors. 

Foreign direct investment and commercial lending together represent the

primary means for long-term, privatesector technology transfer. U.S. companies like the Global Environment

Fund are making investments in foreign

private equity through such funds as

the Global Environment Strategic

Technology Partners, LP fund. This

Fund seeks investments in U.S.-based

companies whose technologies promote improvements in economic efficiency, the environment, health, and

safety. It seeks new equity investment

opportunities in the range of $1–$2

million.3

Among the member countries of the

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), venture capital—normally reserved for

high-risk, long-term investments—is

most prominent in the United States.

U.S. venture capital firms have begun

to make innovative and high-risk

investments in the environmental sector in developing countries. For example, the Corporación Financiera

Ambiental, capitalized in part by U.S.

investors, invests in small and mediumily use their resources and innovative

technologies and practices to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions and promote

sustainable development. USIJI also

promotes projects that test and evaluate

methodologies for measuring and tracking greenhouse gas reductions and verifying the costs and benefits of projects.

USIJI is the largest and most developed worldwide program exploring the

potential of project-based mechanisms.

It is administered by an interagency

secretariat co-chaired by DOE and

EPA, with significant participation from

USAID and the U.S. Departments of

Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, State,

and Treasury.6

Between 1994 and 2000, the USIJI

project portfolio included 52 projects in

the following 26 countries: Argentina

(3), Belize (2), Bolivia (3), Chile (3),

Columbia (1), Costa Rica (7), Czech

Republic (1), Djibouti (1), Ecuador (1),

El Salvador (1), Equatorial Guinea (1),

Guatemala (3), Honduras (3), India (1),

Indonesia (1), Mali (1), Mauritius (1),

Mexico (4), Nicaragua (1), Panama (1),

Peru (1), Philippines (1), the Russian

Federation (6), South Africa (1), Sri

Lanka (1) and Uganda (2). On-site

implementation has begun for 24 of

these projects. In addition, eight new

projects are currently under development (USIJI 2000).7 To support USIJI,

the U.S. government provided more

than $15.9 million in funding. Seven

projects leveraged a total of $8.5 million in financing from private sources.8

USIJI projects involve a range of participants and are funded through several

different mechanisms. Projects include

participants and technical experts from

U.S. and host-government agencies,

private-sector companies, industry

associations, NGOs, state and local

governments, universities, research

3 http://www.globalenvironmentfund.com/funds.htm. 4 http://www.cfa-fund.com. 5 The concept of “Joint Implementation” (JI) was introduced early in the negotiations leading up to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and was formally adopted into the text

of the UNFCCC. The United States joined more than 150 countries in signing the UNFCCC, which explicitly provides through Article 4(2)(a) for signatories to meet their obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions “jointly with other Parties.” The term has been used subsequently to describe a wide range of possible arrangements between entities in

two or more countries, leading to the implementation of cooperative development projects that seek to reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions

(http://www.gcrio.org/usiji/about/whatisji.html). 6 http://www.gcrio.org/usiji/about/whatisji.html. 7 This designation could mean, for example, that although project implementation activities (e.g., construction and planning) have begun, greenhouse gas benefits have not yet necessarily begun to accrue. The remaining projects have not yet initiated on-site activities, and are classified as “mutually agreed.” 8 Because information about private-sector investment in such projects is proprietary, the full breadth of leveraged funding under USIJI cannot be ascertained. 

sized private enterprises that undertake

environmental projects in Central

America.4 Investments range from

$100,000 to $800,000 per project. 

The United States is the largest producer of environmental technologies

and services. In 2000, commercial sales

of these technologies represented $18

billion of U.S. export flows (Business

Roundtable 2001). Typical U.S. climate

change mitigation and adaptation

exports include wastewater treatment,

water supply, renewable energy, and

heat/energy savings and management

equipment. For mitigation technologies

in the commercial, industrial, residential use, energy supply, and transportation sectors, U.S. developing country

market share in 2000 was estimated to

be $5.3 billion, or 18 percent of the

entire market for these technologies in

developing and transition economies

(USAID 2000b). 

MAJOR U.S. GOVERNMENT 

INITIATIVES

Three major U.S. government initiatives are the U.S. Initiative on Joint

Implementation, the U.S. Country

Studies Program, and the Climate

Change Initiative.

U.S. Initiative on Joint 

Implementation

Launched in 1993 as part of the U.S.

Climate Change Action Plan, the U.S.

Initiative on Joint Implementation

(USIJI)5 supports the development of

voluntary projects that reduce, avoid,

or sequester greenhouse gas emissions.

These projects are implemented

between partners located in the United

States and their counterparts in other

countries. USIJI is a flexible, nonregulatory pilot program that encourages

U.S. businesses and NGOs to voluntar-
118 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

institutes, national laboratories, and

financing organizations. Project funding

is typically based on the anticipated sale

of carbon offsets; revenues generated

directly by project activities (e.g., the

sale of timber, other biomass resources,

and energy); investment capital from

private-sector companies; loans provided by commercial banks and multilateral organizations, such as the

International Finance Corporation; government incentives; endowments; and

grants.9 Past technical assistance under

USIJI generally has consisted of workshops, guidance documents, issue papers,

hotline assistance, and meetings.10 

USIJI projects span the land-use

change and forestry, energy, waste, and

agricultural sectors, and involve a range

of activities that achieve greenhouse

gas benefits. As of 2000, the aggregate

USIJI projects were anticipated to generate greenhouse gas reductions totaling at least 259.8 teragrams of CO2

over a period of approximately 60

years, including 5.7 teragrams of CH4,

and 4.6 gigagrams of N2O. These benefits are equivalent to 350.5 teragrams

of CO2, which are expected to accrue

over project lifetimes that vary from 10

to 60 years if fully funded and implemented (U.S. IJI 2000). For example,

the Noel Kempff Mercado Climate

Action Project, which conserves forest

area in the Bolivian Amazon covering

over 600,000 hectares (nearly 15 million acres), is expected to have a net

carbon benefit of 15 teragrams of carbon over the next 30 years. 

U.S. Country Studies Program

The UNFCCC requires all signatory

countries to provide to the Secretariat

of the Convention a national inventory

of greenhouse gas emissions by sources

and removals by sinks, and to describe

the steps they are taking to implement

the Convention, including mitigation

and adaptation measures. The U.S.

Country Studies Program (CSP) provided assistance to developing and transition economies to help meet this

commitment, and to fulfill U.S. obligations under the UNFCCC to provide

additional financial and technical

resources to developing countries. The

first round of two-year studies began in

October 1993 after the United Nations

Conference on Environment and

Development (UNCED, the Earth

Summit) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. 

The CSP has helped 56 countries

build the human and institutional

capacities necessary to assess their vulnerability to climate change and opportunities to mitigate it. Under the CSP,

the United States has helped countries

develop inventories of their anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions,

evaluate their response options for mitigating and adapting to climate change,

assess their vulnerability to climate

change, perform technology assessments,11 develop National Communications, and disseminate analytical

information to further national and

international discussions on global

strategies for reducing the threat of climate change.12 Technical assistance

was delivered through workshops,

research, major country reports, guidance documents, technical papers, consultations with technical experts,

analytic tools, data, equipment, and

grants to support and facilitate climate

change studies around the world.13 

In all, the CSP has helped other

countries and international institutions

produce over 160 major country

reports, 10 guidance documents, 60

workshop and conference proceedings,

and 16 special journal editions. In 1997,

the CSP completed a report entitled

Global Climate Change Mitigation Assessment

Results for Fourteen Transition and Developing

Countries (U.S. CSP 1997), and in 1998

produced Climate Change Assessments by

Developing and Transition Countries (U.S.

CSP 1998). These and numerous other

reports continue to make important

contributions to the work of the GEF,

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the Subsidiary Bodies to the Convention. 

In response to requests from developing and transition economies, the

U.S. government supplemented the

CSP activity by helping countries

develop their national climate change

action plans. Building on the experience

of the CSP, the Support for National

Action Plans (SNAP) program provided

financial and technical assistance to

help countries use the results of their

climate change country studies to

develop action plans and technology

assessments for implementing a portfolio of mitigation and adaptation measures. An objective of the SNAP phase is

to promote diffusion of mitigation and

adaptation technologies by assisting

countries with assessments of opportunities for technology exchange and diffusion. Countries can use these studies,

action plans, and technology assessments as a basis for developing their

national communications, and to meet

their obligations under the UNFCCC.

Eighteen countries participated in the

SNAP phase of the CSP.14 The CSP

activity has been completed, and the

information gained from the program is

being converted to an electronic database available for future use.

Oversight for the program was provided by the U.S. Country Studies

Management Team, which was composed of technical experts from EPA,

DOE, USAID, USDA, NOAA, the

National Science Foundation, and the

Departments of State, Interior, and

Health and Human Services. Between

1997 and 2000, these agencies jointly

provided a total of $9.4 million in funding for the CSP. 

Climate Change Initiative

In 1998 USAID launched the 

Climate Change Initiative (CCI), a 

9 http://www.gcrio.org/usiji/about/whatisji.html. 10 http://www.gcrio.org/usiji/about/whatben.html. 11 http://www.gcrio.org/CSP/ap.html. 12 http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/international/countrystudies/index.html. 13 http://www.gcrio.org/CSP/ap.html. See also http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/international/countrystudies/index.html. 14 http://www.gcrio.org/CSP/ap.html. These countries include Bolivia, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Philippines, Russian Federation, Tanzania, Thailand,

Ukraine, Uruguay, and Venezuela. See also http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/international/countrystudies/index.html. 
Financial Resources and Transfer of Technology ■ 119

$1 billion, five-year program to collaborate with developing nations and

countries with economies in transition

to reduce the threat of climate change.

This multi-agency initiative supports

activities that address climate change in

more than 40 countries and regions

around the world. Its overarching

objective is to promote sustainable

development that minimizes the associated growth in greenhouse gas emissions and to reduce vulnerability to

climate change. 

Through the CCI, USAID has

helped countries to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from the energy

sector, industries, and urban areas; protect forests and farmland that can

sequester CO2 from the atmosphere;

participate more effectively in the

UNFCCC; and reduce their vulnerability to the impacts of climate change. An

important aspect of the CCI is continued support for technology transfer and

public–private partnerships that work

to achieve the UNFCCC’s goals. The

initiative has strengthened the U.S.

government’s ability to measure the

impact of its global assistance work to

address climate change, and has helped

fulfill U.S. obligations to assist and collaborate with developing countries

under the UNFCCC.

From 1998 to 2000, USAID committed $478.6 million under the CCI to support climate change objectives. In

addition, USAID leveraged approximately $2.9 billion to support climate

change activities in developing and transition economies. This funding was

directly leveraged from other bilateral

and multilateral donors, the private sector, foundations, NGOs, and host-country governments. USAID also indirectly

leveraged $5.3 billion in further investments from outside sources that built on

projects it originally initiated. 

In addition to the funding leveraged

under the CCI, USAID used credit

instruments available through the

Agency’s Development Credit Authority

(DCA) to leverage funding for “climatefriendly” investment in developing and

transition economies. DCA is a credit

enhancement mechanism that provides

greater flexibility in choosing the 

appropriate financing tool, such as loans,

guarantees, grants, or a combination of

these, for climate change and other sustainable development projects. Since its

inception in 1999, DCA credit enhancements have leveraged $6.3 million in 

climate-friendly private-sector financed

activities.

PUBLIC–PRIVATE 

PARTNERSHIP ACTIVITIES

An important U.S. objective is to

leverage the private sector’s financial

and technical capabilities to promote

sustainable development and help

address climate change in developing

and transition economies. The U.S.

government and its partners do this

through programs designed to facilitate dialogue, build partnerships, 

and support direct investment in 

climate-friendly and other sustainable

development projects. Examples of 

such projects include the Technology Cooperation Agreement Pilot

Project, the U.S.–Asia Environment

Partnership, EcoLinks, and several energy and forest conservation partnerships. 

The U.S. government also makes

significant efforts to engage the private

sector directly in many of its ongoing

development assistance programs, both

as key implementation partners and as a

source of supplemental funding for 

climate-related activities. For example,

USAID leveraged over $3 million 

from outside sources to support its

Maya Biosphere Reserve project in

Guatemala, and used a two-to-one

matching-fund program with several

organizations to collect $1.8 million in

additional funding. USAID also helped

the Mgahinga and Bwindi Impenetrable

Forest Conservation Trust in Uganda

grow to approximately $6 million, and

leveraged an additional $1 million from

the Government of Denmark to support

USAID’s community conservation in 25

parishes adjacent to the Bwindi and

Mgahinga National Parks. In Ukraine,

USAID also leveraged $18 million from

the World Bank to support energy efficiency in government buildings in

Kyiv, and helped private sugar mills in

India obtain $66 million in loans to

construct new bagasse cogeneration

units. 

Technology Cooperation 

Agreement Pilot Project

The Technology Cooperation Agreement Pilot Project (TCAPP) was a bilateral program initiated in 1997 as a

collaborative effort of USAID, EPA, and

DOE.15 TCAPP’s primary goal was to

assist developing country partners in

defining clean-technology priorities.

To encourage the transfer of clean technologies, it focused on helping countries remove market barriers and

promote direct private investment.16

The pilot project was successful in

building support for a country-driven,

market-oriented, technology transfer

approach under the UNFCCC. Building on lessons learned from TCAPP,

which ended in 2001, these agencies

continue to support efforts to accelerate

adoption of clean-energy technologies

and practices in partner countries. 

Between 1997 and 2000, the U.S.

government provided $2.9 million to

TCAPP to support technology transfer

activities in Brazil, China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Philippines, and South

Korea. Through TCAPP, the U.S. government has facilitated the development of more than 20 clean-energy

business investment projects in participating countries. Overall, TCAPP has

engaged more than 400 U.S. and international business representatives to collaborate in developing new investment

projects and to assist with implementation of actions to remove market barriers. Examples of TCAPP successes

include renewable-energy policy

reforms in the Philippines, development of an industrial energy services

company (ESCO) pilot program in

Mexico, financial support for sugar mill

co-generation projects in Brazil, training for conducting energy audits in

15 http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/international/techcoop/tcapp.html and http://www.nrel.gov/tcapp. 16 http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/international/techcoop/tcapp.html and http://www.nrel.gov/tcapp.
120 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

17 http://www.climatetech.org/home.shtml. 18 http://www.climatetech.org/about/index.shtmla. 19 http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/international/techcoop/cti.html. See http://www.climatetech.org/home.

shtml. 20 http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/international/techcoop/cti.html. The CTI is intended to implement and

support a number of objectives of the UNFCCC, including, for example, the requirement under Article 4.1.c, which

calls for Parties to “Promote and cooperate in the development, application and diffusion, including transfer, of 

technologies, practices and processes.” Similarly, the CTI furthers the goals of Article 4.5, which states that Annex I

Parties “shall take all practicable steps to promote, facilitate and finance, as appropriate, the transfer of, or access to

environmentally sound technologies and know-how.” http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/international/techcoop/cti.html. 21 http://www.usaep.org/about.htm. 22 US–AEP Secretariat. 23 http://www.usaep.org/about.htm. 

Korea, training to verify the performance of wind turbines manufactured in

China, and development of refinery

energy efficiency pilot projects in

Egypt. 

Climate Technology Initiative

The Climate Technology Initiative

(CTI), a voluntary, multilateral cooperative program, supports implementation

of the UNFCCC by fostering international cooperation for accelerated

development and diffusion of climatefriendly technologies and practices.17

The United States, the European Commission, and 22 other OECD nations

established the CTI at the First Meeting

of the Conference of Parties to the

UNFCCC (COP-1) in Berlin in 1995.18

They agreed to work collaboratively to

“accelerate development, application

and diffusion of climate-friendly technologies in all relevant sectors.”19 

The CTI has become an international model of multilateral support for

technology transfer and has built developing country support for a marketrelevant approach to technology transfer implementation. An important component of the CTI is the reduction of

market barriers and other obstacles to

the transfer of climate-friendly technologies consistent with UNFCCC

objectives.20 Committed to focusing on

areas where it can make a significant

difference, the CTI works in voluntary

partnership with stakeholders, including the private sector, NGOs, and other

international organizations. While the

CTI was designed to address all greenhouse gases from a variety of sources,

its primary focus to date has been on

efficient and renewable-energy technologies. 

Within the U.S. government, support for the CTI is provided jointly 

by DOE, EPA, and USAID. Since 

1998, these agencies have committed

over $2 million to capacity-building

activities, such as providing regional

technology training courses, conducting technology needs assessments, 

and developing in-country technology

implementation plans. These plans

define opportunities for accelerating

implementation of such technologies as

energy-efficient and photovoltaic lighting, efficient motors and boilers,

energy-efficient housing, solar energy,

biomass electricity generation, and natural gas. They also propose actions to

improve technical capacity, increase

access to funding, or reduce policy barriers to investment. More recently, the

CTI has been working with the Southern Africa Development Community

(SADC) to promote investment in climate-friendly technologies through

public–private partnerships. This extensive effort under the CTI’s Cooperative

Technology Implementation Plan program was initiated in response to a

request by SADC energy and environment ministers participating in a March

1999 CTI/Joint Industry seminar in

Zimbabwe. Since then, the United

States has provided approximately

$320,000 in support of this effort.

U.S.–Asia Environmental 

Partnership 

The United States–Asia Environmental Partnership (US–AEP) promotes

environmentally sustainable development in Asia by building public–private

partnerships, developing technical 

capacity, and promoting policy reforms

that lead to environmentally sound

investments, including climate-friendly

technologies. US–AEP is jointly implemented by several U.S. government

agencies, under the leadership of

USAID.21 Overall, US–AEP has supported climate change activities in

Bangladesh, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia, Nepal,

Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam.22

US–AEP was created with the recognition of Asia’s growing commitment to

sustainable development and growing

U.S. interest in sharing its experience,

technology, and management practices.

With the participation of governments,

NGOs, academia, and the private sector, US–AEP has become a flexible,

responsive vehicle for delivering timely

answers to environmental questions.

US–AEP’s mission has been to promote

a “clean revolution” in Asia, transforming how Asia industrializes and protects

its environment through the continuing

development and adoption of less polluting and more resource-efficient

products, processes, and services.23

A significant number of US–AEP

activities address climate change by 

targeting the efficient use of energy

resources, and the conversion of waste

to energy. Other activities include

waste minimization, power-sector

reform, efficient electricity generation

and transmission, and renewable

energy. In 1999, for example, US–AEP

activities led to $6.6 million in confirmed sales of energy-efficiency and

related climate-friendly technologies

and services. Additionally, US–AEP

contributed $1.5 million to the USAID

mission in Bangladesh to launch a major

energy program there. Among its 

technology transfer activities, US–AEP

also directly engaged small- to mediumsized U.S. private-sector firms to 

provide training and demonstrations 

of climate-related technologies and

practices in 11 Asian countries, most of

which involved converting waste to

either energy or products, and 

recycling, recovering, and reusing

materials. Also, 29 climate-related professional exchanges and study tours

were conducted through US–AEP’s 
Financial Resources and Transfer of Technology ■ 121

Environmental Exchange Program. The

majority of these activities addressed

the conversion of waste to energy and

products, and enhancing the efficient

use of energy and resources.

EcoLinks

Launched in 1998, Eurasian–American Partnerships for Environmentally

Sustainable Economies (EcoLinks) is a

USAID initiative to help solve urban

and industrial environmental problems

through improved access to financial

resources, trade and investment, and

information technology. The program

promotes sustainable, market-based

partnerships among businesses, local

governments, and associations in Central and Eastern Europe and in Eurasia

with U.S. businesses to identify environmental problems and adopt best

management practices and technologies. As these partnerships mature,

trade and investment in environmental

goods and services are expected to

increase.24 EcoLinks provides support

through technology transfer and investment activities, partnership grants, and

an information technology initiative.

Countries participating in EcoLinks

include Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech

Republic, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Russia (Far

East), and Ukraine (USAID 2000a and

2001a). 

While EcoLinks does not specifically

target climate change, a large percentage

of its technology transfer activities provide climate benefits. For example,

EcoLinks addresses inadequate wastewater treatment capacity, inefficient and

highly polluting industries and public

utilities, poor waste management practices, and weak environmental management and regulatory systems. Some

examples of EcoLinks’ trade and investment support and grants activities

include: 

• In a Bulgarian municipality—Developing environmental management systems for mitigating greenhouse gas

emissions. 

• In Bulgaria—Developing landfill gas

extraction systems. 

• In Romania—Introducing a comprehensive energy audit methodology.

• In Croatia—Assessing water turbines

in water delivery systems. 

• In all participating countries—Facilitating technology demonstrations in

energy efficiency and alternative

energy.

• In the Czech Republic—Promoting landfill gas utilization technology. 

• In Kazakhstan—Promoting cleaner

production in the oil and gas industry. 

• In Hungary—Facilitating a $1.2 million loan to a joint U.S.–Hungarian

company promoting a new wastewater treatment technology (USAID

2000a and 2001a).

Funding and implementation for

EcoLinks are jointly provided by

USAID, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Environmental Export Council, the Global Environment and

Technology Foundation, the Institute

for International Education, and the

Regional Environment Center for Central and Eastern Europe. Since EcoLinks

began, four grant cycles have been completed, 135 grants have been awarded,

and currently more than 100 active

projects are funded (USAID 2001a). In

2000 alone, EcoLinks awarded 41 Challenge Grants to participating country

institutions totaling nearly $2 million.

EcoLinks also provided over $536,000

in Quick Response Awards in 2000

throughout the region (USAID 2001c).

Energy Partnership Program

Funded by USAID and implemented

by the United States Energy Association (USEA), the Energy Partnership

Program is an important public–private

partnership activity with climate 

benefits. This program establishes practitioner-to-practitioner, multi-year partnerships between U.S. and developing

country utilities and regulatory agencies in Asia, Africa, Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, and the former

Soviet Union. Its main objective is to

provide a mechanism for the U.S.

energy industry (utilities, regulators,

and policymakers) to transfer its experience in market-based energy production, transmission, and distribution to

its international counterparts, while

providing U.S. participants with the

opportunity to learn about the energy

industry in another country. Regional

program activities encompass such topics as regulation, the environment, system reliability and efficiency, renewable

energy, customer service, and financial

management, with an emphasis on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.

Working with USAID, USEA identifies and matches utilities or regulatory

agencies in the United States and overseas according to the compatibility of

their needs and capabilities, the similarity of their energy systems, potential

common business interest, and other

criteria. The benefits to the foreign

partners include the opportunity for

senior executives of foreign utilities and

regulatory agencies to observe how

their U.S. counterparts are structured,

financed, managed, and regulated under

free-market conditions. The program

also offers U.S. energy executives the

opportunity to understand the dynamics of non-U.S. energy markets and to

forge strategic international alliances.

Once selected, the participating organizations execute partnership agreements and commit to cooperate for a

two-year period, during which the partners focus their exchange activities on

several key issues. Following are some

examples of these efforts.

• In India—Corporate restructuring,

increased energy efficiency through

reduction of distribution losses,

improved plant operations, development of India’s National Institute for

Power Systems and Distribution

Management, and joint-venture and

pilot projects with U.S. partners.

• In Indonesia—Managing a distribution

company in a privatized environment, utility decision making from

the private company perspective,

regulation and trading mechanisms,

and privatization of the gas industry.

• In the Philippines—Management and

corporate restructuring, quality of

24 http://www.ecolinks.org/about.html. service, and customer service.
122 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

• In Senegal—Generating capacity

through independent power production, improved efficiency, and

improved system reliability through

enhanced water, fuel, and materials

analysis.

• In Brazil—Delegation of regulatory

powers to Brazil’s states, staff development and training, and generation

resource portfolio planning.

Forest Conservation 

Partnerships

Among the leading U.S. innovative

programs to address climate change

through forest conservation activities

are those being implemented through

NGOs, such as The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Conservation International (CI), often in partnership with

the U.S. government and the private

sector. 

International Partnership Program

TNC’s International Partnership

Program (IPP) aims to strengthen the

capacity of local organizations

through collaborative efforts to preserve biological diversity and forest

resources—efforts with valuable climate benefits. Through the IPP, TNC

now works with more than 70 partner

organizations in 26 countries throughout the Asia Pacific, Caribbean, and

Latin America regions. The program

specifically emphasizes the opportunities for promoting local leadership in

biodiversity conservation, and improving access to technical information and

expertise. As a result of the program,

TNC and its partners have protected

more than 32,375 hectares (over 80

million acres) of land in these locations

that include climate projects to preserve forests, protect carbon sinks, and

provide jobs; ecotourism training that

enables fishermen to thrive by protecting rivers and coastal areas; and community-led marine conservation that

empowers villagers to manage the fisheries that support their livelihoods.25

EcoEnterprise Fund

TNC’s relatively new EcoEnterprise

Fund is a joint initiative with the InterAmerican Development Bank that seeks

to use venture capital to protect natural

areas in Latin America and the

Caribbean. The Fund includes two

components: (1) an investment fund

that provides venture capital to profitable businesses involved in sustainable

agriculture, sustainable forestry, ecotourism, and other environmentally

compatible businesses; and (2) limited

technical assistance funds to provide

business advisory services to prospective projects. Participating companies

are required to collaborate with a nonprofit conservation or community partner, by paying fees for monitoring

services, by sharing profits, or by other

financial arrangements. The Fund

invests in ventures at all stages of development with prospective sales revenues

up to $3 million. It gives preference to

businesses that are unable to secure

financing from conventional sources

due to their small size, the innovative

nature of their business, and/or the

financial risks involved.26

Conservation Enterprise Fund

Similar to TNC’s EcoEnterprise

Fund, CI’s Conservation Enterprise

Fund (CEF) was created in 1999 with a

$1 million loan from the International

Finance Corporation’s Small and

Medium Enterprise Global Environmental Facility program. The CEF is a

development tool that enables conservation enterprises to expand their operations through financial leveraging. CI

acts as the financial intermediary to

provide $25,000–$250,000 in debt 

and equity financing to small and

medium-sized enterprises (possessing

$5 million or less in assets) that are

strategically important to conservation.

For instance, a CEF loan helped coffee

farmers in Chiapas, Mexico, finance

post-harvest expenses in 1999. CEF

funds are also directed to businesses

engaged in agroforestry, ecotourism,

and wild-harvest products.27

U.S. GOVERNMENT 

ASSISTANCE ADDRESSING

VULNERABILITY AND 

ADAPTATION

Assisting countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of

climate change is a high priority for the

United States. The U.S. government

has provided extensive financial and

technical support to such countries for

many years, primarily through a number of programs designed to address

disaster preparedness and relief, food

security and sustainable agricultural

production, biodiversity conservation,

water resources management, and climate research and weather prediction

programs. These activities involve

numerous government agencies, such as

USAID, NOAA, USDA, DOE, and

EPA.

For example, under the U.S. Country Studies Program, the U.S. government has provided support to

developing countries to conduct assessments of climate change vulnerability

and adaptation options. Under the

UNFCCC and pursuant to guidance

from the GEF, donor nations are obligated to help developing nations participate in research and systematic

observation of climate change, assess

their vulnerability, prepare adaptation

strategies, and implement adaptation

measures. The results of these assessments and studies have been highly

successful at promoting more meaningful participation by developing countries in the UNFCCC process, and at

more accurately gauging potential risks

and adaptation measures to address

long- and short-term climate impacts.

More detail on these activities is provided later in this chapter. More specific financial information about U.S.

adaptation activities appears in Appendix C and in the section of this chapter

concerning financial flows.

25 http://nature.org/international/specialinitiatives/. 26 http://nature.org/international/specialinitiatives/ecofund/. 27 http://www.conservation.org/WEB/FIELDACT/C-C_PROG/ECON/fund.htm.
Financial Resources and Transfer of Technology ■ 123

U.S. FINANCIAL FLOW 

INFORMATION, 1997–2000

This chapter presents financial

resource information for the years

1997–2000. This information is also

presented in Tables 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3.

For the table on financial flows to specific countries and regions (Table 7-3 in

Appendix C), this chapter goes beyond

the minimum guidance requirement of

presenting each flow by year, country,

and sector. To provide a more complete

description of these financial flows, further detail has been included to show

both the type of flow and its source. To

provide a framework for analysis, the

chapter follows the approach of Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology

Trends (IPCC 2000). 

Financial information provided in

this chapter is derived from the U.S.

government, foundations, and other

sources of financing to institutions

supporting climate change mitigation,

adaptation, and technology transfer

activities in developing and transition

economies. To a limited extent, this

report also includes information about

financial flows from the U.S. private

sector, which if fully accounted for

would be expected to far outweigh all

other financial flows. Because privatesector financial and investment information is mostly proprietary and not

available to the public, only two of

these flows to climate change mitigation and adaptation activities are even

partly accounted for in the tables that

follow.28 

Recipients of U.S. financial resources include the GEF (reported in

Table 7-1), multilateral institutions

(reported in Table 7-2), as well as

NGOs, universities, research institutions, and foreign governments. While

some of this funding is provided to

U.S.-based institutions, only those

activities providing assistance directly

to developing countries and countries

with economies in transition are

reported here. 

Due to the difficulty in identifying

exact expenditures under most U.S.

government programs, financial information provided in this report refers

only to those activities for which funding was obligated in the given year,

from 1997 to 2000, and in some cases

2001. In most cases, U.S. government

information referred to the fiscal year

for which funding was obligated—i.e.,

beginning October 1 in the year prior

to and ending September 30 in the calendar year in question. For example,

Fiscal Year 1997 began October 1,

1996, and ended September 30, 1997.

In most other cases, including funding

from U.S. foundations and other public and private institutions, information relates to the calendar year in

which funding was awarded. 

Financial Contributions to the

Global Environment Facility

The Global Environment Facility

(GEF) was established in 1991 to forge

international cooperation and finance

actions for addressing critical threats to

the global environment resulting from

the loss of biological diversity, climate

change, degradation of international

waters, and ozone depletion. It also

provides funding to address the pervasive problem of land degradation. The

GEF is now the interim financial mechanism for the Protocol on Persistent

Organic Pollutants and acts as the

financial mechanism of both the Convention on Biological Diversity and the

UNFCCC. The GEF leverages its

resources through co-financing and

cooperation with other donor groups

and the private sector. In 1998, 36

nations pledged a total of $2.75 billion

in funding to protect the global environment and promote sustainable

development. The United States has

been a member country and supporter

of the GEF since 1994. As of December

2000, 167 countries were participating

members of the GEF.29

Aggregated U.S. 

Government Funding 

Between 1997 and 2000, the U.S.

government has provided $285.8 million to the GEF. Recently, President

Bush announced his Administration’s

intention to fully fund payment for

arrears incurred during the previous

Administration. The President’s budget

request for fiscal year 2003 includes $70

million for the first installment of this

payment. 

U.S. government funding to the

GEF, as all donors’ funding, is provided

in aggregate and not differentiated by

type of activity. However, a significant

portion of GEF activities addresses climate change, both directly through the

climate change focal area and indirectly

through other focal areas. For instance,

programs that address biological diversity and coastal zone management also

help address vulnerability and adaptation of numerous species to changing

climatic conditions. Currently approximately 38 percent of GEF grants support activities specifically related to

climate change. This is only surpassed

by GEF support for biodiversity activities, which comprise 42 percent of the

overall portfolio. Table 7-1 provides

annual U.S. contributions to the GEF

for the years 1997 through 2000. 

Financial Contributions to 

Multilateral Institutions 

and Programs 

The U.S. government provides direct

financial support to multilateral institutions, such as the United Nations and

development banks, in recognition of

their important role in meeting the goals

of sustainable economic development,

poverty alleviation, and protection of

the global environment (Table 7-2).

28 The information reported here was collected and analyzed from primary sources, including surveys of various U.S.

government agencies, foundations, NGOs, private-sector companies, and queries of official U.S. government databases. In the case of commercial sales flows, the United States queried the U.S. International Trade Commission’s

database for U.S. export values for the energy (renewables and process efficiency) and water supply/wastewater sectors based on internationally agreed-upon harmonized tariff system codes (HTS). The United States chose the appropriate codes (HTS6 and HTS10) at the most detailed level possible to best select and account for only

climate-friendly exports. The United States referenced both its own and OECD’s analyses on environmental export

values in creating this query (US–AEP 2000, OECD 2000). 29 http://www.gefweb.org/.
The U.S. government provides direct funding to multilateral institutions in support of sustainable economic development, poverty alleviation, and protection of the global environment. 

Institution or Program 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total 

Multilateral Institutions

World Bank 700.0 1,034.0 800.0 771.1 3,305.1

International Finance Corporation 6.7 0 0 0 6.7

African Development Bank 0 45.0 128.0 131.1 304.1

Asian Development Bank 113.2 150.0 223.2 90.7 577.1

European Bank for Reconstruction 11.9 35.8 35.8 35.8 119.3

and Development

Inter-American Development Bank 25.6 25.6 25.6 25.6 102.4

United Nations Development Program 76.0 93.7 97.4 77.9 345.0

United Nations Environment Program* 11.0 9.0 12.0 10.0 42.0

UN Framework Convention on 2.6 3.9 3.8 4.9 15.2

Climate Change

Multilateral Scientific, Technological, 

and Training Programs

World Meteorological Organization* 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 7.5

Intergovernmental Panel on 0.7 1.0 2.7 1.6 6.0

Climate Change

*U.S. total voluntary contributions only from the International Organizations and Programs account.

Since 1997, the U.S. government has provided $285.8 million to the GEF, which has a number of focal areas, including climate change.

Institution 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total 

Global Environment Facility 35 47.5 167.5 35.8 285.8

Note: Information for GEF contributions is based on U.S. annual appropriations by fiscal year (October 1– 

September 30), which does not directly correspond to the calendar year. For example, for calendar year

1997, the figure used is from fiscal year 1997 (October 1, 1996–September 30, 1997).

124 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

TABLE 7-1 Financial Contributions to the Global Environment Facility:

1997–2000 (Millions of U.S. Dollars)

TABLE 7-2 Financial Contributions to Multilateral Institutions and Programs 

(Millions of U.S. Dollars)

Aggregated U.S. Government

Funding for Multilateral Institutions

Between 1997 and 2000, the U.S.

government provided funds to numerous multilateral banks and institutions

through block grants. The funding is

not specifically disaggregated by type

of activity because donors meet their

commitments by providing annual contributions that do not include earmarks

for specific activities. Therefore, those

activities that supported greenhouse

gas emissions mitigation or addressed

vulnerability and adaptation to climate

impacts in developing and transition

economies represent a portion of the

total funding shown. 

Between 1997 and 2000, the U.S.

government also provided $3.9 million

to the supplementary UNFCCC trust

fund to support general participation in

the Convention. These activities

included support for the development

of National Communications by nonAnnex I (developing) countries, as well

as information systems and databases of

national greenhouse gas emission

inventories.

Other Funding for Multilateral

Scientific, Technological, and

Training Programs

In 2000, the U.S. government provided grant funding to the World Meteorological Organization in support of

climate forecasting at the Drought

Monitoring Center in Nairobi, Kenya

(DMC-N). In collaboration with

Columbia University’s International

Institute for Climate Prediction, this

activity seeks to improve the capabilities of the DMC-N to provide reliable

forecasts and early warning of extreme

climate events, such as drought and

floods. 

Bilateral and Regional 

Financial Contributions

This section provides information on

bilateral and regional financial contributions by U.S. foundations, NGOs,

universities, the private sector, and the

U.S. government related to climate

change mitigation and adaptation activities. U.S. financial flows by year, country, and type of activity are presented in

Table 7-3 in Appendix C. 

To provide a more accurate representation of U.S. financial flows, several categories of activities have been

expanded from those in the UNFCCC

guidance, and two new categories have

been added. The new category Support

for FCCC Participation refers to activities

where the United States has supported

developing and transition economies

to participate in international meetings, discussions, and training events.

Crosscutting Activities refers to activities

and programs that cannot be easily

listed under a single category. Many of

these “crosscutting” activities, for

example, simultaneously provide both

mitigation and adaptation benefits. 

It is important to note that U.S.

funding data—collected from hundreds

of offices and divisions of over a dozen

U.S. government agencies, as well as

from numerous other public and private

institutions—are difficult to categorize

into the list of climate change topics

requested in the UNFCCC guidelines.

In many instances, U.S.-funded climate

change activities could have been

included under more than one topic

area. For example, U.S. government

agencies often label most activities that

support industry, transportation, or

waste management as “energy.” In
Financial Resources and Transfer of Technology ■ 125

FIGURE 7-1 Commercial Sales and 

Direct Financial Flows:

1997–2000

From 1997 to 2000, commercial sales and

official development assistance/official

assistance (ODA/OA) accounted for the

largest shares of direct support for activities that address mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.

475

1.4

41.8

7.0

Millions of U.S. Dollars

Commercial Sales

ODA/OA

Loans

Foundation Grants

FDI

NGO Funds

3,647.2

3,595.6

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Note: ODA/OA = official development 

assistance/official assistance; 

FDI = foreign direct investment; 

NGO = nongovernmental organizations.

addition, it is difficult in U.S. government programs to clearly distinguish

between forest and biodiversity conservation programs, or between carbon

sequestration programs (that apply forest and biodiversity conservation

approaches) and adaptation programs

(that seek to protect species endangered

by changing climatic conditions). Similarly, many agricultural programs simultaneously support vulnerability

assessments for climate impacts (i.e.,

severe weather), flood risk, desertification, drought, water supply, and/or food

security. 

While new categories have been

included, most have been added as subcategories of the original headings provided in the UNFCCC guidelines. In

this manner, total figures may be calculated within each main category for

direct comparison with other countries’

submissions. In addition, total figures

may be calculated across regions and

sectors. This more detailed representation of U.S.-funded climate change

activities should promote more transparent and comprehensive understanding of

the kind of support and attention the

United States has provided in responding to climate change through technology transfer and development assistance

programs.

SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL

FLOW INFORMATION FOR

1997–2000 

From 1997 to 2000, the United States

provided more than $4.1 billion in direct

funding to activities in developing and

transition economies. This funding

included greenhouse gas mitigation in

the energy, industrial, and waste management sectors; carbon sequestration

through improved forest and biodiversity conservation and sustainable agriculture; activities that address vulnerability

and adaptation to climate impacts

through improved water supply, disaster

preparedness, food security, and

research; and other global climate

change activities. In the energy and

water supply categories, commercial

sales from private industry have enabled

the transfer of technologies valued at

approximately $3.6 billion.

As shown in Table 7-3 in Appendix

C, funding levels varied considerably

between different categories. In addition to variations in U.S. government

programming practices, this occurred in

part because some categories (such as

energy, water supply, and waste management) are very capital-intensive,

while others (such as forest management or vulnerability assessment)

require less capital investment. 

In addition to direct funding and

commercial sales, the United States

provided $954.3 million in indirect

funding between 1997 and 2000. This

funding contributed to infrastructure

projects and technologies that supported greenhouse gas mitigation in the

energy sector. 

Funding Types

This chapter reports direct support

in the form of official development

assistance (ODA) and official assistance

(OA), grants from foundations and

other philanthropic institutions, U.S.

government-backed project financing,

NGO funds, foreign direct investment

(FDI), and commercial sales from private industry.30 From 1997 to 2000,

commercial sales and ODA/OA

accounted for the largest share of direct

support, followed by loans, foundation

grants, FDI, and NGO funding (Figure

7-1). ODA, OA, grants, and to some

extent NGO funds were directed to foreign governments, NGOs, and research

institutions, as well as to U.S.-based

institutions working in developing

countries and transition economies. 

It is estimated that U.S. FDI comprises the vast majority of funding that

goes to climate change-related activities in developing and transition

economies. However, because most

information about the financing and

implementation of private-sector projects is proprietary, very little FDI is

reported under Table 7-3. What is

reported generally includes project

development and implementation of

USIJI energy and land-use mitigation

projects. For these particular projects,

annual financial contributions have

ranged from $9,000 to $1.8 million per

project. 

U.S. government-based project

financing has supported financing for

private-sector infrastructure development. Loan amounts typically ranged

from $60 million to $123 million per

project, often providing a portion of the

full project capitalization in conjunction with other funding sources. U.S.

commercial sales of climate-friendly

30 Justification for including commercial sales in this

analysis of financial flows is derived from guidance

provided in chapter 2 of IPCC 2000: “commercial

sales refer to the sale (and corresponding purchase),

on commercial terms, of equipment and knowledge.”
126 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

FIGURE 7-3 Regional and Global Direct, Commercial Sales, and Indirect

Financial Flows: 1997–2000

From 1997 to 2000, the United States provided billions of dollars for mitigation, adaptation,

and other climate change activities, specifically: $4.1 billion in direct financing, $3.6 billion

for commercial sales of technologies and services, and $943 million in indirect financing. Millions of U.S. Dollars

0.0

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

134.0

390.9

Commercial Sales

Direct

Indirect

0.0

275.4 0.0

1,910.6

1,133.7

425.5

1,526.4

2,044.0

276.9

76.2

61.7

Africa Asia/Near East Europe & 

Eurasia

Latin America

& Caribbean

Global

467.1

FIGURE 7-2 Indirect Financial Flows in

the U.S. Energy Sector:

1997–2000

Indirect flows, which includes risk guarantees, loan guarantees, and investment

insurance, has contributed to the development of large private-sector energy infrastructure projects. Indirect flows represent

guarantees to financial institutions and

companies that the United States will cover

the guaranteed amount of the total losses

resulting from loan defaults, or other risks to

a creditor or company.

442

344.8

Millions of U.S. Dollars

Insurance

Risk Guarantees

Loan Guarantees

167.5

0

100

200

300

400

500

flows typically have ranged from $3.1

million to $200 million per project.

Regional Trends

From 1997 to 2000, the United

States provided over $1.1 billion to Asia

and the Near East, $2 billion to Latin

America and the Caribbean, $390.9

million to sub-Saharan Africa, $276.9

million to Europe and Eurasia, and

$275.4 million to other global programs

for the direct financing of mitigation,

adaptation, and other climate change

activities. With commercial sales of

technologies and services, the United

States provided $1.9 billion to Asia and

the Near East, $1.5 billion to Latin

America and the Caribbean, $134.0

million to sub-Saharan Africa, and

$76.2 million to Europe and Eurasia.

With respect to indirect financing, the

United States provided $425.5 million

to Asia and the Near East, $467.1 million to Latin America and the

Caribbean, and $61.7 million to Europe

and Eurasia (Figure 7-3). 

Funding has varied across regions in

part because of differences between

regional development priorities and

because of the types of financial

resources that have been mobilized for

that region. A region’s or subregion’s

development needs, geography, and

investment environment often determine the types of climate change mitigation and adaptation projects that the

United States funds. In addition, the

distribution of the three dominant

financial flow types—ODA, loans, and

commercial sales—explains the huge

environmental goods and services capture much of the “hard” technology or

equipment exported to developing and

transition economies. Annual commercial sales flows have ranged from $2,505

to $75.6 million per transaction. 

Indirect financing, which includes

risk guarantees, loan guarantees, and

investment insurance, has contributed

to the development of large private-sector energy infrastructure projects (Figure 7-2). The difference between direct

and indirect financing is that the indirect flows do not represent actual transfers of cash, but rather guarantees to

financial institutions and companies

that the United States will cover the

guaranteed amount of the total losses

resulting from loan defaults, or other

risks to a creditor or company. Indirect
Financial Resources and Transfer of Technology ■ 127

variances in the magnitude of financial

flows across regions and across time. In

particular, a few loans that supported

energy-sector activities far exceeded

the relative funding levels provided

through ODA, and actually doubled or

tripled the baseline flows to a particular

region. These activities have tended to

be infrequent, one-time loans for single

projects in a single country. 

For example, from 1997 to 2000 in

Asia and the Near East, the United

States provided the energy sector

$504.5 million in direct financing,

$411.2 million in commercial sales, and

$425.5 million in indirect financing. For

the water supply sector, the United

States provided $337.7 million in direct

financing and $1.5 billion in commercial sales of relevant equipment and

technologies. This funding distribution

is representative of the region’s experience with water supply constraints and

increasing energy demand. In another

example, to support forestry-related

activities, the United States provided

direct financing of $144.3 million to

Latin America and the Caribbean,

$121.2 million to Africa, and $121.2

million to Asia and the Near East over

the same period. These regions boast

significant potential for conservation of

carbon stocks and other climatefriendly forest and biodiversity conservation opportunities (see Appendix C).

Mitigation Activities

From 1997 to 2000, the United

States spent $2.4 billion overall on 

climate change mitigation in the form

of ODA, U.S. government-backed

loans, foundation grants, NGO funds,

FDI, and commercial sales. The United

States also indirectly financed climate

change mitigation activities in the

amount of $954.3 million. Following

the UNFCCC guidance for Table 7-3

(in Appendix C), the mitigation activities reported here include emissionreduction initiatives in the energy,

transportation, forestry, agriculture,

waste management, and industrial sectors. To more accurately represent

U.S.-supported activities, the forestry

sector has been divided into two subcategories: forest conservation and biodiversity conservation (Figure 7-4).

Energy 

The majority of U.S. spending on

mitigation of climate change from 1997

to 2000 was directed toward energyrelated projects, totaling approximately

$1 billion in direct financing and

$862.4 million in commercial sales.31 In

indirect financing, the United States

leveraged $954.3 million for climatefriendly investments, all of which went

to the energy sector (see Appendix C).

U.S. support for climate technology

transfer in this sector has varied widely

throughout the world to include 

complex, large-scale infrastructure

investment and development; extensive

31 In selecting commercial sales transactions applicable to the energy sector, the U.S. limited its query to equipment for heat and energy management and renewable energy plants, as

determined by the US–AEP study that examined U.S. environmental exports (US–AEP/USAID 2000). These commodities included (1) photosensitive semiconductor devices/photovoltaic cells and light-emitting diodes; (2) heat-exchange units, nondomestic, nonelectric; (3) electric-generating sets; (4) parts of hydraulic turbines and water wheels, including

regulators; (5) hydraulic turbines and water wheels of a power exceeding 10,000 KW; (6) instantaneous or storage water heater, nonelectric; (7) hydraulic turbines and water wheels

of a power exceeding 1,000 KW but not exceeding 10,000 KW; and (8) hydraulic turbines and water wheels of a power not exceeding 1,000 KW. 

From 1997 to 2000, the United States directly financed $2.4 billion and indirectly financed

$954.3 million for activities to mitigate the effects of climate change. 

FIGURE 7-4 U.S. Financial Flows by Mitigation Sector and 

Financial Flow Type: 1997-2000

Millions of U.S. Dollars

0

200

400

600

2.7 Foundation Grants

1.8 FDI

0.5 Foundation Grants

24.8 ODA/OA

Energy

Transportation

Forest Conservation 25.1 Foundation Grants

5.2 FDI

1.4 NGO Funds

0.5 Foundation Grants

Biodiversity Conservation

4.1 Foundation Grants

0.1 Foundation Grants

Agriculture

Waste Management

Industry

25.1 ODA/OA

337.4 ODA/OA

27.6 ODA/OA

40.8 ODA/OA

19.0 ODA/ OA

Government-Financed Loans

Commercial Sales

ODA/OA

FDI

Foundation Grants

NGO Funds

Commercial Sales 862.4

ODA/OA 522.5

Government -Financed Loans 475.0

Note: ODA/OA = official development assistance/official assistance; FDI = foreign direct investment; 

NGO = nongovernmental organization.
128 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

32 Given the current U.S. congressional restrictions on

resource allocation for all efforts aimed at implementing Kyoto Protocol provisions, the USDOT/FHWA

activities are focused only on raising the level of

awareness among the potential domestic and international stakeholders.

capacity building for power-sector 

policy and regulatory reform; improvements in the development and propagation of energy-efficiency, renewableenergy, and clean-energy technologies

and practices; and conservation practices at the municipal and household

levels. U.S. support for this sector has

often included overlap with the 

transportation, industrial, and waste

management sectors. 

U.S. support for technical assistance

and training has contributed to policy

reforms and increased energy-efficient

operations in the power and industrial

sectors. For example, USAID supported

a number of significant utility restructuring and regulatory reform activities,

including adjustments to energy tariffs

and fuel pricing in countries in Asia, the

Near East, Europe, and Eurasia. These

efforts have largely resulted in improved

market efficiency, cost-effective management, and reduced greenhouse gas

emissions through the use of innovative

technologies, improved management

practices, and incentives that increase

the efficiency of energy production, distribution, and consumption. Among its

numerous energy-efficiency activities

worldwide, USAID has worked with the

Egyptian government to provide technical assistance to enhance power station

efficiency, reduce losses in transmission,

and introduce time-of-day metering to

regulate the flow of electricity. These

efforts have resulted in considerable savings in annual carbon dioxide (CO2)

emissions. 

USAID also partnered with the

United States Energy Association to

establish an International Climate

Change Project Fund that provides support to U.S. investor-owned utilities and

other energy companies to implement

specific projects that mitigate emissions

in USAID-assisted countries in Asia,

Africa, and Latin America. One of the

Fund’s projects selected in 2000 is the

SENELEC Network Power Generation

Efficiency Project in Senegal which,

through partnering with the U.S.-based

Electrotek Concepts, will increase the

efficiency, reliability, and power quality

of the primary electricity supply system

operated by this national electric utility.

This project is expected to eliminate 315

gigagrams of CO2 over its 10-year lifetime and reduce fuel imports to Senegal

by an estimated 140,000 barrels a year.

In Mexico, USAID’s Steam and Combustion Efficiency Pilot Project has 

promoted high-efficiency motors, compressors, pumps, and lighting to demonstrate the linkages between reducing

emissions and increasing energy efficiency. In 1999, this effort resulted in a

reduction of more than 325 gigagrams of

CO2 emissions. 

U.S. support for broader infrastructure financing has also helped advance

the use of renewable energy, energy

efficiency, and clean energy in developing and transition economies. For

example, the Export–Import Bank of

the United States has financed combined-cycle plants in Latin America and

the Caribbean, Asia, the Near East,

Europe, and Eurasia. These plants

exhibit high efficiency as they combine

the use of natural gas and a low heat

rate, which results in lower CO2 production per kilowatt-hour of generated

electricity. Support from U.S. power

companies and NGOs financed the

pilot phase of a rural solar electrification project in Bolivia, which is

expected to avoid 1.3 gigagrams of

CO2 over its 20-year lifetime. In Bulgaria, USAID’s Development Credit

Authority program provided a partial

loan guarantee for United Bank of Bulgaria to enable consumers in Bulgaria to

finance municipal energy-efficiency

improvements. As a result of this credit

enhancement program, USAID leveraged $6.3 million in private capital at a

cost of $435,000. 

In addition to supporting large projects focused on energy supply, the

United States has addressed the

demand side of the power sector. For

example, EPA has collaborated with

authorities in China to reduce energy

use by establishing minimum energyefficiency levels for fluorescent lamp

ballasts and room air conditioners. EPA

has also worked to increase the energyefficiency levels of refrigerators. Plans

are now underway to strengthen the

Chinese voluntary energy-efficiency

label through technical cooperation

with the U.S. ENERGY STAR® program—

an initiative that promotes energyefficient solutions for businesses and

consumers that save money as well as

the environment. 

Transportation

From 1997 to 2000, the United

States spent approximately $25.3 

million in ODA funding on climaterelated activities in the transportation

sector (see Appendix C). Note that a

significant number of U.S. government

projects supporting climate-related

activities in the transportation sector

are counted under “Energy.” 

U.S. international programs to

address climate change through transportation have included efforts to

improve engine and fuel efficiency, promote improved transportation management and planning, support alternative

transportation systems, and introduce

cleaner fuels and alternative-fuel technologies. For example, several USAID

programs operating in Egypt, India, the

Philippines, and Mexico seek to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions from motor

vehicles, while also reducing lead, particulates, and smog-forming emissions.

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Center for Climate Change and

Environmental Forecasting has supported strategic planning, policy

research, communication, and outreach, as well as the preliminary assessment of project-specific international

emission-trading opportunities in India,

China, Indonesia, and Brazil.32 DOE

and the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of

China have been collaborating on

research and development of electric

and hybrid electric vehicle technology. 

The U.S. Trade and Development

Agency (TDA) has financed numerous

feasibility studies, orientation visits,

and other training and technical 
Financial Resources and Transfer of Technology ■ 129

assistance activities for railway, mass

transit, and transportation system efficiency improvements throughout the

developing world. For example, TDA

provided $220,000 for a feasibility

study of the light rail project on the

island of Cebu—the fastest-growing

region and second-largest metropolitan

area in the Philippines.

Forestry

The United States spent over $439.4

from 1997 to 2000 on climate change

activities in the forestry sector (see

Appendix C). This funding included

traditional forest conservation and

management activities, biodiversity

conservation, and related natural

resource management activities that

improved the technical capacity of

national and local governments,

NGOs, and local communities to manage and conserve forests. The United

States has also provided direct investment in protection of natural areas to

reduce the rate of loss of, preserve, or

increase carbon stock capacity. Overall,

the majority of resources expended in

this area went toward biodiversity conservation programs.

Forest Conservation. From 1997 to

2000, the U.S. government spent $96.7

million on forest conservation in

Central and South America, Africa,

Asia, and Europe and Eurasia (Figure 

7-5). For example, USAID has

addressed rapid deforestation in the

Amazon tropical rain forest by funding

scientific studies that use satellite

imagery to analyze deforestation trends

to better understand specific risks from

drought, illegal logging, accidental

fires, and agriculture practices. 

In Mexico, following the 1997 and

1998 wildfire disasters, USAID, the

Mexican government, and local NGOs

jointly developed a wildfire prevention

and land restoration program to mitigate environmental, health, and climate

effects from forest fires. USAID helped

lead several efforts to adopt policies

discouraging slash-and-burn agriculture, improve collaboration between

Mexico’s federal government and

NGOs, and provide training on fire

prevention and wildfire management.

As a result, local fire brigades were able

to control and extinguish fires much

more effectively, and in 1999 Mexico

experienced a decrease in the area normally affected by fires. Efforts are

underway to assess the amount of carbon potentially sequestered as a result

of Mexico’s fire restoration efforts. 

By working with communities to

establish clear boundaries for community management, control agricultural

clearing, and implement monitoring

plans, USAID facilitated the transfer of

over 625,000 hectares (over 15 million

acres) of forest to local management in

the Philippines. After four years, about

5.5 million hectares of forestland—over

60 percent of the country’s open-access

forests—are now under community

management. Without such interventions, the country’s forest cover would

have declined by an estimated 6 percent during the same period. 

Through the USIJI program, the

U.S.-based NatSource Institutional

Energy Brokers, the Costa Rican Ministry of the Environment and Energy,

and the Costa Rican National Parks

Foundation have begun implementing

the Territorial and Financial Consolidation of Costa Rican National Parks and

Biological Reserves Project. This “certified tradable offset” project facilitates

the transfer of primary forest, secondary forest, and pasture lands that have

been declared National Parks or Biological Reserve to the Costa Rican Ministry of Environment and Energy

(MINAE). Over its 25-year life, the

project is expected to avoid an 

FIGURE 7-5 Direct, Commercial Sales, and Indirect Financial Flows by 

Mitigation/Adaptation Sector: 1997–2000

From 1997 to 2000, the majority of U.S. spending on climate change mitigation activities was

directed toward energy-related projects, totaling approximately $1 billion in direct financing, $862.4 million in commercial sales, and $954.3 million in indirect financing for climatefriendly investments. 862.4 1,002.1 954.3 25.396.7 342.7 31.7 40.8 19.051.8 38.3 13.7 10.2 25.4 298.4 406.9 2,784.0 1,718.2

Energy

Transportation

Forest Conservation

Other Vulnerability Assessments

Biodiversity Conservation

Agriculture

Waste Management

Industry

Water Supply

Disaster Preparedness

Droughts & Desertification

Coastal Resources

Coral Reefs

UNFCCC

Indirect

Direct

Commercials Sales

Millions of U.S. Dollars

0

500

1,000

1,500

Crosscutting
130 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

estimated 57 teragrams of CO2 emissions.

Biodiversity Conservation. From 1997

to 2000, the U.S. government spent

$342.7 on biodiversity conservation

activities, such as establishing and managing protected areas, providing training in habitat conservation, and

promoting sustainable resource management (Figure 7-5). Funding for biodiversity activities has come primarily

from USAID, USIJI projects, and private foundations, usually in partnership

with international NGOs, research

institutions, and host-country governments and organizations. 

USAID’s Parks-in-Peril program, a

partnership with The Nature Conservancy and local NGOs, has become

Latin America’s largest, most successful

site-based conservation effort. Working

in 37 protected areas in 15 countries,

this program has helped protect over 11

million hectares (more than 271 million

acres) of natural forests, of which 6.3

million hectares (more than 155 million

acres) contain substantial carbon stocks. 

In Bulgaria, USAID’s GEF Biodiversity Project has strengthened a network

of protected areas, with a specific focus

on the Rila and Central Balkan National

Parks, totaling 179,622 hectares (over 4

million acres). The project has provided

policy development assistance, promoted sustainable economic use of biological resources, and built local capacity

to manage the parks. 

In similar efforts, the MacArthur

Foundation’s Ecosytems Conservation

Policy grant program has supported initiatives in Nepal and Tibet totaling

$100,000. The March for Conservation

program has supported coastal zone biodiversity and conservation education in

Sri Lanka ($75,000), and Terra Capital

Investors Limited’s venture capital fund

($1 million) invests in Latin American

businesses that involve the sustainable

use of natural resources and foster the

preservation of biological diversity. 

In Guatemala, the home of the Maya

Biosphere Reserve and one of the largest

tracts of intact tropical forests, USAID

has worked to reduce deforestation rates

and promote carbon sequestration. By

supporting improved land- and

resource-use practices, an improved

policy framework, and stronger local

institutions through technical assistance, training, and farmer-to-farmer

extension networks, this work had led

to the protection of approximately

700,000 hectares (more than 17 million

acres) in 1999. 

USAID’s work in Indonesia took

steps to protect the West Kalimantan

tropical broadleaf forest, where approximately 43,000 hectares (more than 1

million acres) are now under effective

management as villagers organize, create maps of, and impose rules on harvesting the natural resources. In 2000,

USAID also supported resource valuation studies for communities in Indonesia’s Bunaken National Park to

demonstrate the relative monetary

value per hectare and per family that

biologically diverse forests have, as

compared with oil palm monoculture

forests.

In Madagascar, USAID has sought

to preserve biologically diverse carbon

stocks and reduce their rate of loss.

Working with the National Association

for Management of Protected Areas

(ANGAP) and the Ministry of Water

and Forest (MEF), USAID supported

the growth and sound management of

Madagascar’s Protected Area Network,

as well as forests and important biological areas outside of the network. These

programs specifically focus on protection and improved management of

existing areas of biological importance,

reducing slash-and-burn agriculture,

and increasing agroforestry and tree

nursery efforts to promote reforestation

of multiple-use, high-economic-value,

or indigenous tree species. 

Agriculture

Between 1997 and 2000, the United

States spent approximately $31.7 million on climate-related activities in agriculture (see Appendix C). These

financial resources have promoted

agroforestry, reduced tillage, erosion

control, introduction of perennial crops

and crop rotation, improved nitrogen

and soil management, use of organic

fertilizers, and improved management

of agrochemicals. 

In Uganda and Madagascar, for

example, USAID has supported sustainable farming systems and agroforestry to

improve agricultural output while

enhancing the carbon storage potential

in soils and crops. In Kenya, the Ford

Foundation has supported Winrock

International’s Institute for Agricultural

Development to strengthen associations

of women professionals in agriculture

and the environment in East Africa. The

Institute has enhanced food security and

environmental conservation by preparing women for leadership roles in 

agricultural and environment-related sciences.

In Chiapas, Mexico, a ground-breaking partnership between Starbucks Coffee and Conservation International (CI)

begun in 1998 has promoted cultivation

that incorporates biodiversity protection

and environmentally sustainable agricultural practices. Under the partnership,

CI assists farmers in the El Triúnfo Biosphere Reserve, in the Sierra Madre de

Chiapas, to produce coffee under the

shade of the forest canopy using practices that avoid the need to clear

forested lands. 

Waste Management

The United States spent over $40.8

million from 1997 to 2000 on activities

supporting greenhouse gas mitigation

in the waste management sector (see

Appendix C).33 These activities primarily addressed the development and

implementation of waste-to-energy

programs involving the recovery of

greenhouse gases, such as methane

from solid waste disposal facilities. For

example, US–AEP and Conservation 

Services Group (CSG) Energy Services

jointly implemented an energyefficiency technology and pollution

prevention project in India in partnership with several universities and India’s

33 Financial information on some waste management initiatives was not available, especially with regard to private-sector activities. Note, a considerable number of

industrial-sector activities have been included under

“Energy,” above.
Financial Resources and Transfer of Technology ■ 131

Thane-Belapur Industries Association.

The partners will use the CSG grant to

assess the potential of selected landfill

methane-recovery sites to mitigate

greenhouse gas emissions. 

Under USIJI, the regional Argentinean government agency, Coordinación Ecológica Area Metropolitana

Sociedad del Estado (CEAMSE) and

U.S.-based Pacific Energy Systems,

Inc., have developed a landfill gas management project in Greater Buenos

Aires, where up to 5 million tons of

waste are deposited annually. Studies

initiated under the project estimate that

capturing and combusting 70 percent of

the gas generated from the waste in the

CEAMSE landfills could result in an

annual net emission reduction of 4 teragrams of CO2 equivalent. Further

reductions could be achieved as the gas

is used to displace combustion of more

carbon-intensive fossil fuels.34

Industry

Between 1997 and 2000, the United

States spent more than $19 million on

climate-friendly activities in the industrial sector (see Appendix C).35 These

activities have improved industrial

energy efficiency, environmental management systems, process efficiency, and

waste-to-energy programs, particularly

in energy-intensive industries. 

In Mexico, for example, USAID and

DOE have collaborated to develop

greenhouse gas emission benchmarks for

key industries, as well as energyefficiency initiatives in the public sector.

These efforts have demonstrated that

investments in resource management

systems are both technically and economically sound, paying for themselves

through energy and other savings within

a few years. In the Philippines, USAID

supported the adoption of ISO 14000

certification, a voluntary system that

promotes environmental management

improvements in production practices at

a Ford Motor Company plant and

throughout its chain of 38 suppliers. In

Chennai, India, USAID worked with a

starch manufacturing company in the

Salem District of Tamil Nadu to recover

methane emissions from its tapioca-processing effluents. A USAID-commissioned study found that the 800

manufacturing facilities of Salem produce enough methane to generate about

80 MW of power, compelling the local

chamber of commerce to implement a

demonstration project in 1998 with

USAID assistance to convert the recaptured methane for fuel use.

Other U.S. government facilitation

of climate-friendly industrial development has involved the transfer of U.S.

equipment and technical expertise. In

1997, the U.S Trade and Development

Agency provided a $600,000 grant to

the Ukrainian Ministry of Coal to study

the feasibility of the production of

coalbed methane and utilization of

gases to generate electric power in the

Donetsk Basin. The U.S. firm International Coal Bed Methane Group (composed of Black Warrior Methane and

E.L. Lassister) carried out the study.

U.S. exports to the project consisted of

drilling and completion equipment,

drilling rigs, service rigs, combustion

power turbines, logging and geophysical equipment, and engineering and

legal services. In 2000, the Department

of Commerce, through its International

Clean Energy Initiative, began promoting the transfer of U.S.-developed

waste recovery technology to developing countries. A trade mission to China

involved the participation of the Asian

American Coal Company, which has

developed technology that captures

coalbed methane for conversion to 

natural gas.36

Adaptation Activities

From 1997 to 2000, the United States

spent over $5 billion on climate change

vulnerability and adaptation activities.

These activities, funded mostly by commercial sales and ODA, are presented in

Appendix C under the categories provided by the UNFCCC guidance: capacity building, coastal zone management,

and other vulnerability assessments.

However, to more accurately represent

the numerous adaptation activities the

United States has supported that are relevant to climate change, the following

subcategories were created under capacity building: water supply, disaster preparedness and response, and drought

and desertification. Under coastal zone

management, the following two categories were created: coastal resources

and coral reef protection.

Capacity Building

From 1997 to 2000, the United States

provided $4.9 billion in funding for climate change activities in the broad category of capacity building. The major

sources of funding for capacity building

came from commercial sales for much of

the technology transferred in the “water

supply” subcategory, while ODA and

foundation grants funded disaster preparedness and response programs and

droughts and desertification programs.

Water Supply. Between 1997 and 2000,

the United States spent approximately

$406.9 million in direct financing for

water supply programs primarily directed at the development and improvement

of water supply and wastewater treatment infrastructure.37 Hard technologies

transferred through commercial sales

amounted to approximately $2.8 billion38 (Figure 7-6). Following are some

examples of this financial and technical

assistance.

34 USIJI Project Descriptions–CD. 35 A considerable number of industrial-sector activities have been included under “Energy,” above. 36 ITA Web site. 37 IPCC Working Group II included water supply as a capacity-building category in IPCC 2001a, based on the integrated water resource management approaches identified for adapting to climate change impacts in the hydrology and water resources sector . 38 In selecting commercial sales relevant to the water supply sector, the United States limited its query to wastewater treatment equipment, an IPCC-determined supply-side option for

adapting to climate change impacts in the hydrology and water resources sector (IPCC 2001a, p. 220). Based on the methodology of a US–AEP study that examined U.S. environmental exports (US–AEP/USAID 2000), the United States chose to include sales of the following types of commodities: (1) mats, matting, and screens of vegetable plaiting materials; (2) rotary positive displacement pumps; (3) centrifugal pumps; (4) filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus for water; (5) filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus

for liquids; and (6) machines for mixing, kneading, crushing, grinding, etc.
132 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

In mid-1998, USAID provided emergency assistance to the Zai Water

Treatment Plant in Jordan, which is the

source of drinking water for 40 percent

of Amman’s population. In coordination

with Japan and Germany, USAID has

funded efforts to expand and upgrade

the plant to reduce the likelihood of

future water crises, and is funding the

rehabilitation of 27 contaminated

springs and wells. In Egypt, USAID is

continuing work on the rehabilitation

and expansion of the southern portion

of Cairo’s Rod El Farag water treatment

plant, a $97.4-million project. As a

result of this work, four million Cairo

residents now benefit from a more reliable and safer water supply service. 

In 1997, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (TDA) provided

$168,500 to FMI International to conduct a feasibility study for the development of a wastewater treatment plant in

northeastern Estonia. In another example, at the request of the Royal Thai

government, TDA provided $40,000

for an orientation visit for 16 Thai officials interested in U.S. flood control

technology in 1997. That same year,

TDA also granted $367,000 for a feasibility study on water-loss reduction for

the city of Curitiba in Parana, Brazil. 

Disaster Preparedness and Response.

Between 1997 and 2000, the United

States spent $1.7 billion on climaterelated disaster preparedness, mitigation, and relief (see Appendix C). The

United States recognizes that prevention, reduction, and preparedness are

important factors in reducing the largescale devastation that disasters can have

on vulnerable populations. As a result,

the United States has provided extensive assistance for recovery from natural

disasters around the world. 

Severe weather disasters. In May 1999, the

U.S. Congress appropriated $621 million under the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, primarily to

support the reconstruction of the

Dominican Republic and Haiti, which

were devastated in late 1998 by

Hurricane Georges. This funding also

assisted Central America’s recovery

from Hurricane Mitch, which struck on

the scale of a storm seen only once in

100–200 years. These funds were later

extended for reconstruction in the

Bahamas and the Caribbean, which

were struck by Hurricanes Floyd and

Lenny in 1999. 

After surveying the extensive damage caused by Hurricane Mitch, the

United States announced the $11 million Central American Mitigation Initiative. This project aims to reduce the

impacts of natural disasters by building

national capacity in Central American

countries to forecast, monitor, and prevent those disasters. In the wake of

Hurricane Mitch, the United States initiated a multi-agency effort to

strengthen worldwide climate-related

disaster preparedness and mitigation,

with particular emphasis on Mexico and

Central America. 

In a joint effort, a group of U.S. 

government agencies39 implemented a

variety of disaster preparedness and

relief programs for hurricane-related

impacts throughout Latin America.

These programs have included, for

example, the development of more

From 1997 to 2000, the United States spent over $5 billion on climate change vulnerability and

adaptation activities. These activities were funded primarily by commercial sales and official

development assistance/official assistance (ODA/OA).

FIGURE 7-6 Financial Flows by Adaptation Sector and 

Financial Flow Type: 1997–2000

Commercial Sales

ODA/OA

Foundation Grants

0.53 Foundation Grants

406.4

0.02 Foundation Grants

1.24 Foundation Grants

0.15 Foundation Grants

0.27 Foundation Grants

0.17 Foundation Grants 

Millions of U.S. Dollars

2,784.8

1,718.02 

51.76

37.08

13.54

9.96

Other Vulnerability 

Assessments

Water Supply

Disaster 

Preparedness

Droughts & 

Desertification

Coastal 

Resources

Coral Reefs

1,000

500

0

250

750

39 USAID, NOAA, USDA, USGS, EPA, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Department

of the Interior (DOI), Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS), Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD), the Peace Corps,

Export–Import Bank (Ex–Im Bank), Overseas Private

Investment Corporation (OPIC), Department of

State, and the General Accounting Office (GAO).
Financial Resources and Transfer of Technology ■ 133

nets, and cooking utensils to Vietnam

after heavy rains and severe flooding

devastated the country. To minimize

future flood risks, in 2000, USAID

started supporting efforts to map flood

plains and determine where people

should avoid building their homes in

the future. These efforts included locating emergency shelters and determining evacuation routes to be used during

future flooding. 

In 1998, floods struck Kinshasa,

Democratic Republic of the Congo,

affecting an estimated 100,000 people.

After the emergency, OFDA designed a

project to reduce the population’s vulnerability to future floods. With OFDA

funding, Catholic Relief Services built

17 small check-dams from locally available materials, cleaned drainage canals,

and reseeded degraded watershed areas

to improve soil and moisture retention.

When torrential rains again struck Kinshasa in February 1999, there were no

injuries, no displaced residents, and no

damaged homes in the project area.

This successful project enabled the residents of Kinshasa—where monthly

household incomes are less than $70—

to avoid a repeat of the $7.7 million in

economic losses they suffered in 1998. 

Climate forecasting and research. Climate,

meteorological, and hydrological forecasting has played an increasingly

important role in warning developing

country populations of pending severe

storm risks, as well as better informing

them of long-term disaster mitigation

and response efforts. Under NOAA’s

National Weather Service, the United

States has regularly provided developing countries with meteorological and

hydrological forecasts and prediction

models; floods, droughts, and river flow

predictions; tropical cyclone/hurricane

forecasts for the Western Hemisphere;

global aviation hazardous weather forecasts; high-sea forecasts for the North

Atlantic and North Pacific; and meteorological training programs for countries

throughout Central America, the

resilient infrastructure, climate forecasting and warning systems, and various

forms of humanitarian aid. USAID

helped establish a training and technical assistance program to develop adaptation plans for extreme climatic events

in the region, supported watershed

rehabilitation through a transnational

watershed program, and helped install

stream gauges and early-warning systems in Honduras. 

To continue addressing connected

disaster risks in the Caribbean region,

USAID recently initiated the

Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Project.

Implemented by the Organization of

American States’ Unit of Sustainable

Development and Environment, this

$5-million, six-year project promotes

the adoption of natural disaster preparedness and loss-reduction practices

by both the public and the private sectors through regional, national, and

local activities. These activities target

six major themes: (1) community-based

preparedness, (2) hazard assessment

and mapping, (3) hazard-resistant

building practices, (4) vulnerability and

risk audits for lifeline facilities, (5) promotion of hazard mitigation within the

property insurance industry, and (6)

incorporation of hazard mitigation into

post-disaster recovery. To date, pilot

projects have been implemented in 11

Caribbean countries.

Similarly, the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) has a

long history of interaction with foreign

governments to help them more effectively respond to and prevent disasters,

including expert exchanges and “trainthe-trainer” courses. FEMA recently

established pilot projects for building

disaster-resistant communities with

Argentina, the Dominican Republic, El

Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,

and Nicaragua and expanded civil

emergency planning work through

NATO partners to include East European nations. 

Watershed management. In continued

efforts to reduce severe weather risks in

Central America, USAID has undertaken activities in the transboundary

Río Lempa watershed, shared by

Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

The adaptation strategy for the Río

Lempa has focused on three components: the National Weather Service

River Forecast Center,40 capacity building on the operation and maintenance

of the forecast system, and the development of a geographic information system and watershed disaster mitigation

plan to mitigate the impacts of extreme

events. The watershed disaster mitigation plan includes identification of vulnerable populations, flood-prone areas,

areas at risk of landslides, the location

of shelters, and road networks for delivery of supplies. The program facilitated

a tri-national agreement to mitigate the

impacts of transnational disasters in the

Lempa Watershed, with the goal of

exporting the lessons learned from the

Río Lempa to other transnational watersheds in the region. 

Flood preparedness and response. The United

States has also provided flood preparedness and response support to

developing countries around the world,

both in terms of disaster relief and in

planning and mitigating future risks.

Among the many catastrophic floods

that occurred between 1997 and 2000,

the United States has helped victims

and communities in over a dozen developing countries around the world. 

In 1999, USAID’s Office of Foreign

Disaster Assistance (OFDA) announced

$3 million in funding to assist relief

efforts related to massive flooding,

landslides, and mudslides in Venezuela,

which killed an unknown number of

people and displaced many more. The

same year, the U.S. Geological Survey

provided follow-on disaster planning

assistance to produce hazard maps for

future response to and recovery from

disastrous flood and landslides in

Venezuela. In addition, USAID funded

the provision of emergency relief supplies to flood victims in Mozambique,

South Africa, and Zimbabwe in

response to severe flooding in southern

Africa in 1999. 

In 1998, OFDA provided funds for

emergency housing, clothing, mosquito

40 The NWSRFS was developed by NOAA and is being

implemented by NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey,

and the System for Central American Integration.
134 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Caribbean, and Africa. NOAA also provides research and response activities 

to prepare for severe impacts expected

from extremes of climate variability, 

climate forecast research and applications, predictions related to El Niño phenomena, support for a scientific network,

and capacity building in Africa, Latin

America and Caribbean, South-east Asia,

and the South Pacific. During the disastrous flooding in Mozambique in March

and April of 2000, for example, NOAA

provided real-time weather forecasts to

the affected regions as well as to international response and relief agencies.

In cooperation with 26 countries,

NASA implemented the Pacific Rim II

airborne campaign in the southern and

western portions of the Pacific Rim

region. The campaign resulted in the

deployment of research aircraft and

remote-sensing instrumentation for collecting data that will enable scientists to

better assess local environmental conditions and natural hazards to enhance disaster management and mitigation

practices in Pacific Rim countries. Similarly, NOAA has implemented the Pan

American Climate Studies Sounding

Network (PACS SONET) for extended

monitoring of climate variability over

the Americas. This project enhances

understanding of low-level atmospheric

circulation features within monsoonal

North and South America, provides a

means of validating numerical model

simulations, and establishes a long-term,

upper-air observing system for climate

prediction and research. 

In another climate-hydrological

forecasting effort, USAID and NOAA 

have cooperated to provide snowmonitoring and river-forecasting assistance to Central Asian Hydrometeorological Services, known as Glavgidromets.

This effort will download imagery over

Central Asia from NOAA’s polar-orbiting satellites. The imagery will be used

by the Glavgidromets to monitor the

extent of the snowpack in the

Himalayan Mountains, which is the

source of most of the water that flows

through the Amu Darya and Syr Darya

rivers. 

Numerous partners, including USAID

and NOAA, created the Radio and Internet Technology for Communication of

Hydro-Meteorological and Climate

Related Information (RANET) program.

The program consists of information

and applications networks in southern

Africa, the Greater Horn of Africa, and

West Africa. These networks provide

regular seasonal climate forecast information and work directly with users to

reduce climate-related vulnerability.

RANET will make information, translated into appropriate local languages,

directly available to farm-level users

through wind-up radio.

Droughts and Desertification. From

1997 to 2000, the United States spent

approximately $51.8 million on activities that address droughts and desertification (see Appendix C). These

activities are often implemented in connection with the U.S. government’s foreign disaster response programs,

although a number of long-term adaptation initiatives have also been supported.

They include weather forecasting,

drought prediction, hazard mapping,

and research, technical assistance, and

capacity building. Through NOAA, for

example, the U.S. government has provided vegetation stress and drought prediction information to China, Georgia,

Kazakhstan, Morocco, and Poland, and

technical assistance to China and

Tajikistan for estimating drought intensity and duration. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture,

the U.S. Geological Survey, the GEF,

and the government of Kazakhstan have

begun implementing the pilot phase of

the Kazakhstan Dryland Management

Project. The project’s objective is to conserve, rehabilitate, and sustainably use

natural resources in the marginal cerealgrowing area of the Shetsky Raion of

northern Karaganda Oblast, Kazakhstan. This project works with communities and the Kazakh government to (1)

develop alternative land uses and rehabilitate ecosystems for conservation of

plant and animal bio-diversity; (2)

develop a coherent framework and

national capacity to monitor carbon

sequestration; and (3) build public

capacity and develop a replication 

strategy so that project activities can be

adopted in other similar areas of 

Kazakhstan and other Central Asian

countries. 

In the drought-prone Bie province of

Angola, USAID has funded Africare, a

private voluntary organization, to distribute 339 metric tons of seeds and

55,000 farming tools to 27,500 internally displaced people. In 2000 in

Afghanistan, USAID/OFDA provided

immediate drought relief measures

through Save the Children to engage in

drought-related activities, with a focus

on maternal and child care. 

The United States provides much

support for food security through foreign agriculture programs and climate

monitoring systems. For example, the

Famine Early Warning System (FEWS)

was started in 1985 and is funded at

approximately $6 million a year to provide decision makers with the information they need to effectively respond to

drought and food insecurity. Working in

17 drought-prone countries across SubSaharan Africa, FEWS analyzes remotesensing data and ground-based

meteorological, crop, and rangeland

observations by field staff to track the

progress of the rainy seasons in semi-arid

regions of Africa and to identify early

indications of potential famine. Other

factors affecting local food availability

and access are also carefully evaluated to

identify vulnerable population groups

requiring assistance. These assessments

are continuously updated and disseminated to provide host-country governments and other decision makers with

the most timely and accurate information available. Overall, FEWS activities

strengthen the capacities of public and

private institutions to monitor and

respond to drought, the principal impact

of climate variability in Sahelian Africa.

By helping to anticipate potential famine

conditions and lessen vulnerability,

FEWS has helped save lives, while also

promoting a more efficient use of limited

financial resources. 

USDA provides a number of additional food security activities around

the world, including:
Financial Resources and Transfer of Technology ■ 135

• the West Africa Regional Food Security Project, which provides information on vulnerable populations, food

balances, food needs, food aid, and

commercial import requirements; 

• development of agricultural and natural hazard profiles for selected

African countries to assist in mitigation, response, and rehabilitation; 

• direct food aid in response to

drought-related famine in Ethiopia

and the Horn of Africa;

• disaster management and logistics

support for African desert locust

response; and

• collaboration with Central American

countries to develop strategies to

overcome soil erosion, manage water

quality, and resolve food safety problems resulting from Hurricanes

Mitch and Georges.

Coastal Zone Management

From 1997 to 2000, the United

States provided about $52 million in

ODA and foundation grants for climate

change adaptation activities supporting

coastal zone management. These activities included efforts to address coastal

resources, sea level rise, severe weather

and storm surges, risks to ecosystems

(such as rising seawater temperatures),

and protection of coral reefs. 

Coastal Resources. Adaptation activities addressing coastal resources fall

under the broad categories of integrated

coastal management (ICM); coastal

zone management and planning; conservation of critical coastal habitats and

ecosystems (such as coral reefs, 

mangrove forests, and sand dunes) to

maintain vital ecosystem functions; protection of coastal areas from storm

surge and sea level rise; reduction of

coastal erosion to limit future displacements of settlements and industries;

development of guidelines for best

coastal development practices and

resource use; and the dissemination of

best practices for coastal planning and

capacity building. The United States

financed $38.3 million in coastal

resources activities between 1997 and

2000 (Figure 7-5).

The United States has implemented

a number of ICM programs in several

countries around the world. In 1985,

USAID initiated the Coastal Resources

Management program and again

renewed this program in 2000 as part of

a new $32-million commitment for

coastal zone management programs

worldwide. The CRM project is now

funded at approximately $6 million a

year and has operated in Mexico,

Ecuador, Jamaica, the Dominican

Republic, El Salvador, Kenya, Tanzania,

Egypt, Thailand, Indonesia, and the

Philippines. CRM projects largely 

promote improved governance, public

participation, and stewardship toward

the management of multi-sectoral

activities within the coastal zone and

surrounding watershed—helping to

address a variety of climate-related

threats to coastal and marine biodiversity and resource-dependent communities (USAID 2001b).

In addition to providing extensive

technical assistance and research

addressing coastal zone management

needs, USAID’s Coastal Resources

Management program has helped generate a number of significant practical

tools, such as coastal maps, program

performance management guidelines,

community coastal zone management

strategies, national ICM policies, and

best management guidelines in such

areas as aquaculture, mariculture, and

tourism development. The program has

also promoted outreach mechanisms

about best practices through reports,

publications, journals, CD-ROMs, 

e-mail list servers, Web sites, and training and communications publications. 

Coral Reefs and Other Marine

Resources. Between 1997 and 2000,

the United States supported the protection of coral reefs and other marine

resources through the creation of

marine sanctuaries, the introduction of

sustainable fishing practices and coastal

zone management, and research on

coral reef habitats and climate risks in

the amount of $13.7 million (see

Appendix C). For example, communitybased marine sanctuaries in the

Philippines and South Pacific have

proven to be effective in conserving

coral reef ecosystems, as well as increasing fish biomass and production. Efforts

have been underway to reproduce these

successful conservation areas in

Indonesia under USAID’s ICM project

in North Sulawesi. These communitybased marine sanctuaries are small areas

of subtidal marine environment, primarily coral reef habitat, where all extractive

and destructive activities are permanently prohibited. They were developed

with the widespread support and participation of the local community and government, were established by formal

village ordinance, and are managed by

community groups. 

USAID has implemented a number

of programs involving site preservation

for marine-protected areas. For instance,

it provided support for the implementation of a new Galapagos Special Law to

establish a marine park and has begun

funding a Bering Sea Marine Ecoregion

Conservation program. 

In related efforts, the MacArthur

Foundation provided $105,000 between

1998 and 2000 to establish a coral reef

monitoring program with the Hong

Kong University of Science and Technology. This project will provide important information to international

conservation efforts about the health of

coral reefs and risks to their survival.

Other Vulnerability Assessments 

U.S. funding between 1997 and 2000

on vulnerability assessments and studies

associated with adaptation to the

impacts of climate change amounted to

approximately $10.2 million (see

Appendix C). Much of this funding

went toward the U.S. Country Studies

Program (CSP) to help developing

countries assess their unique vulnerabilities to long- and short-term climate

impacts, their adaptation options for

addressing those risks, and their contributions to global greenhouse gas emissions. Since its inception, the CSP has

helped 56 countries build the human

and institutional capacities necessary to

assess their vulnerability to climate

change. 
136 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

NOAA has focused on reducing the

vulnerability of coastal populations to

hazardous weather. Since 1997, it has

developed a community-based vulnerability assessment methodology to aid

local hazard mitigation planning and

has begun working with the Organization of American States to provide training on vulnerability assessment to

Caribbean countries.

Other Global Climate 

Change Activities

To account for those activities that

did not easily fit within the mitigation

and adaptation categories provided by

the guidance for Appendix C of this

chapter, two additional categories were

created: UNFCCC participation and

crosscutting activities. Both categories

are relevant to implementation of the

UNFCCC. Between 1997 and 2000, the

United States spent approximately

$323.8 million on “other global climate

change activities.”

UNFCCC Participation

The United States spent approximately $25.4 million between 1997 and

2000 to promote meaningful participation in the UNFCCC process by developing and transition economies (see

Appendix C). USAID alone implemented over 70 capacity-building

activities designed to strengthen participation in the Convention in 1999. This

included promoting efforts to integrate

climate change into national development strategies; establishing emission

inventories; developing national climate change action plans; promoting

procedures for receiving, evaluating,

and approving joint implementation

proposals; and establishing baselines

for linking greenhouse gas emissions to

economic growth. 

For example, through its Climate

Change Center in Ukraine, established

in 1999, USAID provided support to

the Ukrainian government to establish

national administrative structures,

develop a national climate change

inventory program, and prepare investment projects. USAID assistance in

Mexico supported the national government’s establishment of an Interagency

Commission on Global Climate

Change. In connection with those

efforts, the Mexican Congress considered a global climate change bill outlining how Mexico could integrate

climate change considerations into

national strategic, energy, and sustainable development goals. 

Crosscutting Activities

The United States spent over $298.4

million on crosscutting climate change

activities in developing and transition

economies from 1997 to 2000 (Figure

7-5). Many of these activities have

simultaneously addressed climate

change mitigation and/or adaptation

issues. For example, the Rockefeller

Foundation awarded the Pacific Environment and Resources Center a

$300,000 grant in 2000 to address

threats to critical marine and forest

ecosystems in the Russian Far East.

Similarly, many USAID activities contributed to mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.
Chapter 8 

Research and

Systematic

Observation

T

he United States leads the world in

research on climate and other global

environmental changes, spending

approximately $1.7 billion annually on

its focused climate change research programs. This contribution is roughly half

of the world’s focused climate change

research expenditures, three times more

than the next largest contributor, and

larger than the combined contributions

of Japan and all 15 nations of the European Union (Figure 8-1). 

Most of this research is coordinated

through the U.S. Global Change

Research Program (USGCRP). Definition of the program began in the late

1980s, and Congress codified the program in the Global Change Research

Act of 1990. The USGCRP was created

as a high-priority, national research program to: 

• address key uncertainties about

changes in the Earth’s global environment, both natural and humaninduced; 
138 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

• monitor, understand, and predict

global change; and 

• provide a sound scientific basis for

national and international decision

making. 

The program builds on research

undertaken over previous decades by

independent researchers and programs.

Today the USGCRP facilitates coordination across eleven federal departments and agencies with active global

change programs. This distributed

structure enables the program to draw

on the missions, resources, and expertise of both research and missionoriented agencies as it works to reduce

uncertainties and develop useful applications of global change research. Participants include the Departments of

Agriculture, Commerce (National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Defense, Energy, Health and

Human Services (National Institutes of

Health), Interior (U.S. Geological Survey), and Transportation; the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency; the

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration; the National Science

Foundation; and the Smithsonian Institution. The Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of

Management and Budget provide oversight on behalf of the Executive Office

of the President. 

Despite the intensive U.S. investment in climate change science over the

past decade, numerous gaps remain in

our understanding. President Bush

directed a Cabinet-level review of climate policy, including the state of science. As an input to this review, the U.S.

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

prepared a report on Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions

(NRC 2001a). This report was released

in June 2001 and reached a number of

findings regarding uncertainties and

gaps in our knowledge that impede 

policymaking.1 The report states:

Because there is considerable uncertainty

in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts

to emissions of greenhouse gases and

aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be

regarded as tentative and subject to future

adjustments (either upward or downward). Reducing the wide range of

uncertainty inherent in current model predictions of global climate change will

require major advances in understanding

and modeling of both (1) the factors that

determine atmospheric concentrations of

greenhouse gases and aerosols, and (2)

the so-called “feedbacks” that determine

the sensitivity of the climate system to a

prescribed increase in greenhouse gases.

There is also a pressing need for a global

system designed for monitoring climate.

With respect to specific areas of

knowledge, the NAS report concluded

that greenhouse gases are accumulating

in the Earth’s atmosphere as a result of

human activities, causing surface air

temperatures and subsurface ocean

temperatures to rise (see Appendix D).

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely to result mostly

from human activities, but some significant part of these changes is also a

reflection of natural variability. Humaninduced warming and associated sea

level rise are expected to continue

through the 21st century. Computer

model simulations and basic physical

reasoning suggest secondary effects,

including potential changes in rainfall

rates and in the susceptibility of semiarid regions to drought. The impacts of

1 The National Academy of Science report (NRC 2001a) generally agreed with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the recent IPCC Working Group I scientific report (IPCC 2001d), but sought to articulate more clearly the level of confidence that can be ascribed to those assessments and the caveats that need to be attached to them

(see Appendix D).

FIGURE 8-1 Research Expenditures by Country: 1999-2000

The United States is responsible for roughly half of the world’s focused climate change

research expenditures—three times more than the next-largest contributor, and larger than

the contributions of Japan and all 15 nations of the European Union combined. 

Note: Contributions by the United Kingdom and Germany to the European Space Agency (ESA) are included in the ESA

observations total. No data are included from Australia, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Italy, Korea, Mexico, the People’s

Republic of China, Poland, Russia, Spain, Taiwan, and the Nordic Council. Inclusion of these could raise the totals

by 10-20 percent.

Source: IGFA 2000. Millions of U.S. Dollars

908

268 255

United States

Germany

United Kingdom

Japan

France

European Union (EU)

EU/European Space Agency

Others

797

107

203

81

144

73

427

67

Observations/Data Management

Scientific Studies/Experiments

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1,000

800

900
Research and Systematic Observation ■ 139

these changes will be critically dependent on the magnitude of the effect, the

rate at which it occurs, secular trends in

technology that affect society’s adaptability and vulnerability, and specific

measures taken to adapt to or reduce

vulnerability to climate change.

Accordingly, the NAS found that

reducing the wide range of uncertainty

inherent in current approaches to projecting global climate change and its

effects on human beings and ecosystems

will require major advances in understanding and modeling. To ensure that

policies are informed by the best science, the United States is working

aggressively to advance the science of

climate and global change. In June

2001, President Bush announced the

U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative, which is focused on reducing key

areas of uncertainty in climate change

science. 

RESEARCH

U.S. research focuses on the full

range of global change issues. The U.S.

Congress, in the Global Change

Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-

606), directs the implementation of a

program aimed at “understanding and

responding to global change, including

cumulative effects of human activities

and natural processes on the environment.” The Act defines global change

as “changes in the global environment

(including alterations in climate, land

productivity, oceans or other water

resources, atmospheric chemistry, and

ecological systems) that may alter the

capacity of the Earth to sustain life.”

This perspective recognizes the profound socioeconomic and ecological

implications of global environmental

change. 

The USGCRP focuses on sets of

interacting changes in the coupled

human–environment system, which is

undergoing change at a pace unprecedented in human history. These

changes are occurring on many time

and spatial scales, and many feedbacks

and interdependencies link them.

These numerous and various forces

complicate efforts to understand the

interactions of human and natural systems and how they may affect the

capacity of the Earth to sustain life over

the long term. Indeed, the interactions

between changes in external (solar)

forcing, human activities, and the

intrinsic variability of the Earth’s atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere

make understanding and projecting

atmospheric and oceanic circulation,

global energy and water cycles, and

biogeochemical cycling among the

most demanding scientific challenges.

U.S. Climate Change 

Research Initiative

On June 11, 2001, President Bush

announced the establishment of the

U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative

to study areas of uncertainty and identify

priority areas for investment in climate

change science. He directed the Secretary of Commerce to work with other

agencies to set priorities for additional

investments in climate change research

and to fully fund high-priority research

areas that are underfunded or need to be

accelerated. The definition of this new

initiative is underway. It will improve the

integration of scientific knowledge,

including measures of uncertainty, into

effective decision support systems.

Ongoing Broader Agenda 

for U.S. Research 

The Climate Change Research Initiative will take place in the context of

the broader global change research 

program that is ongoing in federal

agencies. The USGCRP provides a

framework and coordination mechanism for the continuing study of all of

the complex, interrelated global change

aspects in the NAS recommendations

that are not addressed by the initiative. 

The USGCRP is engaged in a continuing process to review its objectives

and structure so that it can help government, the private sector, and communities to make informed management

decisions regarding global environmental changes in light of persistent uncertainties. This will require the program 

to continue fundamental research to

address crucial uncertainties about how

human activities are changing the

Earth’s climate and environment. This

program will need to continue developing increasingly detailed projections of

how natural variability and humaninduced environmental change interact

and affect conditions on global to

regional scales, and how we can manage natural resources in the future. Scientific understanding and data will need

to be applied to tools useful for reducing risks and seizing opportunities

resulting from global change. 

The program will build on decades

of scientific progress and will take

advantage of the development of powerful advances in computing, remote

sensing, environmental monitoring, and

data and information technologies.

Through additional focused investment

in observations, scientific studies, and

modeling, the USGCRP will seek to

reduce uncertainties in the understanding of some of the most basic questions.

The science needed to accomplish this

ambitious objective is organized into

the six research elements presented in

Table 8-1, each of which focuses on

topics crucial to projecting change and

understanding its potential importance. 

The USGCRP will also work with 

its partners to transition scientific

knowledge to applications in resource

management, disaster preparedness,

planning for growth and infrastructure,

and environmental and health assessment, among other areas. Partnerships

among research programs, operational

entities, and actors in the private sector

and in federal, state, and local governments will be essential for the success of

this effort. It will also require significant

levels of cooperation and new management techniques to permit co-production of knowledge and deliverables

across agencies and stakeholders.

National Climate Change 

Technology Initiative

The United States is further committed to improving climate change technology research and development,

enhancing basic research, strengthening applied research through public–

private partnerships, developing 
140 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

To support informed decision making, the U.S. Global Change Research Program is addressing uncertainties about how human activities are

changing the Earth’s climate and environment. The six research elements in this table focus on topics essential to projecting climate change

and understanding its potential importance:

Research Uncertainty USGCRP Research Focus

Atmospheric Composition

• How do human activities and natural 

phenomena change the composition of 

the global atmosphere? 

• How do these changes influence climate,

ozone, ultraviolet radiation, pollutant exposure, ecosystems, and human health?

Climate Variability and Change

• How do changes in the Earth system that

result from natural processes and human

activities affect the climate elements that

are important to human and natural systems, especially temperature, precipitation,

clouds, winds, and extreme events?

Carbon Cycle

• How large and variable are the reservoirs

and transfers of carbon within the Earth

system?

• How might carbon sources and sinks

change and be managed in the future?

Global Water Cycle

• How do human activities and natural processes that affect climate variability influence the

distribution and quality of water within the

Earth system? 

• To what extent are these changes predictable?

• How will these changes affect climate, the

cycling of carbon and other nutrients, and

other environmental properties?

Terrestrial and Marine Ecosystems

• How do natural and human-induced

changes in the environment interact to

affect ecosystems (from natural to 

intensively managed), their ability to provide

natural resources and commodities, and

their influence on regional and global 

climate?

Changes in Land Use and Land Cover 

• What processes determine land cover and

land use at local, regional, and global scales?

• How will land use and land cover evolve 

over time scales of 10–50 years?

TABLE 8-1 Fundamental Climate Change Research Needs

• Identifying the human drivers of changes in land use and cover.

• Monitoring, measuring, and mapping land use and land cover and managing 

data systems.

• Developing projections of land-cover and land-use changes under various assumptions

about climate, demographic, economic, and technological trends.

• Integrating information about land use, land management, and land cover into other

research elements.

• Predictions of seasonal-to-decadal climate variations (e.g., the El Niño–Southern

Oscillation).

• Detection and attribution of human-induced change.

• Projections of long-term climate change.

• Potential for changes in extreme events at regional-to-local scales.

• Possibility of abrupt climate change.

• How to improve the effectiveness of interactions between producers and users of

climate forecast information.

• Processes affecting the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer. 

• Properties and distribution of greenhouse gases and aerosols.

• Long-range transport of pollutants and implications for air quality.

• Integrated assessments of the effects of these changes for the nation and the world.

• North American and ocean carbon sources and sinks.

• Impacts of land-use changes and resource management practices on carbon

sources and sinks.

• Future atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane concentrations and changes in

land-based and marine carbon sinks.

• Periodic reporting (starting in 2010) on the global distribution of carbon sources and

sinks and how they are changing.

• Structure and function of ecosystems, including cycling of nutrients and how they

interact with the carbon cycle. 

• Key processes that link ecosystems with climate.

• Vulnerability of ecosystems to global change.

• Options for enhancing resilience and sustaining ecosystem goods and services.

• Scientific underpinning for improved interactions with resource managers.

• Trends in the intensity of the water cycle and the causes of these changes

(including feedback effects of clouds on the water and energy budgets, as well as

the global climate system).

• Predictions of precipitation and evaporation on time scales of months to years and

longer.

• Models of physical and biological processes and human demands and institutional

processes, to facilitate efficient management of water resources.

• Research supporting reports on the state of the global water cycle and national

water resources.
Research and Systematic Observation ■ 141

improved technologies for measuring

and monitoring gross and net greenhouse gas emissions, and supporting

demonstration projects for new technologies.

Enhanced Carbon Technologies

The United States has committed to

a number of projects to develop

enhanced carbon technologies for capturing, storing, and sequestering carbon. Two contracts signed on July 11,

2001, solidified partnerships with The

Nature Conservancy and with an international team of energy companies.

The Nature Conservancy Project. The

Department of Energy will work in

partnership with The Nature Conservancy and such companies as General

Motors Corporation and American

Electric Power to study how carbon

dioxide can be stored more effectively

by changing land-use practices and by

investing in forestry projects. Using

newly developed aerial and satellitebased technology, researchers will study

forestry projects in Brazil and Belize to

determine their carbon sequestration

potential. Researchers will also test new

software models that predict how carbon

is sequestered by soil and vegetation at

sites in the United States and abroad.

The United States will provide $1.7 million of the $2 million cost of the threeyear project.

International Team of Energy Companies. The Department of Energy will

also collaborate with nine energy companies from four nations to develop

breakthrough technologies to reduce the

cost of capturing carbon dioxide from

fossil fuel combustion and safely storing

it underground. The nine energy companies are: BP–Amoco, Shell, Chevron,

Texaco, Pan Canadian (Canada), Suncor

Energy (Canada), ENI (Italy), Statoil

Forskningssenter (Norway), and Norsk

Hydro ASA (Norway). The U.S. government’s contribution of $5 million will

leverage an international commitment

that will total more than $25 million

over the next three years, including

funding from the European Union,

Norway’s Klimatek Program, and the

nine industry partners.

Human Effects on 

and Responses to 

Environmental Changes 

In an effort to identify strategies to

enhance the resilience of human systems to climate change, the U.S. Global

Change Research Program continues to

support research both on human activities that influence environmental change

from local and regional to global scales

and on how human systems prepare for

and respond to environmental changes.

An expanding research area will focus on

analyses of the regional impacts of climate change on human systems and how

improved information about climate

change impacts can help decision makers

in the public and private sectors.

Recent Accomplishments

Following are some recent USGCRP

accomplishments in human dimensions

and socioeconomic analyses:

• The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have established

ongoing regional research and assessment projects in six U.S. regions to

study the effects of climate variability

and change on natural and human systems. These projects have been highly

successful in analyzing the regional

context of global change impacts, fostering relationships between scientists

and stakeholders in the regions, and

determining how research can meet

stakeholders’ needs for water-resource

planning, fisheries management,

ranching, and other climate-sensitive

resource management issues.

• The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) established a center to

identify effective ways to reduce the

transportation sector’s emissions and

to help prepare the nation for the

impacts of climate change. As part of

its research efforts, the center will

investigate how climate change could

affect transportation infrastructure.

• Interdisciplinary investigations of

human responses to seasonal and

yearly swings in climate are highlighting the effects of market forces,

access to resources, institutional flexibility, impacts across state boundaries, and the role of local culture and

experience on the likelihood that

individuals and institutions will use

improved scientific information.

International Research 

Cooperation

The Working Group on International

Research and Cooperation provides

international affairs support for the

USGCRP. The working group has representatives from interested government

agencies and departments and acts as a

forum to keep them informed on international global change research and

funding issues. It addresses interagency

support for international global change

research programs and coordination, and

infrastructure funding for such organizations as the Asia–Pacific Network for

Global Change Research, the InterAmerican Institute for Global Change

Research, the International Human

Dimensions Programme, the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme,

the World Climate Research Programme, and the Global Change System

for Analysis, Research, and Training.

The working group also addresses concerns raised by international nongovernmental global change organizations,

such as free and open data exchange.

These organizations include the International Group of Funding Agencies for

Global Change Research and the Arctic

Ocean Sciences Board.

The USGCRP contributes to and

benefits from international research

efforts to improve understanding of climate change on regional and global

scales. USGCRP-supported scientists

coordinate many of their programs with

those of their counterparts in other

countries, providing essential inputs to

the increasingly complex models that

enable scientists to improve analysis and

prediction of climate change. Following

are some examples of recent, ongoing,

and planned climate change research

and related activities in which

USGCRP-supported scientists are 
142 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

ing a new program—Radio and Internet

for the Communication of Hydro-Meteorological and Climate Information—to

provide training to meteorological services worldwide on the use and production of radio and multimedia content in

conjunction with digital satellite communication. This effort is being led by

NOAA and involves a number of international partners, including the U.S.

Agency for International Development;

the World Bank; the World Meteorological Organization; the Inter-American

Institute for Global Change Research;

the Global Change System for 

Analysis, Research, and Training; and

the Asia–Pacific Network for Global

Change Research.

Eastern Pacific Investigation 

of Climate Processes 

The Department of Commerce,

through NOAA, and the National Science Foundation are bringing together

more than 100 scientists from the

United States, Mexico, Chile, and Peru

to cooperate in the Eastern Pacific

Investigation of Climate (EPIC). EPIC’s

scientific objectives are to observe 

and understand: (1) ocean–atmosphere

processes in the equatorial and northeastern Pacific portions of the InterTropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ);

and (2) the properties of cloud decks in

the trade wind and cross-equatorial

flow regime and their interactions with

the ocean below. 

The project will study stratus cloud

decks located off the west coast of

South America, a region of cool seasurface temperatures located along the

equator in the eastern Pacific Ocean,

and a region of intense precipitation

located in the eastern Pacific north of

the equator. All three of these phenomena interact to control the climate of

the Southwest United States and Central and South America.

Studies of Global Ocean Ecosystem

(GLOBEC) Dynamics

Scientists and research vessels from

Germany, the United Kingdom, and

the United States are conducting a

closely coordinated major GLOBEC

heavily involved and for which international cooperation, participation, and

support are especially important.

U.S.–Japan Cooperation in 

Global Change Research

During 2000, the United States and

Japan co-sponsored a series of scientific

workshops to identify important climate change research problems of

mutual interest and to recommend how

scientists from the two countries might

constructively address them. Conducted under the auspices of the

U.S.–Japan Agreement on Cooperation

in Research and Development in Science and Technology, these workshops

are managed on the U.S. side by 

the Working Group on International

Research and Cooperation of the federal interagency Subcommittee on

Global Change 

The workshops developed recommendations to study the health impacts

of climate change, in particular the

impacts of greater and longer-lasting

exposures to higher temperatures interacting with different air pollutants. A

workshop on monsoon systems identified a number of cooperative bilateral

and multilateral activities for the two

countries to undertake. In 2001, Japan

hosted the ninth workshop in this

series, entitled Carbon Cycle Management in Terrestrial Ecosystems. The

workshops have stimulated cooperation

between Japanese and U.S. scientists

and have led to numerous follow-up

activities, including more focused planning workshops, data exchanges, and

collaborative projects. 

Climate and Societal Interactions

NOAA’s Climate and Societal Interactions Program supports Regional Climate Outlook Fora, pilot application

projects, workshops, training sessions,

capacity building, and technical assistance for better understanding of climate variability and extreme events and

for improving prediction and forecasting capability and data management, in

Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean,

Southeast Asia, and the Pacific. The

Climate Information Project is developfield study on krill near the West

Antarctic Peninsula. Krill are an essential component of the Southern Ocean

food web and a commercially important

species. Their predators—including sea

birds, seals, and whales—depend on

this food resource for survival. Sea ice

plays an essential role as a habitat for

krill (which feed beneath the ice) and

their predators. Since evidence suggests

that interannual variation in the extent

of sea ice affects the abundance of krill,

improving understanding of the role of

climate factors affecting sea ice will

comprise a critical component of the

Southern Ocean GLOBEC program.

IGBP Open Science Conference

The International Geosphere–

Biosphere Programme (IGBP) convened

an open science conference in July

2001 in Amsterdam. A major objective

of this conference was to present the

latest results of climate change research

at a series of levels: research conducted

through the individual IGBP core projects and research integrated across

these projects; research that has been

integrated between the IGBP and the

World Climate Research Programme,

the International Human Dimensions

Programme, Diversitas, and the Global

Change System for Analysis, Research

and Training, and other regional programs; and individual research projects

on which these integrated efforts are

based. The conference also identified

new approaches to the study of the

complex planetary system in which

human activities are closely linked to

natural processes.

International Group of 

Funding Agencies

The International Group of Funding

Agencies (IGFA) is a forum through

which national agencies that fund

research on global change identify issues

of mutual interest and ways to address

them through coordinated national and,

when appropriate, international actions.

IGFA’s focus is not on the funding of single projects, which is still a matter of

national procedures; instead, it coordinates the support for the programs
Research and Systematic Observation ■ 143

T

he USGCRP, six federal agencies, and the Electric Power Research Institute sponsored a

study completed in 2001 by the U.S. National Research Council’s Committee on Climate,

Ecosystems, Infectious Disease, and Human Health, entitled Under the Weather: Climate,

Ecosystems, and Infectious Disease (NRC 2001b). Following are the Committee’s key findings

related to linkages between climate and infectious diseases.

Weather fluctuations and seasonal-to-interannual climate variability influence many infectious diseases. The characteristic geographic distributions and seasonal variations of many

infectious diseases are prima facie evidence of linkages to weather and climate. Studies

have shown that such factors as temperature, precipitation, and humidity affect the life

cycles of many disease pathogens and vectors (both directly, and indirectly through ecological changes) and thus can affect the timing and intensity of disease outbreaks. However,

disease incidence is also affected by such factors as sanitation and public health services,

population density and demographics, land-use changes, and travel patterns. The importance of climate relative to these other variables must be evaluated in the context of each

situation.

Observational and modeling studies must be interpreted cautiously. Although numerous

studies have shown an association between climatic variations and disease incidence, they

are not able to fully account for the complex web of causation that underlies disease dynamics. Thus, they may not be reliable indicators of future changes. Likewise, a variety of models have been developed to simulate the effects of climatic changes on the incidence of such

diseases as malaria, dengue, and cholera. While these models are useful heuristic tools for

testing hypotheses and carrying out sensitivity analyses, they are not necessarily intended

to serve as predictive tools, and often do not include such processes as physical/biological

feedbacks and human adaptation. Thus, caution must be exercised in using these models to

create scenarios of future disease incidence and to provide a basis for early warnings and

policy decisions.

The potential disease impacts of global climate change remain highly uncertain. Changes

in regional climate patterns caused by long-term global warming could affect the potential

geographic range of many infectious diseases. However, if the climate of some regions

becomes more suitable for transmission of disease agents, human behavioral adaptations

and public health interventions could serve to mitigate many adverse impacts. Basic public

health protections, such as adequate housing and sanitation, as well as new vaccines and

drugs, may limit the future distribution and impact of some infectious diseases, regardless of

climate-associated changes. These protections, however, depend upon maintaining strong

public health programs and ensuring vaccine and drug access in the poorer countries of the

world.

Climate change may affect the evolution and emergence of infectious diseases. The potential impacts of climate change on the evolution and emergence of infectious disease agents

create another important but highly uncertain risk. Ecosystem instabilities brought about by

climate change and concurrent stresses, such as land-use changes, species dislocation,

and increasing global travel, potentially influence the genetics of pathogenic microbes

through mutation and horizontal gene transfer, and could give rise to new interactions among

hosts and disease agents. 

There are potential pitfalls in extrapolating climate and disease relationships from one

spatial/temporal scale to another. The relationships between climate and infectious disease

are often highly dependent upon local-scale parameters, and it is not always possible to

extrapolate these relationships meaningfully to broader spatial scales. Likewise, disease

impacts of seasonal-to-interannual climate variability may not always provide a useful analog for the impacts of long-term climate change. Ecological responses on the time scale of

an El Niño event, for example, may be significantly different from the ecological responses

and social adaptation expected under long-term climate change. Also, long-term climate

change may influence regional climate variability patterns, hence limiting the predictive

power of current observations.

Recent technological advances will aid efforts to improve modeling of infectious disease

epidemiology. Rapid advances being made in several disparate scientific disciplines may

spawn radically new techniques for modeling infectious disease epidemiology. These

include advances in sequencing of microbial genes, satellite-based remote sensing of

ecological conditions, the development of geographic information system (GIS) analytical

techniques, and increases in inexpensive computational power. Such techniques will

make it possible to analyze the evolution and distribution of microbes and their relationship

to different ecological niches, and may dramatically improve our abilities to quantify the

disease impacts of climatic and ecological changes.

themselves (Secretariats, International

Project Offices, etc.). IGFA facilitates

international climate change research by

bringing the perspective of national

funding agencies to strategic research

planning and implementation. At its

October 2000 meeting, most IGFA

member nations reported increases in

funding for climate change research, initiation and deployment of new national

programs, and establishment of some

new research centers. 

Diversitas

Diversitas was established in 1991 as

an umbrella program to coordinate a

broad research effort in the biodiversity

sciences at the global level. The program

has played an important role at the interface between science and policy by

building a partnership with the Convention on Biological Diversity. Diversitas

has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Secretariat of the Convention and has provided input to its

Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical

and Technological Advice. Among the

issues that IGFA considered at its 2001

plenary meeting in Stockholm was the

development of a new implementation

strategy for Diversitas. Countries, via

IGFA, have committed funds to help

strengthen the international infrastructure for biodiversity research through

Diversitas according to the model of the

other partner global change programs.

International 

Paleoclimate Research

An international team of researchers

from the United States, Germany, and

Russia is investigating El’gygytgyn Lake

in northeastern Siberia, just north of the

Arctic Circle. This crater was formed 3.6

million years ago by a meteorite impact.

Its sediments hold the promise of revealing the evolution of Arctic climate a full

one million years before the first major

glaciation of the Northern Hemisphere.

In addition, through an international

consortium of researchers, the Nyanza

Project team, involving scientists from

the United States, Europe, and four

countries in Africa, is studying climate

variability, as well as environmental and

Climate, Ecosystems, and Infectious Disease: Key Findings
144 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

ecological change, through the entire

episode of human evolution. As part of

this project, a unique 2,000-year-old

annually resolved record of atmospheric circulation and dynamics, revealing El Niño–Southern Oscillation and

solar cycles, has been recovered from

sediments in Lake Tanganyika, the second deepest lake on the planet.

SYSTEMATIC OBSERVATION

Long-term, high-quality observations of the global environmental system are essential for defining the

current state of the Earth’s system, and

its history and variability. This task

requires both space- and surface-based

observation systems. The term “climate

observations” can encompass a broad

range of environmental observations,

including:

• routine weather observations,

which, collected over a long enough

period, can be used to help describe

a region’s climatology;

• observations collected as part of

research investigations to elucidate

chemical, dynamic, biological, or

radiative processes that contribute to

maintaining climate patterns or to

their variability;

• highly precise, continuous observations of climate system variables collected for the express purpose of

documenting long-term (decadal-tocentennial) change; and

• observations of climate proxies, collected to extend the instrumental climate record to remote regions and

back in time to provide information

on climate change for millennial and

longer time scales.

The various federal agencies

involved in observing climate through

space-based and ground-based activities provide many long-term observations. Space-based systems have the

unique advantage of obtaining global

spatial coverage, particularly over the

vast expanses of the oceans, sparsely

populated land areas (e.g., deserts,

mountains, forests, and polar regions),

and the mid and upper troposphere and

stratosphere. They provide unique

measurements of solar output; the

Earth’s radiation budget; vegetation

cover; ocean biomass productivity;

atmospheric ozone; stratospheric water

vapor and aerosols; greenhouse gas distributions; sea level and ocean interior;

ocean surface conditions; winds,

weather, and tropical precipitation; and

other variables.

Satellite observations alone are not

sufficient. In-situ observations are

required for the measurement of parameters that cannot be estimated from

space platforms (e.g., biodiversity,

ground water, carbon sequestration at

the root zone, and subsurface ocean

parameters). In-situ observations also

provide long time-series of observations

required for the detection and diagnosis

of global change, such as surface temperature, precipitation and water

resources, weather and other natural

hazards, the emission or discharge of

pollutants, and the impacts of multiple

stresses on the environment due to

human and natural causes. To meet the

need for the documentation of global

changes on a long-term basis, the

United States integrates observations

from both research and operational systems. The goal of the U.S. observation

and monitoring program is to ensure a

long-term, high-quality record of the

state of the Earth system, its natural

variability, and changes that occur.

Since 1998, Parties to the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have noted

with concern the mounting evidence of a

decline in the global observing capability and have urged Parties to undertake

programs of systematic observations and

to strengthen the collection, exchange,

and use of environmental data and information. It has long been recognized that

the range of global observations needed

to understand and monitor Earth

processes contributing to climate and to

assess the impact of human activities

cannot be satisfied by a single program,

agency, or country. The United States

supports the need to improve global

observing systems for climate and to

exchange information on national plans

and programs that contribute to the

global capacity in this area.

Documentation of U.S. 

Climate Observations

As part of its continuing contributions to systematic observations in support of climate monitoring, the United

States forwarded The U.S. Detailed

National Report on Systematic Observations

for Climate to the UNFCCC Secretariat

on September 6, 2001 (U.S. DOC/

NOAA 2001c). Because this was the

U.S. government’s first attempt to document all U.S. contributions to global

climate observations, a wide net was

cast to include information on observations that fell into each of the following

categories: (1) in-situ atmospheric observations; (2) in-situ oceanographic

observations; (3) in-situ terrestrial observations; (4) satellite-based observations,

which by their nature cut across the

atmospheric, oceanographic, and terrestrial domains; and (5) data and information management related to

systematic observations. The report

attempted to cover all relevant observation systems and is representative of the

larger U.S. effort to collect environmental data.

Material for the report was developed by a U.S. interagency Global Climate Observing System (GCOS)

coordination group comprised of representatives from the following federal

agencies: (1) the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service and U.S. Forest

Service; (2) three line offices of the U.S.

Department of Commerce’s National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; (3) the U.S. Department of

Energy’s Office of Science; (4) the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency; 

(5) the U.S. Department of the Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey; (6) the

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration; (7) the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration; (8) the National

Science Foundation; (9) the U.S. Naval

Oceanographic Office; (10) the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers; and (11) the

U.S. Air Force. The report was coordinated with the U.S. Global Change

Research Program.
Research and Systematic Observation ■ 145

Ocean Observation 

The Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) requirements are the same

as the GCOS requirements. Both are

based on the Ocean Observing System

Development Panel Report (OOSDP

1995). Like GCOS, the GOOS is based

on a number of in-situ and space-based

observing components. The United

States supports the Integrated Global

Ocean Observing System’s surface and

marine observations through a variety

of components, including fixed and surface-drifting buoys, subsurface floats,

and volunteer observing ships. It also

supports the Global Sea Level Observing System through a network of sealevel tidal gauges. The United States

currently provides satellite coverage of

the global oceans for sea-surface temperatures, surface elevation, ocean surface winds, sea ice, ocean color, and

other climate variables. These satellite

activities are coordinated internationally through the Committee on Earth

Observation Satellites. 

Terrestrial Observation

For terrestrial observations, the

requirements for climate observations

were developed jointly between GCOS

and the Global Terrestrial Observing

System (GTOS) through the Terrestrial

Observations Panel for Climate (WMO

1997). GCOS and GTOS have identified permafrost thermal state and permafrost active layer as key variables for

monitoring the state of the cryosphere.

GCOS approved the development of a

globally comprehensive permafrostmonitoring network to detect temporal

changes in the solid earth component

of the cryosphere. As such, the Global

Terrestrial Network for Permafrost

(GTN-P) is quite new and still very

much in the developmental stage. The

International Permafrost Association

has the responsibility for managing and

implementing the GTN-P.

U.S. contributions to the GTN-P

network are provided by the Department of the Interior and the National

Science Foundation, through grants to

various universities. All the U.S. 

GTN-P stations are located in Alaska.

The active layer thickness is currently

being monitored at 27 sites. Fortyeight bore holes exist in Alaska where

permafrost thermal state can be determined. Of these, 4 are classified as surface (0–10 m) sites, 1 is shallow (10–25

m), 22 are intermediate depth (25–125 m),

and 21 are deep bore holes (>125 m). The

U.S. contribution to the GTN-P network comes from short-term (three- to

five-year) research projects.

The United States operates a longterm “benchmark” glacier program to

intensively monitor climate, glacier

motion, glacier mass balance, glacier

geometry, and stream runoff at a 

few select sites. The data collected are

used to understand glacier-related

hydrologic processes and improve the

quantitative prediction of water

resources, glacier-related hazards, and

the consequences of climate change.

The approach has been to establish

long-term, mass-balance monitoring

programs at three widely spaced U.S.

glacier basins that clearly sample different climate-glacier-runoff regimes. The

three glacier basins are South Cascade

Glacier in Washington State, and

Gulkana and Wolverine Glaciers in

Alaska. Mass-balance data are available

beginning in 1959 for the South Cascade Glacier, and beginning in 1966 for

the Gulkana and Wolverine Glaciers.

The AmeriFLUX network endeavors

to establish an infrastructure for guiding, collecting, synthesizing, and disseminating long-term measurements of

CO2, water, and energy exchange from

a variety of ecosystems. Its objectives

are to collect critical new information

to help define the current global CO2

budget, enable improved projections of

future concentrations of atmospheric

CO2, and enhance the understanding of

carbon fluxes, net ecosystem production, and carbon sequestration in the

terrestrial biosphere.

The terrestrial section of the detailed

U.S. report examines in-situ climate 

monitoring and discusses, in addition to

the GTN-P, the Global Terrestrial Network for Glaciers (GTN-G), and the

In-situ Climate Observation

The United States supports a broad

network of global atmospheric, ocean,

and terrestrial observation systems.

Atmospheric Observation 

The United States supports 75 stations in the GCOS Surface Network

(GSN), 20 stations in the GCOS Upper

Air Network (GUAN), and 4 stations 

in the Global Atmospheric Watch

(GAW). These stations are distributed

geographically as prescribed in the

GCOS and GAW network designs. The

data (metadata and observations) from

these stations are shared according to

GCOS and GAW protocols. The GSN

and GUAN stations are part of a larger

network, which was developed for purposes other than climate monitoring.

Nonetheless, the stations fully meet the

GCOS requirements.

The United States has no comprehensive system designed to observe climate change and climate variability.

Basically, U.S. sustained observing systems provide data principally for nonclimatic purposes, such as predicting

weather, advising the public, and managing resources. In addition, U.S. researchobserving systems collect data for

climate purposes, but are often oriented

toward gathering data for climate

process studies or other research programs, rather than climate monitoring.

They are usually limited in their spatial

and temporal extent. Because the U.S.

climate record is based upon a combination of existing operational and research

programs, it may not be “ideal” from a

long-term climate monitoring perspective. Nevertheless, these observing systems collectively provide voluminous

and significant information about the

spatial and temporal variability of U.S.

climate and contribute to the international climate observing effort as well.

The atmospheric section in the main

body of the detailed national report

examines in-situ climate monitoring

involving systems from the surface,

upper air, and atmospheric deposition

domains (U.S. DOC/NOAA 2001c).
146 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

AmeriFLUX programs, stream-flow and 

surface-water gauging, ground-water

monitoring, snow and soil monitoring,

the U.S. paleoclimatology program,

ecological observation networks, fireweather observation stations, as well as

global, national, and regional land cover

characterization. The United States

contributes to all of these activities.

Satellite Observation Programs

Space-based, remote-sensing observations of the atmosphere–ocean–land

system have evolved substantially since

the early 1970s, when the first operational weather satellite systems were

launched. Over the last decade satellites have proven their capability to

accurately monitor nearly all aspects of

the total Earth system on a global

basis—a capability unmatched by

ground-based systems, which are limited

to land areas and cover only about 30

percent of the planetary surface. 

Currently, satellite systems monitor

the evolution and impacts of El Niño,

weather phenomena, natural hazards,

and extreme events, such as floods and

droughts; vegetation cycles; the ozone

hole; solar fluctuations; changes in

snow cover, sea ice and ice sheets,

ocean surface temperatures, and biological activity; coastal zones and algal

blooms; deforestation and forest fires;

urban development; volcanic activity;

tectonic plate motions; and other climate-related information. These various observations are used extensively in

real-time decision making and in the

strategic planning and management of

industrial, economic, and natural

resources. Examples include weather

and climate forecasting, agriculture,

transportation, energy and water

resource management, urban planning,

forestry, fisheries, and early warning

systems for natural disasters and human

health impacts.

The GCOS planning process

addressed satellite requirements for climate. In so doing, it identified an

extensive suite of variables that should

be observed and monitored from space

(WMO 1995). In addition, GCOS

plans specified that instrument calibration and validation be performed to

ensure that the resulting space-based

observations meet climate requirements

for accuracy, continuity, and low bias.

The current generation of U.S.

research satellite instruments exceeds

the GCOS requirements for the

absolute calibration of sensors—something that was lacking in the early satellite platforms used for real-time

operational purposes. Several of the

historical data series from operational

satellites have been reprocessed using

substantially improved retrieval algorithms to provide good-quality global

data products for use in climate change

research and applications. 

NPOESS Program

Improving the on-board capabilities

for calibration on operational satellites

will be one of the objectives in the

development of the National Polarorbiting Operational Environmental

Satellite System (NPOESS) program.

Prior to the launch of NPOESS in

2008, an NPOESS Preparatory Project

(NPP) satellite will be launched in the

2005 time frame as a bridge mission

between the NASA Earth Observing

Satellites (EOS) program and NPOESS. 

The mission of NPP is to demonstrate advanced technology for atmospheric sounding, and to provide

ongoing observations after EOS-Terra

and EOS-Aqua. It will supply data on

atmospheric and sea-surface temperatures, humidity soundings, land and

ocean biological productivity, and cloud

and aerosol properties. NPP will also

provide early instrument and systemlevel testing and early user evaluation of

NPOESS data products, such as algorithms, and will identify opportunities

for instrument calibration. The information and lessons learned from NPP will

help reduce instrument risk and will

enable design modifications in time to

ensure NPOESS launch readiness.

U.S. Environmental 

Satellite Program

A number of U.S. satellite operational and research missions form the

basis of a robust national remotesensing program that fully supports 

the requirements of GCOS (U.S.

DOC/NOAA 2001c). These include

instruments on the Geostationary

Operational Environmental Satellites

(GOES) and Polar Operational Environmental Satellites (POES), the series

of Earth Observing Satellites (EOS),

the Landsats 5 and 7, the Total Ozone

Mapping Spectrometer satellite, and

the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite measuring sea-surface height, winds, and

waves. Additional satellite missions in

support of GCOS include (1) the

Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance

Monitor for measuring solar irradiance;

(2) EOS-Terra; (3) QuickSCAT; (4) the

Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor

(SeaWiFS) for studying ocean productivity; (5) the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission; and (6) the Tropical

Rainfall Measuring Mission for measuring rainfall, clouds, sea-surface temperature, radiation, and lightning. 

Defense Meteorological 

Satellite Program

The Defense Meteorological Satellite

Program (DMSP) is a Department of

Defense program run by the Air Force

Space and Missile Systems Center. The

program designs, builds, launches, and

maintains several near-polar-orbiting,

sun-synchronous satellites, which monitor the meteorological, oceanographic,

and solar–terrestrial physics environments. DMSP satellites are in a nearpolar, sun-synchronous orbit. Each

satellite crosses any point on the Earth

up to two times a day, thus providing

nearly complete global coverage of

clouds approximately every six hours.

Integrated Global 

Observing Strategy

The United States cooperates on an

international basis with a number of

coordinating bodies. The Integrated

Global Observing Strategy (IGOS) is a

strategic planning process covering

major satellite- and surface-based systems for global environmental observations of the atmosphere, oceans, and

land, that provides a framework for

decisions and resource allocations by
Research and Systematic Observation ■ 147

individual funding agencies. IGOS

assesses Earth-observing requirements,

evaluates capabilities of current and

planned observing systems, and has

begun (at least among the space agencies) to obtain commitments to address

these gaps. 

An IGOS Ocean Theme is in the

implementation phase under leadership

from GOOS. An analysis of requirements, gaps, and recommendations for

priority observations is underway for

integrated global carbon observations 

as well as integrated global atmospheric

chemistry observations. Similar analyses, recommendations, and commitments are also being explored for

geological and geophysical hazards,

coasts and coral reefs, and the global

water cycle.

Operational Weather Satellites

Operational weather satellites are

internationally coordinated through the

Coordination Group for Meteorological

Satellites, of which the World Meteorological Organization is a member and

major beneficiary, along with five other

satellite agency members. The primary

body for policy and technical issues of

common interest related to the whole

spectrum of Earth observation satellite

missions is the Committee on Earth

Observation Satellites (CEOS). CEOS

has 22 space agency members, including

both research and operational satellite

agencies, with funding and program

responsibilities for a satellite Earth observation program currently operating or in

the later stages of system development.

CEOS encourages compatibility among

space-borne Earth-observing systems

through coordination in mission planning; promotion of full and nondiscriminatory data access; setting of data

product standards; and development of

data products, services, applications, and

policies.

Global Change Data and 

Information System

Global environmental concerns are

an overriding justification for the unrestricted international exchange of

GCOS data and products for peaceful,

noncommercial, global scientific, and

applications purposes. As such, GCOS

developed an overarching data policy

that endorses the full and open sharing

and exchange of GCOS-relevant data

and products for all GCOS users at the

lowest possible cost. The United States

recognizes and subscribes to this data

policy.

Achieving the goals of the U.S. climate observing program requires multidisciplinary analysis of data and

information to an extent never before

attempted. This includes the analysis of

interlinked environmental changes that

occur on multiple temporal and spatial

scales, which is very challenging both

technically and intellectually. For example, many types of satellite and in-situ

observations at multiple scales need to

be integrated with models, and the

results need to be presented in understandable ways to all levels of the

research community, decision makers,

and the public. Additionally, very large

volumes of data from a wide variety of

sources and results from many different

investigations need to be readily accessible to scientists and other stakeholders in usable forms that can be

integrated.

Various U.S. agencies have engaged

in extensive development of interagency data and information processes

to foster better integration and accessibility of data- and discipline-specific

information. The Global Change Data

and Information System (GCDIS) has

been developed to facilitate this goal.

GCDIS currently provides a gateway for

access to more than 70 federally funded

sources of data, both governmental and

academic. During the last decade, significant strides have been made in creating

seamless connections between diverse

data sets and sources, as well as enhancing its ability to search across the full

complement of data sources. While the

Internet has facilitated this effort, the

provision of data and information in

forms needed for cross-disciplinary

analyses remains a challenge.

The U.S. government’s position (as

evidenced by its support of the “10

Principles of Climate Observations” and

of the U.S. climate research community

[NRC 1999]) is that high standards

must be met for a particular set of observations to serve the purpose of monitoring the climate system to detect

long-term change. In general, the

observing programs and resulting data

sets described here have not yet fully

met these principles. This shortfall

stems from two main factors: (1) the

principles were articulated only within

the past decade (Karl et al. 1995), long

after the initiation of most of our longterm observing systems; and (2) more

recent observing programs typically do

not have climate monitoring as their

prime function.

The U.S. systematic climate observing effort will continue to improve and

enhance understanding of the climate

system. A full copy of the The U.S.

Detailed National Report on Systematic Observations for Climate (U.S. DOC/NOAA

2001c) can be found at http://www.eis.

noaa.gov/gcos/soc_long.pdf.
Chapter 9 

Education, Training, and

Outreach

O

ver the last three years, U.S. climate

change outreach and education

efforts have evolved significantly.

Early outreach efforts, which focused

primarily on the research and academic

community, have helped to expand climate change research activity and have

resulted in a robust research agenda that

has resolved many scientific uncertainties about global warming. Scientists

and decision makers worldwide have

used the findings of U.S. research projects. More recent outreach efforts have

moved beyond the research community, focusing on public constituencies

who may be adversely affected by the

impacts of climate change. These constituencies will have the ultimate

responsibility to help solve the climate

change problem by supporting innovative, cost-effective solutions at the

grassroots level.

Federal efforts to increase public

education and training on global climate change issues are designed to
Education, Training, and Outreach ■ 149

increase understanding of the Earth’s

complex climate system. This improved

understanding will enable decision makers and people potentially at risk from

the impacts of climate change to more

accurately interpret complex scientific

information and make better decisions

about how to reduce their risks. 

Federal outreach and educational

activities are performed under several

U.S. mandates, including the Global

Change Research Act of 1990, the

National Climate Program Act, the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and

the Environmental and Education Act of

1990. Federal programs often rely on

noneducational programs to simultaneously meet legislative mandates on 

climate education and U.S. science, policy, and outreach goals.

In addition to outreach conducted at

the federal level, a growing movement of

nongovernmental outreach efforts has

proven to be very effective in engaging

the U.S. public and industry on the climate change issue. Most outside groups

work independently of government

funding in their climate change research

and outreach efforts, although some

nongovernmental programs are funded

in part by the federal government. Many

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)

enjoy tax-exempt status, which permits

them to receive private support and

reduce costs to donors. An extensive list

of NGOs conducting climate change

outreach and education initiatives may

be found at http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/ links/org_links.html.

Industry is also playing an increasing

role in climate change outreach and education. Many corporations have worked

extensively with federal government

partnership programs to resolve climate

change issues. These companies spend

millions of dollars to promote their climate change investments and viewpoints

to consumers and other industries, and

most disseminate information about climate change to their customers and the

public.

More recent outreach and education

efforts, both within government and by

NGOs and industry, have encouraged

many activities that adapt to a changing

climate or that reduce greenhouse gas

emissions. Because of these efforts, more

citizens understand the issue with a

higher level of sophistication. And as

people are becoming more familiar with

the problem, they are also beginning to

appreciate the impacts of society’s

actions on the climate system.

This chapter presents a sample of current U.S. education and outreach efforts

that are building the foundation for

broad action to reduce risks from climate

change. Because a comprehensive treatment of NGO efforts is beyond the

scope of this chapter, it focuses on new

and updated governmental activities

since the previous National Communication.

U.S. GLOBAL CLIMATE 

RESEARCH PROGRAM

EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

Sponsored by the U.S. Global

Change Research Program (USGCRP),

the U.S. national assessment of the

potential consequences of climate variability and change (NAST 2000 and

2001) has provided an important opportunity to reach out to the many interested parties, or stakeholders, about the

potential significance for them of future

changes in climate. 

Regional Outreach

The National Assessment began in

1997 and 1998 with 20 regional workshops across the country. Each initiated

a discussion among the stakeholders,

scientific community, and other interested parties about the potential importance of climate change and the types

of potential consequences and response

options, all in the context of other

stresses and trends influencing the

region. On average, about 150 people

participated in each workshop. There

was extensive outreach to local media,

drawn in part by the frequent participation of high-level government officials.

Halfway through this effort, a National

Forum convened in Washington, D.C.,

attracted about 400 participants, from

Cabinet officials to some ranchers who

had never traveled outside of the central U.S. 

Moving from the workshop phase to

an assessment phase, the USGCRP

organized a range of activities that

involved assessment teams drawn from

the research and stakeholder communities. While sponsored by and working

with government agencies, these teams

were based largely in the academic community to broaden participation and

enhance their independence and credibility. To focus analysis on the issues

identified in the regional workshops, 16

of these assessment teams had a regional

focus. Each team established an advisory

and outreach framework that was used

for the preparation of each assessment

report. The reports are being distributed

widely within each region, and outreach

activities include workshops, presentations, and the media. USGCRP agencies

are continuing to sponsor many of these

regional activities as a way of strengthening the dialogue with the public about

the potential consequences and significance of climate change, and the anticipatory actions that will be needed.

National Outreach

The USGCRP also sponsored five

national sectoral studies covering climate

change’s potential consequences for agriculture, forests, human health, water

resources, and coastal areas and marine

resources (NAAG 2001, NFAG 2001,

NHAG 2000 and 2001, NWAG 2000,

NCAG 2000). The five broadly based

teams organized outreach activities ranging from presentations at scientific and

special-interest meetings to full workshops and special issues of journals. Each

team is now issuing its report, distributing information widely to the public. 

The National Assessment Synthesis

Team (NAST) was created as an independent federal advisory committee to

integrate the findings and significance of

the five sectoral studies. The NAST was

composed of representatives from academia, government, industry, and NGOs.

Through a series of open meetings, followed by a very extensive open review

process, the NAST prepared both an

overview report that summarizes the

findings (NAST 2001a) and a foundation report that provides more complete
150 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

documentation (NAST 2001b). Both

reports are being widely circulated.

They are available on the Internet, and

copies are being sent to every state and

to major U.S. libraries.

The USGCRP is also using other

outreach tools to increase public understanding of the potential consequences

of climate change. USGCRP’s Web site

(http://www.usgcrp.gov) helps connect

scientists, students and their teachers,

government officials, and the general

public to accurate and useful information on global change. Also, the

newsletter Acclimations provides regular

information to a broad audience about

the national assessment (USGCRP

1998–2000).

The USGCRP is sponsoring the preparation of curriculum materials based on

the national assessment. These materials

will be made widely available to teachers

over the Web, updating the various types

of materials made available during the

mid-1990s by a number of federal agencies. Through these mechanisms, the

national assessment has directly involved

several thousand individuals, while reaching out to many thousands more through

the reports and the media.

FEDERAL AGENCY 

EDUCATION INITIATIVES

Climate change education at the primary and secondary (K–12) and university levels has grown considerably over

the past three years. The growth of the

Internet has allowed educators throughout the country to use on-line educational global change resources. Federal

government programs have supported

numerous initiatives, ranging from online educational programs to research

support. This section and Table 9-1

present a sampling of these initiatives.

Department of Energy

The Department of Energy (DOE)

sponsors several programs that support

advanced global change research.

Global Change Education Program

DOE’s Global Change Education

Program continues to support three

coordinated components aimed at providing research and educational support

to postdoctoral scientists, graduate students, faculty, and undergraduates at

minority colleges and universities: the

Summer Undergraduate Research Experience, the Graduate Research Environmental Fellowships, and the Significant

Opportunities in Atmospheric Research

and Science program.

Oak Ridge Institute for Science 

and Education

The Science/Engineering Education

Division at the Oak Ridge Institute for

Science and Education continues to

develop and administer collaborative

research appointments, graduate and

postgraduate fellowships, scholarships,

and other programs that capitalize on

the resources of federal facilities across

the nation and the national academic

community. The aim is to enhance the

quality of scientific and technical education and literacy, thereby increasing

the number of graduates in science and

engineering fields, particularly those

related to energy and the environment.

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

From helping design K–12 curricula

to teacher training, NASA is heavily

involved in education initiatives related

to Earth science.

Earth System Science 

Education Program 

Sponsored by NASA through the

Universities Space Research Association, this program supports the development of curricula in Earth System

Science and Global Change at 44 participating colleges and universities. The

program’s Web site provides educational resources for undergraduates.

Earth Science Enterprise

Every year tens of thousands of students and teachers participate in

NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise program. The program attempts to

improve people’s understanding of the

natural processes that govern the global

environment and to assess the effects of

human activities on these processes. It is

expected to yield better weather forecasts, tools for managing agriculture and

forests, and information for commercial

fishers and coastal planners. Ultimately,

the program will improve our ability to

predict how climate will change. 

While the program’s ostensible goal

is scientific understanding, its ultimate

product is education in its broadest

form. The Earth Science Enterprise has

formulated education programs that

focus on teacher preparation, curriculum and student support, support for

informal education and public communication, and professional training. Its

Earth System Science Fellowship program encourages student research,

modeling, and analysis in support of the

USGCRP. More than 500 Ph.D. and

M.S. fellowships have been awarded

since the program’s inception in 1990.

Partnerships

Partnerships allow agencies with

similar goals to combine resources and

expertise to serve the interests of educators and students.

Climate Change Partnership

Education Program

The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), NASA, and NOAA initiated a partnership outreach program

for broadcast meteorologists on climate

change impacts and science. They

formed the partnership in response to

broadcasters’ requests for educational

materials that they could use in their

community outreach and education

activities, particularly during school

visits. The resulting Climate Change Presentation Kit CD-ROM includes fact

sheets that can be downloaded, printed,

and distributed to audiences who have

varying levels of scientific literacy, a

complete PowerPoint slide presentation

that can be shown from a computer or

printed as overhead transparencies, science experiments and games for classroom use, contact names and phone

numbers for additional scientific information, and links to informative Web

sites (U.S. EPA, NASA, and NOAA

1999). 
Education, Training, and Outreach ■ 151

Resource Description Web Site

Department of Energy

Energy Efficiency and A wealth of information on types of http://www.eren.doe.gov/kids/

Renewable Energy Kids’ Site renewable energy.

Energy Information Interactive Web page with energy http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/

Administration Kids’ Page information, activities, and resources.

Fossil Energy—Education An introduction to fossil fuels for students. http://www.fe.doe.gov/education/main.html

Main Page

Environmental Protection Agency

Global Warming Site Information for general audiences about the http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming

science of climate change, its impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, and mitigation actions.

Global Warming Kids’ Site Overview of global warming and climate http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/kids/index.html 

science; includes interactive games.

GLOBE Program

GLOBE Program Home Page Interactive science and education site for http://www.globe.gov 

participants in the GLOBE program, grades K–12.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Educational Links List of Earth science educational links. http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/eos_

homepage/education.html

Teaching Earth Science Site Resources and information for Earth science http://www.earth.nasa.gov/education/index.html

educators for elementary through university levels.

For Kids Only Site From NASA’s Earth science Enterprise, http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/

contains a wealth of Earth science information, 

teacher resources, and interactive games.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

CLIMGRAPH Educational graphics on global http://www.fsl.noaa.gov/~osborn/

climate change and the greenhouse effect. CLIMGRAPH2.html

Specially for Students— List of NOAA’s climate change-related http://www.education.noaa.gov/sclimate.html 

Climate Change and Our Planet sites tailored for kids.

Specially for Teachers List of NOAA’s climate change-related http://www.education.noaa.gov/tclimate.html

sites tailored for educators.

A Paleo Perspective For general audiences, a site to help teach the http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ 

on Global Warming importance of paleoclimate research and its globalwarming/home.html

relation to global warming.

U.S. Global Change Research Information Office

Global Change and Environmental List of global change and environmental education http://gcrio.org/edu/educ.html

Education Resources on-line resources.

GCRIO Home Page Data and information on climate change research, http://gcrio.org

adaptation/mitigation strategies and technologies.

Common Questions About Intended for general audiences. http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/cover.html

Climate Change

Global Warming and Climate Brochure explaining the issue for general audiences. http://gcrio.org/gwcc/toc.html

Change

U.S. Global Change Research Program

USGCRP Home Page Global change information for students and http://www.usgcrp.gov/

educators.

U.S. Geological Survey

Global Change Teacher Packet An introduction and five activities for classroom use. http://mac.usgs.gov/mac/isb/pubs/teacherspackets/globalchange/globalhtml/guide.html

Global Change Educational Information about global change for grades 4–6. http://www.usgs.gov/education/learnweb/GC.html

Activities

TABLE 9-1 U.S. Government On-line Climate Change Educational Resources
152 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

GLOBE Program

Administered by NOAA, NASA,

NSF, and EPA, the Global Learning

and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) program continues

to bring together students, educators,

and scientists throughout the world to

monitor the global environment. The

program aims to increase environmental awareness and to improve student

achievement in science and mathematics. GLOBE’s worldwide network has

expanded to represent more than

10,000 K–12 schools in over 95 countries. These students make scientific

observations at or near their schools in

the areas of atmosphere, hydrology,

biology, and soils, and report their

findings to the network.

FEDERAL AGENCY OUTREACH

Federal agencies provide the public,

state and local governments, industry,

and private groups with information

about national and global climate

change research and risk assessments,

U.S. mitigation activities, and policy

developments. Agencies work on outreach efforts independently and in

partnership with other federal agencies, NGOs, and industry. Although

outreach activities may vary from

agency to agency, most of them share

the common goal of increasing awareness about the potential risks climate

change poses to the environment and

society. Current outreach encourages

constituencies to participate in existing

federal voluntary programs that promote climate change mitigation and

adaptation activities.

Department of Energy

DOE supports numerous initiatives

focused on increasing energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas

emissions.

Carbon Dioxide Information

Analysis Center

The Carbon Dioxide Information

Analysis Center (CDIAC), which

includes the World Data Center for

Atmospheric Trace Gases, is DOE’s

primary center for global change data

and information analysis. CDIAC

responds to data and information

requests from users from all over the

world who are concerned about the

greenhouse effect and global climate

change. CDIAC’s data holdings

include historical records of the concentrations of carbon dioxide and

other radiatively active gases in the

atmosphere; the role of the terrestrial

biosphere and the oceans in the biogeochemical cycles of greenhouse

gases; emissions of carbon dioxide to

the atmosphere; long-term climate

trends; the effects of elevated carbon

dioxide on vegetation; and the vulnerability of coastal areas to rising sea

level.

National Institute for Global

Environmental Change

The National Institute for Global

Environmental Change conducts

research on global climate change in

six U.S. regions: Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, South Central,

Southeast, and West. The Institute

integrates and synthesizes information

to help decision makers and communities better respond to the effects of climate change. 

Each region has a “host institution,”

a prominent university that appoints a

Regional Director who acts in an

administrative capacity. Regional centers develop their own research programs by soliciting proposals from

scholars throughout the nation. These

programs must focus on areas important to global environmental change

and must meet DOE’s research priorities and the following criteria:

• Improve scientific understanding of

global environmental and climate

change issues.

• Reduce uncertainties surrounding

key environmental and climate

change science. 

• Create experimental or observation

programs to enhance the understanding of regional- or ecosystemscale processes contributing to

global change.

• Improve decision-making tools for

resolving global environmental and

climate change issues.

• Build education and training opportunities and develop new curriculum materials to increase the flow

of talented scholars into global

environmental change research

areas.

• Focus contributions to public education on the subject of global 

climate change and other energyrelated environmental risks.

Regional Roundtables

DOE held roundtable meetings

with various segments of the energy

industry to discuss implementing its

planned energy partnership programs

for energy efficiency. Workshop participants were asked to advise DOE’s

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy about how to

improve the quality of the individual

program implementation plans, as well

as the overall package of initiatives.

Attendees represented manufacturers,

builders, utility executives, engineers,

and others who offered a variety of

perspectives on the programs. These

meetings were instrumental in shaping

the final energy partnership programs,

and many of the participants’ suggestions were incorporated into the

revised implementation plans. 

Environmental 

Protection Agency

Following are some examples of

EPA’s numerous climate change outreach and education initiatives.

Business/Industry Outreach

EPA has taken various steps to

engage business and industry on climate change-related issues. For example, EPA, the Risk and Insurance

Management Society, Inc., the Federal

Emergency Management Agency,

NOAA, DOE, and the National

Renewable Energy Laboratory cosponsored a climate change and insurance roundtable in March 2000 to

share information and ideas about the

risks that climate change poses to the

insurance industry and society. The

roundtable provided insurance and

financial executives with information
Education, Training, and Outreach ■ 153

Sea Level Rise Outreach

To meet U.S. obligations under the

Framework Convention on Climate

Change for taking measures to adapt to

climate change, EPA supports a number

of activities that encourage timely

measures in anticipation of sea level

rise. For example, EPA’s continual recommendations to state and local governments to consider sea level rise

within their ongoing initiatives has

resulted in four states’ passing regulations that ensure the inland migration

of wetlands as sea level rises. A planning

scenario mapping project is working

with coastal planners to develop

county-scale maps that illustrate where

people are likely to hold back the sea

and which areas are likely to flood. To

stimulate dialogue within communities

about how to prepare for sea level rise,

EPA is developing brochures that

explain the risks of sea level rise and

also include the county-scale maps.

Additionally, an outreach program to

sand and gravel companies—who supply the fill material needed to elevate

areas as the sea rises—is getting underway in one coastal state.

State and Local Climate 

Change Program

States and localities can play a significant role in promoting the reduction

of greenhouse gases if they have the

tools they need for assessing climate

change issues in their daily decision

making. By providing them with guidance and technical information about

climate change, local air quality, and

the health and economic benefits of

reducing greenhouse gas emissions,

EPA’s State and Local Climate Change

Program is enhancing the ability of

state and local decision makers to comprehensively address their environmental and economic goals. 

The program provides a variety of

technical and outreach or education

services and products related to clean

air and climate change issues, including: 

• assistance for states to analyze the

co-benefits of mitigating greenhouse

gases, developing and updating

emission inventories, and assessing

about climate science and policy information. It also explored alternative risk

management tools as a way to mitigate

and adapt to the impacts of climate

change. EPA also partnered with DOE

to produce the publication U.S. Insurance Industry Perspectives on Global Climate

Change (Mills et al. 2001).

Global Warming Site

Provided as a public service in support of EPA’s mission to protect human

health and the natural environment, the

Global Warming Site strives to present

accurate information on climate change

and global warming in a way that is

accessible and meaningful to all parts of

society. The site is broken down into

four main sections: climate (science),

emissions, impacts, and actions.

Updated daily to reflect the latest peerreviewed science and policy information, the site contains over 2,000

content pages, as well as hundreds of

official documents and publications.

During 2001 the site averaged several

hundred thousand page hits per month.

Outdoor/Wildlife Outreach

Since 1997 EPA has conducted climate change outreach activities for the

outdoor recreation and wildlife enthusiast community. EPA staff have attended

conferences and conventions of such

diverse groups as Ducks Unlimited, the

Izaak Walton League, the Wildlife

Management Institute, the Federation

of Fly Fishers, the National Association

of Interpretation, and America Outdoors, distributing information about

climate change science and impacts as

they relate to the interests of each community. EPA has given presentations

and conducted workshops at conventions and has contributed articles to the

various groups’ newsletters and magazines. To convey the vulnerabilities of

specific recreational activities to the

impacts of climate change, EPA has also

developed targeted brochures and educational kits for use with the outdoor

enthusiast audience. In 2002 EPA plans

to release a toolkit for leaders of hunting and angling organizations to use

with their constituencies.

the impacts of climate change policies on state economies; 

• new tools and models that build

understanding of the broader benefits of climate protection and better

integrate multi-emission reductions,

as well as multi-goal (e.g., energy

efficiency and renewable energy)

strategies in state implementation

plans submitted to EPA; 

• capacity-building outreach through

EPA’s Web site, an electronic “listserv,” and case studies; 

• a best-practices clearinghouse to

promote multi-emission reduction

strategies, energy efficiency, sustainability, clean energy, and other

greenhouse gas mitigation measures; 

• information on state and local legislative activities related to greenhouse gases; 

• state forest carbon data; and

• additional enhanced opportunities to

promote state and local efforts,

including creating success stories for

wide dissemination and replication.

In 2000 the program distributed over

4,200 CD-ROM outreach kits to state

and local leaders, providing information

on voluntary strategies for reducing

greenhouse gases. The kits are helping

states and communities save money,

improve air quality, lower risks to

human health, and reduce traffic congestion, among other benefits. Their

slide show on climate change is suitable

for presentations to community groups,

business organizations, and others.

They also include more than 100 information sheets on climate change science, its potential impacts on each

state, and technologies and policies that

lower greenhouse gas emissions. 

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

NASA’s well-established outreach

activities are designed to draw public

and press attention to its work in the

climate change arena. 

Workshops for Journalists 

NASA’s co-sponsored workshops on

global climate change provide science

reporters with basic tutorials, information
154 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

on major scientific advances, access to

international science leaders, and opportunities to visit major scientific facilities.

In 1999 NASA hosted its first Global

Change Workshop for journalists in concert with the American Geophysical

Union.

Media Directory for Global 

Change Experts

Published biennially, NASA’s Earth

Observing System Global Change Media Directory provides journalists with a ready

source of international expertise on

global climate change science and policy

(NASA 2001). The directory contains

contact information for more than 300

science experts available to the media in

climate change, natural hazards, ozone,

water resources, global warming, and

many other areas. It is available on-line

and is searchable by topic, name, affiliation, or location.

Earth Observatory 

On-Line Newsroom 

NASA’s on-line newsroom for journalists features the latest news on Earth science research released from all NASA

centers and more than 80 universities

participating in NASA’s Earth programs

through sponsored research. Resources

updated weekly include media

announcements, summaries of headline

news, listings of newly published

research, a searchable directory of

experts, and selected writers’ guides.

National Park Service

As the guardian of the world’s finest

system of national parks, the National

Park Service applies innovative techniques to reach out to and actively

involve diverse audiences in preserving

and restoring our nation’s parks. Following are some examples of the Park Service’s increased support of education on

global warming and environmental stewardship.

Environmental Leadership Program

As part of its Environmental Leadership Program, the Park Service has

turned Utah’s Zion National Park visitor

center into a model environmentally sustainable facility. The new center incorporates passive solar design to reduce

overall energy consumption and uses

only 80 percent of the energy required

for other national park visitor centers.

The center also receives 30 percent of its

total electricity needs from solar power.

Through an innovative transportation

agreement with the nearby town of Bonneville, visitors can reduce fuel consumption by parking in town and riding

alternative-fueled buses to the park. 

Green Energy Parks

Green Energy Parks focuses on conserving energy and incorporating renewable-energy resources into the national

park system to save money in park operations, as well as to promote more environmentally friendly facilities. The Park

Service educates its visitors about its sustainable environment efforts through a

combination of sign- age, brochures, and

fact sheets. For example, at Lake Meade,

Nevada, the Park Service has turned the

park entrance tollbooth into a state-ofthe-art, renewable-energy facility that is

powered solely by the building’s photovoltaic roof panels. Road signs describe

the facility to drivers and explain the

technology’s environmental benefits.

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

Several NOAA offices are significantly contributing to climate change

and weather-related research education

and public outreach efforts.

National Climatic Data Center

NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center maintains a vast database of weatherrelated information used by specialists in

meteorology, insurance, and agriculture

and by various business sectors. The center provides information through special

reports and its Web site. 

The National Climatic 

Prediction Center

NOAA’s National Climatic Prediction Center recently developed climate

outlook products to help farmers, 

businesses, and the public better plan

for extreme weather events related 

to variations in climate. The new 

products are available on the center’s

Expert Assessment Web page at

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/. They include

drought, hurricane, and winter outlooks, along with an El Niño–Southern

Oscillation advisories and threat assessments. The center also maintains a climate educational Web site.

National Geophysical Data Center

NOAA’s National Geophysical Data

Center’s primary mission is data management. The center plays a leading role in

the nation’s research into the environment, while providing public domain

data to a wide group of users. It features

a Web site on paleoclimate at http://

www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/global warming/home.html, which was developed

both to help educate, inform, and highlight the importance of paleoclimate

research and to illustrate how paleoclimate research relates to global warming

and other important issues of climate

variability and change.

Office of Global Programs

NOAA’s Office of Global Programs

(OGP) released the fourth of its Reports to

the Nation series in 1997. The reports

offer educators and the public a clear

understanding of complex atmospheric

phenomena, such as El Niño, the ozone

layer, and climate change. Through a

grant to the Lamont–Doherty Earth

Observatory, OGP produced a public

fact sheet on the North Atlantic Oscillation. OGP also created a special climate

Web page to make NOAA’s climate

information more accessible to the general public.

During the 1997–98 El Niño and

1998–99 La Niña, OGP and the

National Climatic Prediction Center

worked closely with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, state agencies, and the press to educate the public

about seasonal climate variability, the

importance of advisories of El Niño–

Southern Oscillations and other seasonal

and decadal oscillations to our daily

lives, and the need to prepare for related

extreme weather events. 
Education, Training, and Outreach ■ 155

Smithsonian Institution

Every year the Smithsonian Institution’s exhibits educate millions of U.S.

and foreign visitors about many areas of

science, including global warming. 

Understanding the Forecast: 

Global Warming

Originally shown at New York’s

American Museum of Natural History,

this exhibit was updated by the Smithsonian in the summer of 1997 at the

National Museum of Natural History in

Washington, D.C. Nearly 443,000 visitors passed through the exhibit that

summer, and many more viewed it on its

nationwide tour. The exhibit’s interactive displays provided information on

climate change science and explained

the connections between our daily use

of electricity, gasoline, and consumer

products and greenhouse gas emissions.

The displays also demonstrated how we

can reduce our individual contributions

to greenhouse gas emissions. 

Under the Sun: An Outdoor

Exhibition of Light

Tens of thousands of visitors viewed

the Cooper Hewitt’s outdoor solar

energy exhibit in the gardens of the

museum’s Andrew Carnegie mansion in

New York City. The Smithsonian later

sent the exhibit on tour to other cities,

including a summer stay in the gardens

behind the Smithsonian’s castle on the

Mall in Washington, D.C. The exhibit

demonstrated how solar energy systems

can meet architectural and design preferences, while providing energy that

reduces pollution and greenhouse gas

emissions. The exhibit script paid special attention to helping visitors understand how energy consumption is

linked to global warming. Both federal

agencies and private industry partners

helped fund the exhibit.

Forces of Change

The Smithsonian is working on an

exhibit that examines the geological,

environmental, and cultural processes

that have shaped and continue to

change our world. It consists of a permanent exhibit hall at the Smithsonian’s

National Museum of Natural History,

traveling exhibitions, publications,

interactive computer products, and

public programs, including a lecture

series and electronic classroom courses.

Opened in the summer of 2001, the

exhibit is expected to be seen by six

million museum visitors annually. Its

outreach programs and materials will

reach additional millions throughout

the nation. The exhibit’s supporters

include NASA, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, USDA, the Mobil Foundation,

Inc., the American Farmland Trust, EPA,

and the U.S. Global Change Research

Program.

Global Links 

As part of its Forces of Change program, the Smithsonian is developing

the Global Links exhibit, designed to

tell a series of global climate change

stories. The first story will explore El

Niño and its possible links to global

warming. The second story will examine greenhouse gases and the ozone

hole. An EPA grant has supported preliminary planning of the Global Links

exhibit.

Antarctica Exhibit 

The National Museum of Natural

History is seeking funding for an

exhibit that explores how research in

Antarctica allows us to learn more about

global climate change in the past and to

improve predictions for future change.

The exhibit is scheduled to open in June

2003.

Partnerships

Government organizations with

joint interests in climate change have

formed partnerships to educate the public about climate change and to offer

suggestions for how individuals and

communities can help reduce its risks.

Following are some examples.

It All Adds Up to Cleaner Air

This collaborative effort of the U.S.

Department of Transportation and EPA

is informing the public about the connections between their transportation

choices, traffic congestion, and air pollution. The program emphasizes simple,

convenient actions people can take that

can improve air quality when practiced

on a wide scale. 

Outdoor Interpreter’s Tool Kit 

EPA led a partnership effort with the

National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, and NOAA to develop

a climate change educational toolkit

CD-ROM for park wildlife interpreters

(U.S. EPA and NPS 2001). The kit provides interpreters with fact sheets and

presentation materials that investigate

the links between climate change and

changes to habitat, ecosystems,

wildlife, and our national parks. The

partnership also produced a climate

change video that will inform park visitors about climate change and its

impacts on national parks. Released

early in 2002, the kit includes other outreach materials, such as Park Service climate change bookmarks.

Reporter’s Guide on 

Climate Change

Supported by NOAA and DOE, the

nonprofit National Safety Council’s

Environmental Health Center produced

a second-edition guide for journalists

on climate change in 2000 (NSC 2000).

Reporting on Climate Change: Understanding

the Science is part of a series of reporters’

guides designed to enhance public

understanding of the significant environmental health risks and challenges

facing modern society. Based on the

findings of the 1995 Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change assessment

report, the guide explains major global

warming issues in detail, as well as

broader strategies for successful science

reporting, interaction with the scientific

community, and understanding scientific reporting methods. The guide also

contains a glossary and list of public

and private information sources and

Web links.
Appendix A 

Emission Trends
Appendix A ■ 157
158 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002
Appendix A ■ 159
160 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002
Appendix A ■ 161
162 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002
Appendix B 

Policies and

Measures

Energy: Commercial and Residential

Energy: Industrial

Energy: Supply

Transportation

Industry (Non-CO2

)

Agriculture

Forestry

Waste Management

Cross-sectoral Policies and Measures
164 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Energy: Commercial and Residential 

ENERGY STAR® for the Commercial Market1

Description: Commercial buildings account for more than 15 percent of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Many commercial

buildings could effectively operate with 30 percent less energy if owners invested in energy-efficient products, technologies, and

best management practices. ENERGY STAR® in the commercial sector is a partnership program that promotes the improvement of

the energy performance of entire buildings.

Objectives: ENERGY STAR® provides information and motivation to decision makers to help them improve the energy performance of their buildings and facilities. The program also provides performance benchmarks, strategies, technical assistance, and

recognition.

Greenhouse gas affected: Carbon dioxide.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary agreement.

Status of implementation: ENERGY STAR® has been underway since 1991 with the introduction of Green Lights. The program

developed a strong partnership with large and small businesses and public organizations, such as state and local governments and

school systems. The program’s strategy has evolved substantially since the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report, with the major program

focus now on promoting high-performing (high-efficiency) buildings and providing decision makers throughout an organization

with the information they need to undertake effective building improvement projects. 

An innovative tool introduced in 1999 allows the benchmarking of building energy performance against the national stock of

buildings. This tool is being expanded to represent the major U.S. building types, such as office, school (K–12), retail, and hospitality buildings. This national building energy performance rating system also allows for recognizing the highest-performing

buildings, which can earn the ENERGY STAR® label. By the end of 2001, the program expects to be working with more than 11

billion square feet of building space across the country and to show over 7,000 rated buildings and more than 1,750 buildings

labeled for excellence. EPA estimates that the program avoided 23 teragrams of CO2 in 2000 and projects reductions of 62 teragrams of CO2 in 2010.

Implementing entities: The partnership is a national program, managed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Implementing entities include a wide range of building owners and users, such as retailers, healthcare organizations, real estate

investors, state and local governments, schools and universities, and small businesses.

Costs of policy or measure: Costs are defined as those monetary expenses necessary for participants’ implementation of the

program. Participants evaluate the cost-effective opportunities for improved energy performance and upgrade their facilities and

operations accordingly. While energy-efficiency improvements require an initial investment, these costs are recovered over a

period of time.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: By reducing energy demand and use, ENERGY STAR® also reduces emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. 

Interaction with other policies or measures: By developing established energy performance benchmarks for commercial

buildings, ENERGY STAR® in the commercial sector complements other measures at the national level, such as the Department of

Energy’s (DOE’s) Rebuild America. 

Contact: Angela Coyle, EPA, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, (202) 564-9719, coyle.angela@epa.gov.

1 Actions 1 and 2 in the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report; continuing.
Appendix B ■ 165

Commercial Buildings Integration: 

Updating State Building Codes

Description: This program provides the technical assistance for implementing the energy-efficiency provisions of building codes

and applicable standards that affect residential and commercial construction. These efforts involve partnerships with federal

agencies, state and local governments, the building industry, financial institutions, utilities, public interest groups, and building

owners and users. This measure is supported by Residential Building Codes, which is part of the Residential Buildings Integration

program; Commercial Buildings Codes, which is part of the Commercial Buildings Integration Program; and Training and

Assistance for Codes, which is part of the Community Energy Program.

Objectives: This program aims to improve the energy efficiency of the nation’s new residential and commercial buildings, as well

as additions and alterations to existing commercial buildings. Within applicable residential building codes, it incorporates the

most technologically feasible, economically justified energy conservation measures. It also provides state and local governments

with the technical tools and information they need for adopting, using, and enforcing efficient building codes for residential construction. 

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon monoxide.

Type of policy or measure: Regulatory.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: DOE and state legislatures.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program increases energy efficiency; builds cooperation among

stakeholders; shares information between federal and state entities; and educates builders, consumers, and homeowners. 

Interaction with other policies or measures: The program complements DOE’s efforts to develop and introduce advanced,

highly efficient building technologies.
166 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Commercial Buildings Integration: 

Partnerships for Commercial Buildings and Facilities

Description: This program develops and demonstrates advanced technologies, controls, and equipment in collaboration with

the design and construction community; advances integrated technologies and practices to optimize whole-building energy performance; and helps reduce energy use in commercial multifamily buildings by promoting construction of efficient buildings and

their operation near an optimum level of performance. It also performs research on energy-efficient, sustainable, and low-cost

building envelope materials and structures. This program is supported by a number of DOE programs: Commercial Buildings

R&D, which is part of the Commercial Buildings Integration program, and Analysis Tools and Design Strategies and Building

Envelope R&D, which are parts of the Equipment, Materials, and Tools program.

Objectives: This program aims to develop high-performance building design, construction, and operation processes; provide the

tools needed for replicating the processes and design strategies for creating high-performance buildings; research new technologies for high-performance buildings; define the criteria and methods for measuring building performance; measure and document

building performance in high-profile examples; and develop a fundamental understanding of heat, air, and moisture transfer

through building envelopes and insulation materials, and apply the results to develop construction technologies to increase building energy efficiency.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon monoxide.

Type of policy or measure: Research.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: Federal government R&D in partnership with the private sector.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program increases energy efficiency, shares information with and

educates stakeholders, builds criteria for industry use, and collects useful data. It also has environmental benefits not related to

greenhouse gases.
Appendix B ■ 167

ENERGY STAR® for the Residential Market2

Description: Residential buildings account for over 18 percent of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Many homes could use

30 percent less energy if owners purchased efficient technologies, incorporated efficiency into home improvement projects, or

demanded an efficient home when buying a new home. EPA’s ENERGY STAR® -labeled new homes, and EPA’s Home Improvement

Toolkit featuring ENERGY STAR®, deliver the information consumers need beyond labels on efficient products and equipment to

make these decisions.

Objective: ENERGY STAR® provides information to consumers and homeowners so that they can make sound investments when

buying a new home or when undertaking a home improvement project. This includes information on which products to purchase, how to achieve a high-performing home, the current energy performance of a home, and the improved performance that

results from improvement projects.

Greenhouse gas affected: Carbon dioxide.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary agreements and outreach.

Status of implementation: The ENERGY STAR® label for new homes has been available since 1995, building upon the success of

the ENERGY STAR® label in a variety of product areas. The ENERGY STAR® program has been underway since 1992, with the introduction of the ENERGY STAR®-labeled computer. The ENERGY STAR® label is now on more than 25,000 U.S. homes that are averaging energy savings of about 35 percent higher than the model energy code. Since the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report, this

residential effort has expanded significantly to home improvement projects in the existing homes market. The program now provides guidance for homeowners on designing efficiency into kitchens, additions, and whole-home improvement projects. It offers

a Web-based audit tool and a home energy benchmark tool to help homeowners get underway and monitor progress. The program is also working with energy efficiency program partners around the country so that they can use this unbiased information

at consumer transaction points to promote energy efficiency. EPA projects the program will avoid 20 teragrams of CO2 annually by 2010.

Implementing entities: ENERGY STAR® is a national program. EPA implements this effort with partners around the country. 

Costs of policy or measure: All costs are recovered over a period of time.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: By reducing energy demand and use, ENERGY STAR® also reduces nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. 

Interaction with other policies or measures: ENERGY STAR® for new homes works closely with DOE’s Rebuild America program.

Contact: David Lee, EPA, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, (202) 564-9131, lee.davidf@epa.gov.

2 Part of Action 6 in the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report; continuing.
168 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Community Energy Program: 

Rebuild America

Description: Rebuild America connects people, resources, proven ideas, and innovative practices through collaborative partnerships with states, small towns, large metropolitan areas, and Native American tribes, creating a large network of peer communities. The program provides one-stop shopping for information and assistance on how to plan, finance, implement, and manage

retrofit projects to improve energy efficiency. Rebuild America supports communities with access to DOE regional offices, state

energy offices, national laboratories, utilities, colleges and universities, and nonprofit agencies.

Objective: Rebuild America aims to assist states and communities in developing and implementing environmentally and economically sound activities through smarter energy use.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon monoxide.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary, information, and education.

Status of implementation: As of May 2001, Rebuild America had formed 340 partnerships with approximately 550 million

square feet of buildings complete or underway in all 50 states and two U.S. territories.

Implementing entities: State and local community partnerships with the federal government.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: Rebuild America expands knowledge and technology base through education, improves energy efficiency, promotes private–public cooperation and information sharing, creates peer networks, preserves historic buildings, builds new facilities, retrofits existing buildings, stimulates economic development, promotes

community development, and avoids urban sprawl.

Interaction with other policy or measure: Rebuild America helps to promote many of the resources made available by other

DOE programs, such as Updating State Building Codes and ENERGY STAR®.
Appendix B ■ 169

Residential Building Integration: Energy Partnerships 

for Affordable Housing (Building America)

Description: The Residential Buildings Integration program operates Energy Partnerships for Affordable Housing. This new program consolidates the formerly separate systems-engineering programs of Building America, Industrialized Housing, Passive

Solar Buildings, Indoor Air Quality, and existing building research into a comprehensive program. Systems-integration research

and development activities analyze building components and systems and integrate them so that the overall building performance is greater than the sum of its parts. Building America is a private–public partnership that provides energy solutions for production housing and combines the knowledge and resources of industry leaders with DOE’s technical capabilities to act as a

catalyst for change in the home building industry. 

Objective: This program aims to accelerate the introduction of highly efficient building technologies and practices through

research and development of advanced systems for production builders. 

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon monoxide.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary, research, and education.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: DOE and private industry partners.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program increases energy efficiency, and software and information

sharing; incorporates renewable resources and distributed generation; improves builder productivity; reduces construction time;

provides new product opportunities to manufacturers and suppliers; and promotes teamwork within the segmented building

industry.
170 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

ENERGY STAR®-Labeled Products3

Description: Many homeowners and businesses could use 30 percent less energy, without sacrificing services or comfort, by

investing in energy efficiency. Introduced by EPA in 1992 for computers, the ENERGY STAR® label has been expanded to more

than 30 product categories. Since the mid-1990s, EPA has collaborated with DOE, which now has responsibility for certain product categories. The ENERGY STAR® label is now recognized by more than 40 percent of U.S. consumers, who have purchased over

600 million ENERGY STAR® products. The program has developed a strong partnership with business, representing over 1,600

manufacturers with more than 11,000 ENERGY STAR®-labeled products.

Objective: The ENERGY STAR® label is used to distinguish energy-efficient products in the marketplace so that businesses and

consumers can easily purchase these products, save money on energy bills, and avoid air pollution.

Greenhouse gas affected: Carbon dioxide.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary agreement.

Status of implementation: The program’s strategy has evolved substantially since the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report, not only

with its addition of new products to the ENERGY STAR® family, but also with its expanded outreach to consumers in partnership

with their local utility or similar organization. ENERGY STAR® works in partnership with utilities, representing about 50 percent

of U.S. energy customers. To date, more than 600 million ENERGY STAR®-labeled products have been purchased. EPA estimates

that the program avoided 33 teragrams of CO2 in 2000 and projects it will reduce 75 teragrams of CO2 in 2010.

Implementing entities: ENERGY STAR® is a national program. EPA and DOE implement the ENERGY STAR® label on products with

partners across the country.

Costs of policy or measure: All costs are recovered over a period of time.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: By reducing energy demand and use, ENERGY STAR® also reduces nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. 

Interaction with other policies or measures: ENERGY STAR® is implemented in concert with the minimum efficiency standards

developed by DOE, where those standards exist, such as with household appliances and heating and cooling equipment.

Contact: Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, (202) 564-9124, schmeltz.rachel@epa.gov

3 Part of Action 6 in the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report; continuing.
Appendix B ■ 171

Building Equipment, Materials, and Tools: 

Superwindow Collaborative

Description: The Superwindow Collaborative develops commercially viable, advanced electrochromic windows and

Superwindows for competing producers. These programs intend to reward industry through market mechanisms for their investments in the research, development, and deployment of energy-efficient windows. In an area that is less suited to national standards and that has a growing international market, significant investments are required to establish a technical basis for

performance standards recognized for their scientific excellence. The Superwindow Collaborative is supported by two DOE programs—Building Envelope: Electrochromic Windows and Building Envelope: Superwindows—both of which are part of DOE’s

Equipment, Materials, and Tools program. 

Objectives: The Superwindow Collaborative aims to change windows from net energy loss centers to net energy savers across

the United States; to strengthen the market position of U.S. industry in global markets; and to provide building owners costeffective savings, a more comfortable building climate, and possible productivity improvements.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon monoxide.

Type of policy or measure: Research.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: Federal government R&D in partnership with the private sector. The electrochromic participants include

two national laboratories and four industrial partners. Supporting research on materials, durability, and energy performance is

performed at DOE’s national laboratories.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The Superwindow Collaborative increases economic competitiveness,

energy efficiency, and building climate comfort, and provides possible productivity improvements for buildings.
172 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Building Equipment, Materials, and Tools:

Lighting Partnerships

Description: Lighting Partnerships supports research and development in three areas: 

• Advanced light sources, consisting of research that is heavily cost-shared with industry to advance lighting technology,

with the goal of developing replacements for the inefficient incandescent lamp. The program supports improvements in

compact fluorescent lamps and in new lamps using improved incandescent, fluorescent, high-intensity-discharge, and electrode-less technologies. 

• Lighting fixtures, controls, and distribution systems consisting of cost-shared research on lighting controls in commercial

buildings and light fixtures for advanced light sources, primarily compact fluorescent lamps. 

• The impact of lighting on vision, consisting of industry cost-shared research on outdoor lighting. 

Objectives: The program aims to develop and accelerate the introduction of advanced lighting technologies and to make solidstate lighting more efficient than conventional sources and more easily integrated into building systems. Additional goals are to

develop lighting technologies that last for 20,000 to 100,000 hours and to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from

coal-fired power plants.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon monoxide.

Type of policy or measure: Research.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: Lighting Partnerships is a federal research and development program that collaborates with manufacturers, utilities, user groups, and trade and professional organizations.
Appendix B ■ 173

Building Equipment, Materials, and Tools: 

Partnerships for Commercial Buildings and Facilities

Description: This program develops and demonstrates advanced technologies, controls, and equipment in collaboration with

the design and construction community; advances integrated technologies and practices to optimize whole-building energy performance; and helps reduce energy use in commercial multifamily buildings by promoting the construction of efficient buildings

and their operation near an optimum level of performance. It also performs research on energy-efficient, sustainable, and lowcost building-envelope materials and structures. The program is supported by a number of DOE programs, including Commercial

Buildings R&D, which is part of the Commercial Buildings Integration program; and Analysis Tools and Design Strategies and

Building Envelope R&D, which are parts of the Equipment, Materials, and Tools program.

Objectives: This program aims to develop high-performance building design, construction, and operation processes; provide the

tools needed for replicating the processes and design strategies for creating high-performance buildings; research new technologies for high-performance buildings; define the criteria and methods for measuring building performance; measure and document

building performance in high-profile examples; and develop a fundamental understanding of heat, air, and moisture transfer

through building envelopes and insulation materials, and apply the results to develop construction technologies to increase building energy efficiency.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon monoxide.

Type of policy or measure: Research.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: Federal government R&D in partnership with the private sector.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program increases energy efficiency, shares information with and

educates stakeholders, builds criteria for industry use, and collects useful data. It also has environmental benefits not related to

greenhouse gases.
174 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Building Equipment, Materials, and Tools: 

Collaborative Research and Development

Description: This program researches, develops, and commercializes food display and storage technologies that use less energy

and less refrigerant; new, super-efficient electric dryers; low-cost, high-reliability heat pump water heaters; and energy-efficient

heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems. It also brings new products to market and provides an independent third-party

evaluation of highly efficient products. The Space Conditioning and Refrigeration program and the Appliances and Emerging

Technologies program are part of the Equipment, Materials, and Tools program.

Objectives: This program aims to develop and promote the use of low-cost, energy-efficient equipment, materials, and tools.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon monoxide.

Type of policy or measure: Research.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: State and local partnerships with the federal government.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program promotes energy efficiency, evaluates energy-efficient

products and accelerates their commercialization, and improves economic competitiveness and data collection.
Appendix B ■ 175

Residential Appliance Standards

Description: Administered by DOE’s Office of Codes and Standards, the Residential Appliance Standards program periodically reviews and updates efficiency standards for most major household appliances.

Objective: The program’s standards aim to ensure that American consumers receive a minimum practical energy efficiency for

every appliance they buy.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon monoxide.

Type of policy or measure: Regulatory.

Status of implementation: Implemented. 

Implementing entities: DOE and other federal entities. DOE promulgates revised or new regulations, while the Federal Trade

Commission prescribes the labeling rules for residential appliances.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The program enhances energy security, increases competitiveness and

reliability, and improves energy efficiency. 
176 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

State and Community Assistance: State Energy Program;

Weatherization Assistance Program; Community Energy

Grants; Information Outreach

Description: Several programs and initiatives support DOE’s State and Community Assistance efforts:

• The State Energy Program provides a supportive framework with sufficient flexibility to enable the states to address their

energy priorities in concert with national priorities, and supports the federal–state partnerships that are crucial to energy

policy development and energy technology deployment. 

• The Weatherization Assistance Program provides cost-effective, energy-efficiency services to low-income constituencies who

otherwise could not afford these services and who stand to benefit greatly from the cost savings of energy-efficient technologies. 

• The Community Energy Grants program provides funding to competitively selected communities to support community-wide

energy projects that improve energy efficiency and implement sustainable building design and operation concepts. 

• The Information Outreach program helps to conceptualize, plan, and implement a systematic approach to marketing and

communication objectives and evaluation.

Objectives: The objectives of DOE’s State and Community Assistance efforts are based on the combined objectives of its major

programs and initiatives:

• State Energy: To maximize energy, environmental, and economic benefits through increased collaboration at the federal,

state, and community levels; to increase market acceptance of energy-efficient and renewable-energy technologies, practices, and products; and to use innovative approaches to reach market segments and meet policy goals not typically

addressed by market-based solutions.

• Weatherization: To develop new weatherization technologies, further application of best methods and practices throughout

the national weatherization network, leverage and integrate weatherization with other energy efficiency resources, and

demonstrate program effectiveness.

• Community Energy Grants: To save energy, create jobs, promote growth, and protect the environment.

• Information Outreach: To provide technical assistance needed to conduct the various planned activities that will educate target audiences; to follow strategic plan goals and support long-term success in developing energy-efficient systems and

processes; to improve technology-transfer and information-exchange processes; and to emphasize partnering with strategic allies, communications, education and training, and information support.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon monoxide.

Type of policy or measure: Economic, information. 

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: States and local communities through partnerships with the federal government. For example, DOE

makes grants to states through its Weatherization Assistance Program, which in turn awards grants to local agencies—usually

community action agencies or other nonprofit or government organizations—to perform the actual weatherization services.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: These programs enhance energy efficiency; create jobs and boost economic development; have non-greenhouse gas environmental benefits; increase collaboration at federal, state, and local levels;

provide health benefits; educate consumers; promote technology transfer to industry; and provide training.
Appendix B ■ 177

Heat Island Reduction Initiative4 

Description: This initiative is a multi-agency effort to work with communities and state and local officials to reduce the impacts

of urban heat islands. It promotes common-sense measures, such as planting shade trees, installing reflective roofs, and using

light-colored pavements to reduce ambient temperature, ozone pollution, cooling energy demand, and greenhouse gas emissions.

This initiative also supports research to quantify the air quality, health, and energy-saving benefits of measures for reducing the

impacts of urban heat islands.

Objective: The program’s objective is to work with state and local governments to reverse the effects of urban heat islands by

encouraging the widespread use of mitigation strategies. 

Greenhouse gas affected: Carbon dioxide.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary, information exchange, and research.

Status of implementation: The program was redesigned in 1997 and is currently ongoing. EPA performs research on the upfront costs, potential savings, and options for reflective surfaces, to assist with implementing measures for reducing the demands

of heat islands. In addition, information on the air quality benefits may allow states to incorporate these measures into their air

quality plans. Pilot projects have been established in five cities that have agreed to assist with research and work to implement

the measures. For example, several cities in Utah have implemented ordinances with measures for reducing the impacts of urban

heat islands. And California’s state legislature and governor have authorized using over $24 million for measures to reduce peak

summer heat island demand for electricity.

Implementing entities: EPA, in partnership with state and local governments.

Costs of policy or measure: Reflective surfaces are generally implemented during new construction or when replacing old

materials. While initial costs are comparable between nonreflective and reflective surfaces, cost savings can be expected when

evaluating life-cycle costs (as energy savings and reduced maintenance are considered).

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The program’s measures can reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides due to reduced energy use and ambient temperatures. Lower temperatures may also help reduce

ozone concentrations due to the heat-dependent reaction that forms this pollutant. In addition, energy savings can be expected

from implementing heat-island reduction measures. 

Interaction with other policies or measures: The program interacts with the ENERGY STAR® Roofs Program and state implementation plans.

Contact: Niko Dietsch, EPA, Global Programs Division, (202) 564-3479, dietsch.nikolaas@epa.gov.

4 Action 9 in the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report; continuing.
178 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Economic Incentives/Tax Credits

Description: Current law provides a 10 percent business energy investment tax credit for qualifying equipment that uses solar

energy to generate electricity, to heat or cool, to provide hot water for use in a structure, or to provide solar process heat. No

credit is available for nonbusiness purchases of solar energy equipment. The Administration is proposing a new tax credit for

individuals of photovoltaic equipment and solar water-heating systems for use in a dwelling that the individual uses as a residence. Equipment would qualify for the credit only if used exclusively for purposes other than heating swimming pools. An individual would be allowed a cumulative maximum credit of $2,000 per residence for photovoltaic equipment and $2,000 per

residence for solar water-heating systems. The credit for solar water-heating equipment would apply only if placed in service

after December 31, 2001, and before January 1, 2006, and to photovoltaic systems placed in service after December 31, 2001,

and before January 1, 2008.

Objective: This proposed tax credit aims to expand the future market of residential solar energy systems.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon monoxide.

Type of policy or measure: Economic.

Status of implementation: This measure is in the proposal stage.
Appendix B ■ 179

Energy: Industrial 

Industries of the Future

Description: Industries of the Future creates partnerships among industry, government, and supporting laboratories and institutions to accelerate technology research, development, and deployment. Led by DOE’s Office of Industrial Technologies, this

strategy is being implemented in nine energy- and waste-intensive industries. Two key elements of the strategy include an industry-driven document outlining each industry’s vision for the future, and a technology roadmap to identify the technologies that

will be needed to reach that industry’s goals.

Objective: This strategy aims to help nine key energy-intensive industries reduce their energy consumption while remaining

competitive and economically strong.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary, research, and information.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: Partnerships among industry, government, and supporting laboratories and institutions.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This strategy enhances economic security and energy efficiency, allows

for competitive restructuring, has non-GHG environmental benefits, forms cooperative alliances, increases productivity, and disseminates information.
180 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Best Practices Program

Description: This initiative of DOE’s Office of Industrial Technologies offers industry the tools to improve plant energy efficiency, enhance environmental performance, and increase productivity. Selected best-of-class large demonstration plants are

showcased across the country, while other program activities encourage the replication of these best practices in still larger numbers of large plants.

Objective: Best Practices is designed to change the ways industrial plant managers make decisions affecting energy use by motors

and drives, compressed air, steam, combustion systems, and other plant utilities.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary, information.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: DOE and industrial partners.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: Best Practices enhances economic security and energy efficiency, has

non-greenhouse gas environmental benefits, increases productivity and industry cooperation, and disseminates knowledge.
Appendix B ■ 181

ENERGY STAR® for Industry (Climate Wise)5

Description: Nearly one-third of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions result from industrial activities. The primary source of these

emissions is the burning of carbon-based fuels, either on site in manufacturing plants or through the purchase of generated electricity. Recently, ENERGY STAR® and Climate Wise were integrated under ENERGY STAR® to compose a more comprehensive partnership for industrial companies. Through established energy performance benchmarks, strategies for improving energy

performance, technical assistance, and recognition for accomplishing reductions in energy, the partnership contributes to a

reduction in energy use for the U.S. industrial sector.

Objectives: ENERGY STAR® enables industrial companies to evaluate and cost-effectively reduce their energy use. This reduction,

in turn, results in decreased carbon dioxide emissions when carbon-based fuels are the source of that energy.

Greenhouse gas affected: Carbon dioxide.

Types of policy or measure: Voluntary agreement.

Status of implementation: This program has been underway since 1994 with the launch of Climate Wise. In 2000, ENERGY

STAR®and the Climate Wise Partnership were integrated to provide the industrial sector with a more comprehensive set of industrial benchmarking and technical assistance tools. The partnership currently has more than 500 industrial partners representing

a large share of energy use in the industrial sector. EPA estimates that the program avoided 11 teragrams of CO2 in emissions in

2000 and projects reductions of 16 teragrams of CO2 in 2010.

Implementing entities: The partnership is primarily a national program, managed by EPA. State and local governments voluntarily participate by promoting the program to industries within their jurisdictions.

Costs of policy or measure: Costs are defined as the monetary expenses necessary for an industrial participant to implement

the program. Participants evaluate the cost-effective opportunities for energy performance and complete adjustments to their

operation. While an initial outlay of funds is possible, these costs are recovered over a period of time.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The burning of fossil fuels creates airborne pollutants, including nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. By reducing energy demand and use, ENERGY STAR® helps to decrease emissions of these pollutants. 

Interaction with other policies or measures: ENERGY STAR® is the only national program that offers industrial companies the

ability to evaluate and minimize energy use through established energy performance benchmarks, strategies, and technical assistance. ENERGY STAR® complements programs managed by DOE. DOE oversees partnerships with nine energy-intensive industrial sectors to accelerate technology research, development, and deployment, with a goal of reducing energy use and the

environmental impacts of these industries. DOE also manages a program to improve a plant’s technical systems, or components

of a plant, including the motors, steam, compressed air, combined heat and power, and process heat. ENERGY STAR® complements

these programs with a system for evaluating plant-wide energy performance.

Contact: Elizabeth Dutrow, EPA, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, (202) 564-9061, dutrow.elizabeth@epa.gov.

5 Foundation action 9 in the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report; continuing.
182 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Industrial Assessment Centers

Description: Teams of engineering faculty and students from 26 universities around the country conduct free comprehensive

energy audits or industrial assessments and provide recommendations to eligible small and medium-sized manufacturers to help

them identify opportunities to improve productivity, reduce waste, and save energy.

Objectives: The assessments aim to improve energy efficiency and productivity, minimize waste, and prevent pollution. 

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary, information, and education.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: DOE and universities.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The program has non-greenhouse gas environmental benefits, improves

energy efficiency, economic productivity, and competitiveness; encourages public–private-sector interaction and cooperation

and information sharing within industry; provides student educational experience; and collects industry data for industry progress

assessments, thereby enabling the quantification of the state of energy, waste, and productivity management in small and medium-sized industries.
Appendix B ■ 183

Enabling Technologies: 

Industrial Materials for the Future

Description: DOE’s Industrial Materials for the Future program is the combination of the Advanced Industrial Materials and

Continuous Fiber Ceramic Composite programs. The new program focuses on areas that offer major improvements in energy

efficiency and emission reductions across all industries.

Objective: Consistent with the mission of DOE’s Office of Industrial Technologies, this program’s mission is to lead a national

effort to research, design, develop, engineer, and test new and improved materials for the Industries of the Future.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds.

Types of policy or measure: Research.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: DOE and industry partners.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program reduces emissions of non-greenhouse gas pollutants;

improves energy efficiency, economic productivity, and competitiveness; encourages public–private-sector interaction and cooperation; and facilitates information sharing within industry.
184 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Financial Assistance: NICE3

(National Industrial Competitiveness through 

Energy, Environment, & Economics)

Description: Sponsored by DOE’s Office of Industrial Technologies, NICE3 is an innovative, cost-sharing grant program that

provides funding to state and industry partnerships (large and small businesses) for projects that develop and demonstrate

advances in energy efficiency and clean production technologies.

Objectives: The NICE3 program was authorized to improve the energy efficiency and cost-effectiveness of pollution prevention

technologies and processes, including source-reduction and waste-minimization technologies and processes. It also aims to

advance the global competitiveness of U.S. industry.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary, research.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: State agencies, industry, and universities.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The NICE3 program increases economic production, energy efficiency,

industry competitiveness, and cooperation between the public and private sectors. It also has non-greenhouse gas environmental benefits.
Appendix B ■ 185

Energy: Supply

Renewable Energy Commercialization: 

Wind; Solar; Geothermal; Biopower

Description: DOE’s Office of Power Technologies maintains several programs on individual renewable energy technologies,

including wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. Renewable technologies use naturally occurring energy sources to produce electricity, heat, fuel, or a combination of these energy types. 

Objectives: The program aims to develop clean, competitive power technologies; to diversify the nation’s energy supply portfolio; to use abundant domestic resources; to help the nation meet its commitments to curb greenhouse gas emissions; and to

achieve tax incentives for renewable energy production and use.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds.

Type of policy or measure: Research, regulatory.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: DOE and industry partners.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The program enhances the nation’s energy and economic security; has

non-greenhouse gas environmental benefits; builds energy infrastructure; creates jobs; increases industrial competitiveness and

energy reliability; and diversifies the nation’s energy portfolio.
186 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Climate Challenge

Description: The Climate Challenge program is a joint, voluntary effort of DOE and the electric utility industry to reduce,

avoid, or sequester greenhouse gases. Utilities, in partnership with DOE, developed individual agreements to identify and

implement cost-effective activities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Electric utility trade associations are active in promoting the program and in developing industry-wide initiatives. Details on the program are available at

http://www.eren.doe.gov/climatechallenge/.

Objective: Established as a Foundation Action under the 1993 Climate Change Action Plan, Climate Challenge persuaded 

electric utilities to develop Participation Accords with DOE. These individual agreements identified cost-effective 

activities for the utility to implement, with the goal of reducing emissions in 2000. Each utility must annually report its 

results to DOE’s Energy Information Administration Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program

(http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/frntvrgg.html), consistent with the voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas emission guidelines

developed under Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Reductions will continue to be reported beyond 2000.

Greenhouse gases affected: Primarily carbon dioxide, but also other greenhouse gases, such as methane and sulfur hexafluoride. Carbon dioxide activities include both reductions in emissions and increases in carbon sequestration.

Type of policy or measure: DOE and the individual utilities sign Voluntary Participation Accords (or Letters of Participation

for smaller utilities), describing the utilities’ commitments in the form of specific projects, entity-wide actions, and/or industrywide initiatives.

Status of implementation: Implemented. 

Implementing entities: The program is a joint, voluntary effort between the electric utility industry and the DOE. Parameters

of the Climate Challenge program were defined in a 1994 Memorandum of Understanding between DOE and all the national

utility trade associations.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from Climate Challenge projects often results in a concurrent reduction in sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and other emissions associated with fossil fuel

combustion. Other projects have reduced landfill requirements by recycling and reusing coal combustion by-products and other

materials. Participating utilities have indicated that corporate learning about climate change and mitigation opportunities has

been a significant benefit of the program. Climate Challenge has helped shift the thinking of electric utility management and

strategic planners to include the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions into their corporate culture and philosophy.

Interaction with other policies or measures: As a Foundation Action under the 1993 Climate Change Action Plan, Climate

Challenge was designed as a platform from which participating utilities could undertake a broad range of activities (individually,

through industry-wide initiatives, and through other federal voluntary programs. In addition, Climate Challenge utilities agree

to report their results annually to DOE’s Energy Information Administration, consistent with the voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas emission guidelines developed under Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Appendix B ■ 187

Distributed Energy Resources

Description: This program directs and coordinates a diverse portfolio of research and development, consolidating programs and

staff from across DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy related to the development and deployment of distributed energy resources (DER). It focuses on technology development and the elimination of regulatory and institutional barriers to the use of DER, including interconnection to the utility grid and environmental siting and permitting. DER partners with

industry to apply a wide array of technologies and integration strategies for on-site use, as well as for grid-enhancing systems.

Successful deployment of DER technologies affects the industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential sectors of our economy—in effect, all aspects of the energy value chain.

Objectives: This program aims to develop a cleaner, more reliable, and affordable U.S. energy resource portfolio to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; enhance electric grid operations; boost local economic development; and increase energy

and economic efficiency. 

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds.

Type of policy or measure: Research, information, education, and regulatory.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: DOE, industry.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program has non-greenhouse gas environmental benefits, improves

energy reliability, reduces the strain on the electric grid infrastructure, allows energy choices among consumers (creating a more

dynamic energy market), and hedges against peak power prices.
188 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

High-Temperature Superconductivity

Description: This program investigates the properties of crystalline materials that become free of electrical resistance at the temperature of liquid nitrogen. The lack of resistance makes possible electrical power systems with super-efficient generators, transformers, and transmission cables that reduce energy losses associated with electricity transmission.

Objectives: The next few years may see the beginning of the widespread utilization of superconductivity technologies. This program leads the DOE research and development effort geared toward making this happen. It supports aggressive projects to design

advanced electrical applications. The industry-led Second-Generation Wire Development exploits breakthroughs at national laboratories that promise unprecedented current-carrying capacity.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds.

Types of policy or measure: Research.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: DOE, industry.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program has non-greenhouse gas environmental benefits, such as

reducing SOx emissions; improves energy reliability; reduces strain on the electric grid infrastructure; cuts transmission losses by

half; and allows electrical equipment to be reduced in size dramatically (which opens more potential site applications). 
Appendix B ■ 189

Hydrogen Program

Description: This program has four strategies to carry out its objective: (1) expand the use of hydrogen in the near term by working with industry, including hydrogen producers, to improve efficiency, lower emissions, and lower the cost of technologies that

produce hydrogen from natural gas for distributed filling stations; (2) work with fuel cell manufacturers to develop hydrogenbased electricity storage and generation systems that will enhance the introduction and penetration of distributed, renewableenergy-based utility systems; (3) coordinate with the Department of Defense and DOE’s Office of Transportation Technologies

to demonstrate safe and cost-effective fueling systems for hydrogen vehicles in urban nonattainment areas and to provide

onboard hydrogen storage systems; and (4) work with the national laboratories to lower the cost of technologies that produce

hydrogen directly from sunlight and water.

Objective: The program’s mission is to enhance and support the development of cost-competitive hydrogen technologies and

systems that will reduce the environmental impacts of energy use and enable the penetration of renewable energy into the U.S.

energy mix.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds.

Type of policy or measure: Research, education.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: DOE, industry, and national laboratories.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program has non-greenhouse gas environmental benefits, develops

new infrastructure, creates jobs, enhances the nation’s energy and economic security, diversifies the nation’s energy portfolio, and

expands our technology base.
190 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Clean Energy Initiative: 

Green Power Partnership; 

Combined Heat and Power Partnership

Description: Increased economic growth has been fueled in large part by energy produced from fossil fuels, with the unintended consequence of increased air pollution and an increased threat of climate change. EPA’s Clean Energy Initiative is designed to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the energy supply sector by promoting available technologies. EPA’s strategy

includes: (1) increasing corporate and institutional demand for renewable energy, (2) facilitating combined heat and power

(CHP) and other clean “distributed generation” technologies in targeted markets, and (3) working with state and local governments to develop policies that favor clean energy.

EPA’s Green Power Partnership works with businesses and other institutions to facilitate bulk purchases of renewable energy. This

involves setting green power standards, providing recognition, and quantifying the environmental benefits. EPA’s CHP Partnership targets candidate sites in key state markets, and provides these facilities with information about the benefits of CHP, as well

as technical assistance. The Policy Team produces a database that quantifies the environmental impacts of power generation,

along with other policy tools to help reduce the environmental impacts of electricity generation.

Objective: The Clean Energy Initiative will focus on the energy supply sector, as well as industrial, commercial, and residential

energy customers. The approach will aim to remove market barriers to the increased penetration of cleaner, more efficient energy supply through education, technical assistance, demonstration, and partnerships. 

Greenhouse gas affected: Carbon dioxide.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary agreement, education, and technical assistance.

Status of implementation: This effort is currently being implemented. EPA will conduct annual reviews of the program’s performance at the end of each calendar year. EPA projects the program will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 30 teragrams

of CO2 in 2010.

Implementing entity: EPA.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This initiative will reduce criteria air pollutants, which contribute to local

and regional air quality problems, and will reduce land and water impacts due to the decrease in fossil fuel use.

Interaction with other policies or measures: This initiative requires interaction with ongoing initiatives at DOE, particularly efforts to commercialize renewable energy and CHP technologies. DOE will continue to play the lead role in research and

development and performance benchmarking, while EPA will primarily be involved with market transformation activities for

these technologies.

Contact: Tom Kerr, EPA, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, (202) 564-0047, kerr.tom@epa.gov.
Appendix B ■ 191

Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization 

Description: The Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program conducts scientific and engineering research to develop advanced technologies to manage the aging of nuclear plants. The cost-shared program is part of a comprehensive approach

to ensure that the United States has the technological capability to produce adequate supplies of baseload electricity while minimizing greenhouse gas emissions and other harmful environmental impacts. Details on the NEPO program are available at

http://nuclear.gov.

Objective: The program aims to ensure that current U.S. nuclear power plants can continue to deliver adequate and affordable

energy supplies up to and beyond their initial license period by resolving critical issues related to long-term plant aging and by

developing advanced technologies for improving plant reliability, availability, and productivity. 

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds.

Type of policy or measure: Research, information.

Status of implementation: DOE began the NEPO program in fiscal year 2000 and continues to initiate cooperative R&D projects, which are identified through input from electric utilities, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and other stakeholders.

Implementing entities: The program is a cost-shared partnership between the nuclear industry and the federal government.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The NEPO program and other nuclear energy R&D programs conducted by DOE support the goal in the President’s National Energy Policy of increasing the development and use of nuclear power as

non-greenhouse gas-emitting source of electricity for the nation.

Interaction with other policies or measures: Operation of existing nuclear power plants annually avoids emissions of over

150 teragrams of carbon dioxide, five million tons of sulfur dioxide, and 2.4 million tons of nitrogen oxides. Continued operation of existing nuclear plants through their original license term and a 20-year renewed license term would partly mitigate the

need to build more baseload power plants.
192 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Development of Next-Generation Nuclear Energy Systems:

Nuclear Energy Research Initiative; Generation IV Initiative

Description: DOE’s support for next-generation nuclear energy systems comes primarily from two programs: the Nuclear Energy

Research Initiative (NERI) and the Generation IV Initiative (Gen-IV). Complete details on the Gen-IV and NERI programs are

available at http://nuclear.gov.

Objectives: NERI is funding small-scale research efforts on promising advanced nuclear energy system concepts, in areas that

will promote novel next-generation, proliferation-resistant reactor designs, advanced nuclear fuel development, and fundamental nuclear science. In the future, there is likely to be NERI research in the use of nuclear energy to produce hydrogen fuel for

fuel cells. 

The present focus of Gen-IV is on the preparation of a technology roadmap that will set forth a plan for research, development,

and demonstration of the most promising next-generation advanced reactor concepts. These reactor designs hold high potential

for meeting the needs for economic, emission-free, sustainable power generation. R&D will be conducted to increase fuel lifetime, recycle used nuclear fuel, establish or improve material compatibility, improve safety performance, reduce system cost,

effectively incorporate passive safety features, enhance system reliability, and achieve a high degree of proliferation resistance. 

Greenhouse gas affected: Carbon dioxide.

Type of policy or measure: Research, information.

Status of implementation: As ongoing programs, both the NERI and Gen-IV initiatives are under implementation.

Implementing entities: NERI features a cooperative, peer-reviewed selection process to fund researcher-initiated R&D proposals from universities, national laboratories, and industry. The Gen-IV program is an international effort, in which the United

States and other member countries of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) are jointly developing nuclear energy systems that offer advantages in the areas of economics, safety, reliability, and sustainability and that could be deployed commercially by 2030. A major advantage of this arrangement is that funding for the projects is leveraged among the GIF member

countries.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: With the NERI and Gen-IV programs, DOE is addressing issues that will

enable the expanded use of nuclear energy. For the longer term, the DOE believes that Gen-IV nuclear energy and fuel cycle

technologies can play a vital role in fulfilling the nation’s long-term energy needs. Growing concerns for the environment will

favor energy sources that can satisfy the need for electricity and other energy-intensive products on a sustainable basis with minimal environmental impact.

Interaction with other policies or measures: The Gen-IV and NERI programs, and other nuclear energy R&D programs conducted by DOE, support the goal stated in the President’s National Energy Policy of increasing the development and use of nuclear

power as a non-greenhouse gas-emitting source of electricity for the nation.
Appendix B ■ 193

Support Deployment of New Nuclear 

Power Plants in the United States

Description: To cope with U.S. near-term needs for nuclear energy, DOE organized a Near-Term Deployment Group (NTDG).

The group was tasked with developing a Near-Term Deployment Roadmap (“NTD Roadmap”) that would provide conclusions

and recommendations to facilitate deployment of new nuclear plants in the United States by 2010. Implementation of these recommendations will be realized through DOE’s Nuclear Energy Technologies Program—Nuclear Power 2010.

Objectives: The NTD Roadmap provides DOE and the nuclear industry with the basis for a plan to ensure the availability of

near-term nuclear energy options that can be in operation in the United States by 2010. It focuses on making available by 2010

a range of competitive, NRC-certified and/or ready to construct nuclear energy generation options of a range of sizes to meet

variations in market need.

The NTD Roadmap identifies the technological, regulatory, and institutional gaps and issues that need to be addressed for new

nuclear plants to be deployed in the United States in this time frame. It also identifies specific designs that could be deployed

by 2010, along with the actions and resources needed to ensure their availability. 

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds.

Type of policy or measure: Information.

Status of implementation: The NTDG submitted the NTD Roadmap to DOE on October 31, 2001. The Nuclear Energy

Research Advisory Committee unanimously endorsed the NTD Roadmap recommendations on November 6, 2001.

Implementing entities: As part of the Nuclear Energy Technologies Program, DOE NE-20 has been in working in collaboration with industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to implement near-term needs identified by the NTDG during fiscal

year 2001. Fiscal year 2002 activities include continued DOE/industry cost-shared projects to demonstrate the Early Site

Permitting process, support advanced gas-cooled reactor fuel qualification and testing, and conduct preliminary advanced reactor technology R&D recommended in the NTD Roadmap. 

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The deployment of new nuclear power plants could substantially resolve

the growing U.S. energy supply deficit. It would also provide for an appropriate and secure energy mix that could help achieve

Clean Air Act requirements without harming the U.S. economy.

Interaction with other policies or measures: The NTD Roadmap supports the goal stated in the President’s National Energy

Policy of increasing the development and use of nuclear power as a non-greenhouse gas-emitting source of electricity for the

nation.
194 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Carbon Sequestration

Description: This program develops strategies for the removal of carbon dioxide from man-made emissions or the atmosphere;

the safe, essentially permanent storage of carbon dioxide or other carbon compounds; and the reuse of carbon dioxide through

chemical or biological conversion to value-added products. The program has five major components: separation and capture,

ocean storage, storage in terrestrial ecosystems, storage in geological formations, and conversion and utilization.

Objectives: The primary objectives of the carbon sequestration program are to lower the cost of capturing carbon dioxide, to

ensure that the storage of carbon dioxide in geological formations is safe and environmentally secure, and to enhance the productivity and storage of carbon in terrestrial systems. 

Greenhouse gas affected: Carbon dioxide.

Type of policy or measure: Research.

Status of implementation: Terrestrial sequestration is underway, and field experiments in geological sequestration are imminent. 

Implementing entities: Federal government R&D in partnership with private sector.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program increases the production of oil and natural gas (geological

sequestration), reclaims poorly managed lands, and prevents soil erosion and stream sedimentation (terrestrial sequestration).
Appendix B ■ 195

Hydropower Program

Description: DOE’s Hydropower Program develops, conducts, and coordinates hydropower research and development with

industry and other federal agencies. Hydropower is a mature technology and has long provided a significant contribution to the

national energy supply. Hydropower research today centers on boosting the efficiency of existing hydropower facilities, including incremental hydropower gains. In addition, the program works on developing advanced turbines that reduce fish mortality,

use improved sensor technology to understand conditions inside operating turbines, improve compliance with federal water quality standards, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Objective: This program aims to improve the technical, societal, and environmental benefits of hydropower. 

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds. 

Type of policy or measure: Research, information.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: DOE, other federal agencies, and industry partners. DOE’s Office of Biopower and Hydropower

Technologies administers the program through the DOE Idaho Operations Office.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program has non-greenhouse gas environmental benefits, improves

power reliability, and increases the nation’s energy security.
196 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

International Programs

Description: DOE’s International Programs fall under the Office of Technology Access, which promotes exports of renewable

energy and energy-efficient products and services and facilitates private-sector infrastructure development to support the delivery and maintenance of these technologies worldwide. The office also provides these same information and technical assistance

services to Native Americans on a government-to-government basis.

Objectives: The International Programs aim to service DOE’s many Memoranda of Understanding on international energy

issues, provide diplomatic and technical assistance to the White House and State Department, and establish a framework to assist

Native American governments.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds.

Type of policy or measure: Outreach, education.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: DOE, industry, other government agencies, and international government and nongovernment agencies.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program has non-greenhouse gas environmental benefits, such as

reducing SOx emissions; improves energy reliability; and educates the public internationally on the benefits of energy efficiency

and renewable energy and all the benefits associated with overall energy efficiency and renewable energies.
Appendix B ■ 197

Economic Incentives/Tax Credits

Description: Current law provides taxpayers a 1.5 cent-per-kilowatt-hour (adjusted for inflation after 1992) tax credit for electricity produced from wind, “closed-loop” biomass, and poultry waste. Biomass refers to trees, crops, and agricultural wastes used

to produce power, fuels, or chemicals. The electricity must be sold to an unrelated third party, and the credit applies to the first

10 years of production. The current tax credit covers facilities placed in service before January 1, 2002, after which it expires.

The new proposal would:

• Extend for three years the 1.5 cent-per-kilowatt-hour biomass credit for facilities placed in service before July 1, 2005. 

• Expand the definition of eligible biomass to include certain forest-related resources and agricultural and other sources for

facilities placed in service before January 1, 2002. Electricity produced at such facilities from newly eligible sources would

be eligible for the credit only from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2004. The credit for electricity from newly eligible sources would be computed at a rate equal to 60 percent of the generally applicable rate. And the credit for electricity produced from newly eligible biomass co-fired in coal plants would be computed at a rate equal to 30 percent of the

generally applicable rate. 

• In the case of a wind or biomass facility operated by a lessee, the proposal would permit the lessee, rather than the owner,

to claim the credit. This rule would apply to production under the leases entered into after the date on which the proposal

is enacted.

Objective: These tax credits aim to accelerate the market penetration of wind- and biomass-based electric generators.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon monoxide.

Type of policy or measure: Economic.

Status of implementation: These tax credits are in the proposal stage.
198 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Transportation

FreedomCAR Research Partnership

Description: This partnership seeks to substantially improve vehicle fuel efficiency and reduce carbon emissions associated with

cars, light trucks, and sport-utility vehicles. FreedomCAR focuses on the long-term, high-risk research needed to achieve a vision

of emission- and petroleum-free passenger vehicles, without sacrificing freedom of mobility and freedom of vehicle choice.

Objective: FreedomCAR’s mission is to develop a technology and fuel that will reduce consumption of petroleum-based fuel and

reduce carbon emissions.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide and other vehicle-related criteria pollutants.

Type of policy or measure: Research and development.

Status of implementation: Adopted.

Implementing entities: This partnership is between DOE and the U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR). Other U.S.

government agencies, including EPA and the Department of Transportation (DOT), will participate through related advances in

their own programs. The government will seek a cooperative relationship with suppliers and other companies conducting substantial automotive research and development activities in the United States.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The maturation of fuel cell technologies for transportation is a major

focus of FreedomCAR. Fuel cell vehicles will be free of petroleum, criteria pollutants, and carbon dioxide emissions. 

Interaction with other policies or measures: The new partnership supersedes and builds upon the successes of the Partnership

for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), which began in 1993. However, FreedomCAR is different in scope and breadth. It

shifts government research to more fundamental, higher-risk activities, with applicability to multiple-passenger vehicle models

and special emphasis on development of transportation fuel cells and related hydrogen fuel infrastructure.

The transition to a hydrogen fuel cell-powered energy system requires significant investment in order to successfully overcome

critical remaining barriers. Since considerable time will be required before fuel cells in transportation become a reality, FreedomCAR also continues support for other technologies that have the potential in the interim to dramatically reduce oil consumption and environmental impacts, and/or are applicable to both fuel cell and hybrid approaches—e.g., batteries, electronics,

and motors. 
Appendix B ■ 199

Vehicle Systems R&D

Description: DOE’s Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies works with its industry partners and their suppliers to research and

develop technologies that make heavy vehicles more energy efficient and able to use alternative fuels, while reducing vehicle

emissions.

Objective: This program aims to encourage optimum performance and efficiency in trucks and other heavy vehicles.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds.

Type of policy or measure: Research, information.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: DOE and national laboratories.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This program increases energy and national security, boosts energy efficiency, reduces reliance on foreign energy sources, supports the economy through more efficient transportation of goods, and

improves safety through advanced truck materials.
200 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Clean Cities

Description: DOE’s Clean Cities program supports public–private partnerships that deploy alternative-fuel vehicles (AFVs) and

build supporting infrastructure, including community networks. Clean Cities works directly with local businesses and governments, guiding them through each step in the process of building the foundation for a vibrant local organization, including goalsetting, coalition-building, and securing commitments. Current and potential members of the Clean Cities network also help

each other by sharing local innovations, addressing and relaying obstacles they encounter in pursuing alternative-fuel programs,

and exchanging “do’s” and “don’ts,” based on experiences in these programs. Clean Cities continually pioneers innovations and

aspires to make strides nationally as well as locally.

Objective: By encouraging AFV use, Clean Cities aims to help cities enhance their energy security and air quality.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary, information.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: DOE, local stakeholders, and local governments. 

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: Clean Cities increases energy efficiency, promotes private–public cooperation and information sharing, provides answers to complex issues, builds a network of contacts, and educates the public.
Appendix B ■ 201

Biofuels Program

Description: Sponsored by DOE’s Office of Fuels Development, the Biofuels Program researches, develops, demonstrates, and

facilitates the commercialization of biomass-based, environmentally sound, cost-competitive U.S. technologies to develop clean

fuels for transportation, leading to the establishment of a major biofuels industry. The program is currently pursuing the development of conversion technologies for bioethanol and biodiesel fuels. It encourages the use of biomass sources, such as wastepaper and wood residues, to serve near-term niche markets as a bridging strategy to position the biofuels industry for the long-term

bulk fuel markets. To meet these ends, the program focuses on researching and developing integrated biofuels systems; creating

strategic partnerships with U.S. industry and other stakeholders; and improving the program’s operations through well-defined

metrics, communication, and coordination with stakeholders and customers. 

Objective: The Biofuels Program aims to encourage the large-scale use of environmentally sound, cost-competitive, biomassbased transportation fuels.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds.

Type of policy or measure: Research, information.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: DOE, national laboratories and private-sector partners (industry, individuals, and research organizations).

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The Biofuels Program increases energy efficiency; reduces reliance on

foreign energy sources; promotes the industry internationally, the commercialization of bio-based products, and renewable

resources; creates jobs; and provides a larger market for agricultural goods.
202 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Commuter Options Programs: Commuter Choice 

Leadership Initiative; Parking Cash-Out; Transit Check;

Telecommute Initiative; Others6

Descriptions:7 EPA sponsors a number of voluntary commuter initiatives to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and criteria

pollutants from the transportation sector:

• The Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative is a voluntary employer-adopted program that helps to increase commuter flexibility

by expanding mode options, arranging flexible scheduling, and offering work location choices. EPA provides a variety of

technical support measures and recognition. Commuter Choice has also been implemented for workers at all federal agencies.

• Parking Cash-Out is a benefit in which employers offer employees the option to receive taxable income in lieu of a free or

subsidized parking space at work. A similar set of tax law changes allows employers to offer nontaxable transit/vanpool benefits, currently up to $100 monthly. 

• The National Environmental Policy Institute (NEPI) initiated an incentive-based pilot Telecommuting Initiative that provides

employers with tradable criteria pollutant emission credits for reducing vehicle miles traveled from telecommuting workers and is working to include greenhouse gases. Given rapid technological advances, telecommuting offers substantial

opportunity to reduce the need for some employees to travel to work. 

Objective: These programs help to reduce growth in single-occupant-vehicle commuting by providing incentives and alternative modes, timing, and locations for work. 

Greenhouse gases affected: The principal greenhouse gas affected in the transportation sector is carbon dioxide. However,

transportation actions also contribute to reductions of nitrous oxide and methane.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary and negotiated agreements, tax incentives to employers and employees, information,

education, and outreach.

Status of implementation: Launched in 2000, EPA’s Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative intends to sign up 550 employers

by end of 2002. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 put Parking Cash Out and Transit Check into effective practice. A number of

states, notably California, have implemented measures to encourage Parking Cash Out. NEPI is launching the Telecommuting

Initiative effort in 2001 in five major metropolitan areas. EPA estimates greenhouse gas emission reductions of 3.5 teragrams of

CO2 in 2000, and projects reductions of more than 14 teragrams of CO2 in 2010.

Implementing entities: Commuter Choice—EPA and DOT, in partnership with employers; Parking Cash Out and Transit

Check—individual employers, through the revision in the Internal Revenue Service Code; Telecommuting Initiative—NEPI in

collaboration with EPA, DOT, and DOE. 

Costs of policy or measure: These programs impose modest, voluntarily borne costs on businesses, which are largely offset by

other savings. Commuter option programs generate benefits through increased employee productivity, satisfaction, and lower

taxes. Participants in the telecommuting initiative can sell emission credits on the open market or to states for use in state implementation plans. Educational and outreach programs pose no direct costs on businesses. 

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: These programs will reduce energy use, traffic congestion, and criteria

pollutant emissions, including nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (which are ozone precursors considered to have

indirect global warming potential). 

Interaction with other policies or measures: These programs are synergistic with one another, with “smart growth” and transit programs, and with state implementation plans and other required measures under the Clean Air Act. 

6 Part of Action 20 in the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report. 7 These commuter options replace EPA’s Transportation Partners Program.
Appendix B ■ 203

Smart Growth and Brownfields Policies

Description: EPA began the Air-Brownfields Pilot Program in response to concerns that air regulations were preventing the redevelopment of brownfields, which are abandoned industrial properties that may be moderately contaminated. The program

demonstrated that brownfield redevelopment and local land-use policies, such as infill and transit-oriented development, could

help reduce vehicle miles traveled. 

EPA issued Improving Air Quality Through Land Use Activities in 2001 on how to take credit in a state implementation plan (SIP) for

local land-use policies that reduce emissions. Many cities have launched initiatives to encourage such development and plan to

increase development beyond what was anticipated in their Clean Air Act SIP submissions. 

Other brownfield initiatives include three types of grants: Assessment Demonstration Pilots, to assess brownfield sites and test cleanup and

redevelopment models; Job Training Pilots, to train residents of affected communities to facilitate cleanup and work in the environmental field; and Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Pilots, which capitalize loan funds for cleaning up brownfields.

The Smart Growth Network funds and facilitates a variety of smart growth-supportive activities and forums. The American Planning Association’s Growing Smarter Program plans to target state government officials with a National Planning Statute Clearinghouse and Database, and the Growing Smartsm Legislative Guidebook, which will include model statutes for transportation demand

management. Additionally, a consensus has emerged that shifting funding to transit, nonmotorized modes, and other alternatives

more compatible with Smart Growth can increase demand for these alternatives, facilitate infill development, and decrease vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. Federal research and outreach have increased the inclusion of these induced

demand/land-use issues into transportation models and planning processes.

Objective: These initiatives help to reduce the length and number of motorized trips.

Greenhouse gases affected: Primarily carbon dioxide, but also nitrous oxide and methane.

Type of policy or measure: Technical assistance, outreach, and voluntary acceptance of air- quality credits based on meeting

guidance standards.

Status of implementation: The Air-Brownfields Pilot Program is complete, the land-use SIP guidance based on it has been pilottested in four cities, and credit issuance begins in 2001. Technical assistance underway includes over 350 Assessment

Demonstration pilot programs, over 100 Loan Fund pilot programs, and nearly 50 Job Training and Development pilot programs.

EPA estimates reductions of 2.7 teragrams of CO2 in 2000, and projects 11 teragrams of CO2 by 2010.

Implementing entity or entities: EPA, states, municipalities, and planning agencies.

Costs of policy or measure: Federal guidance for voluntary credits imposes no cost. Private infill and brownfields development

remain voluntary market-based decisions, and so impose no private costs.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: These initiatives reduce energy use, congestion, infrastructure costs, criteria air pollutants, and health threats from contaminated land; increase the tax base; and return contaminated land to productive use.

Interaction with other policies or measures: These initiatives interact with SIPs. 
204 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Ground Freight Transportation Initiative

Description: This initiative is a voluntary program aimed at reducing emissions from the freight sector through the implementation of advanced management practices and efficient technologies. It will focus on four areas: (1) assessing the most promising

technology and management practices and identifying their savings potential; (2) inviting stakeholder participation (associations,

independent truckers, fleet managers, state and local governments, manufacturers, etc.) to determine the feasibility of these

opportunities and set program performance goals; (3) designing an emissions calculation tool that helps companies determine

their environmental impact and identify cost-effective options for reaching the program’s performance goals; and (4) developing,

implementing, and publicizing a partnership initiative with these stakeholders.

Objective: This program facilitates reductions in the growth of emissions associated with ground freight (truck and rail) through

the increased use of efficient management practices, such as speed management, intermodal use and load matching, and advanced

technologies, such as idle control systems and aerodynamics.

Greenhouse gases affected: The principal greenhouse gas affected in the transportation sector is carbon dioxide. However,

transportation actions also contribute to reductions of nitrous oxide.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary and negotiated agreements, shipper policy changes, information, education, and outreach.

Status of implementation: The program was kicked off in December 2001; a full program launch will occur in the summer of

2002. EPA projects greenhouse gas emission reductions of 66 teragrams of CO2 in 2010.

Implementing entities: EPA and possibly DOT. Other organizations, such as the American Trucking Association and the

American Association of Railroads, will prove to be valuable allies in encouraging their members to join the initiative as member

companies.

Costs of policy or measure: Similar programs impose modest, voluntarily borne costs on businesses, which are largely offset

by other savings. Some options may have substantial financial investments, such as truck stop electrification. Three different

stakeholder groups, including shippers, carriers, and manufacturers, will decide which strategies are most effective in their implementation and return on investments. Educational and outreach programs pose no direct costs on businesses.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The program will reduce energy use, traffic congestion, and criteria pollutant emissions, including nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds—ozone precursors considered to have indirect global warming potential.

Interaction with other policies or measures: This program is synergistic with state implementation plans and other required

measures under the Clean Air Act.
Appendix B ■ 205

Clean Automotive Technology

Description: EPA’s Clean Automotive Technology (CAT) program is a research and partnership program with the automotive

industry to develop advanced clean and fuel-efficient automotive technology. 

Objectives: The program’s objectives are to develop break-through engine and powertrain technologies to provide dramatic fuel

economy improvement in cars and trucks––without sacrificing affordability, performance, or safety while meeting emissions standards. 

Greenhouse gases affected: Primarily carbon dioxide, but also nitrous oxide and methane.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary, research.

Status of implementation: EPA has demonstrated the CAT program’s potential to meet its objectives. EPA is collaborating with

its partners to transfer the unique EPA-patented highly efficient hybrid engine and powertrain components, originally developed

for passenger car applications, to meet the more demanding size, performance, durability, and towing requirements of sport utility vehicles and urban delivery vehicle applications, while being practical and affordable with ultra-low emissions and ultra-high

fuel efficiency. In 2001, the program signed a historic Cooperative Research and Development Agreement and License

Agreement with the Ford Corporation to invest further develop hydraulic hybrid and high-efficiency engine technology with an

aim toward putting a pilot fleet of vehicles on the road by the end of the decade. 

Implementing entities: EPA and the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory working in collaboration with the Ford

and Eaton Corporations.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This partnership increases energy efficiency, economic productivity, and

competitiveness; reduces energy dependence; expands the nation’s energy portfolio; has non-GHG environmental benefits;

strengthens public–private cooperation and interaction; and creates jobs.

Interaction with other policies or measures: CAT could interact with state implementation plans and other Clean Air Act

requirements.
206 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

DOT Emission-Reducing Initiatives

DOT provides funding for and oversees transportation projects and programs that are implemented by the states and metropolitan areas across the country. Funding is provided under numerous programs that have specific purposes broadly encompassed by

DOT’s five main goals in the areas of: safety, mobility, economic growth and trade, national security, and human and natural environment. 

Flexibility exists under the law to use program funds for a variety of different project types that are consistent with the overall

purposes of those funds. As such, highway funds may be used for transit, pedestrian improvements, bikeways, ride-sharing programs, and other transportation-demand-management projects, a well as system improvements on the road network. The

approach is decentralized in that, based on their own needs assessments, state and local governments determine what projects

should be implemented and use DOT funds in ways consistent with the purpose of the funding program.

From 1998 and through 2003, approximately $218 billion is available to the states and metropolitan areas under DOT’s surface

transportation programs. While none of these programs specifically targets greenhouse gas reduction, many of them reduce

greenhouse gases as an ancillary benefit. Estimating the amount of greenhouse gases reduced is very difficult, since project selection is left to the individual states and metropolitan areas, and this benefit will vary among projects. Following is a sampling of

some of the more significant DOT programs that are likely to have ancillary greenhouse gas-reduction benefits.

• Transit Programs: Under the current authorization, transit programs will receive $41 billion between fiscal years 1998 and

2003. Programs that allow funding for new starts of transit systems, fixed guideway modernization, bus system improvements and expansions, and high-speed rail development can have greenhouse gas reduction benefits. However, not all of

the transit funding will have these benefits, since projects that help to operate or maintain the current system will probably not attract new riders.

• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement: This program is targeted at reducing ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter generated by transportation sources. As the most flexible program under the current law, it funds new transit

services, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, alternative fuel projects, traffic flow improvements, and other emissionreducing projects. As such, several projects funded under the program will likely reduce greenhouse gases as well. This program provides about $1.35 billion a year to the states.

• Transportation Enhancements: Historically, about half of all Enhancement funding has been for bicycle and pedestrian improvements, which certainly have some greenhouse gas reduction benefits. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

has authorized about $560 million a year is for Enhancement activities over a six-year period.

• Transportation and Community System Preservation Pilot Program: This unique pilot program helps develop more livable communities by addressing environmental, economic, and equity needs. States, local governments, and metropolitan planning organizations are eligible for discretionary grants to plan and implement strategies that improve the efficiency of the

transportation system, reduce environmental impacts and the need for costly future public infrastructure investments, and

ensure efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade. A total of $120 million is authorized for this program from fiscal years 1999 through 2003.

• Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards: U.S. fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks were adopted

primarily to save energy. Compliance is based on average performance, and additional credit toward compliance is available to alternatively fueled vehicles. New vehicles offered for sale are also required to display labels that give consumers a

clear indication of fuel economy. DOT is currently examining other market-based approaches to increase the average fuel

economy of new vehicles, and will review and provide recommendations on future CAFE standards.
Appendix B ■ 207

Industry (Non-CO2)

Natural Gas STAR8

Description: This a voluntary partnership between EPA and the U.S. natural gas industry is designed to overcome barriers to the

adoption of cost-effective technologies and practices that reduce methane emissions. 

Objective: The program’s primary objective is to reduce methane emissions from U.S. natural gas systems.

Greenhouse gas affected: Methane.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary/negotiated agreement.

Status of implementation: Launched in 1993 with the transmission and distribution sectors, Natural Gas STAR has since

expanded twice––to the production sector in 1995 and the processing sector in 2000. The program includes 88 corporate partners representing 40 percent of U.S. natural gas production, 72 percent of transmission company pipeline miles, 49 percent of

distribution company service connections, and 23 percent of processing throughput. 

Natural Gas STAR has developed a range of tools designed to help corporate partners implement best management practices to

reduce leakage. These include an implementation guide, streamlined electronic reporting, a series of “lessons learned” studies,

focused workshops, and partner-to-partner information exchanges. Extensive partner support for and continued expansion of the

program, combined with ongoing feedback from partners, demonstrate the effectiveness of these tools in promoting methane

reduction activities.

EPA estimates that the program reduced 15 teragrams of CO2 equivalent (38 Bcf methane) in 2000. Because of the expanded program’s tremendous success, EPA projects the program will reduce 22 teragrams of CO2 equivalent by 2010.

Implementing entities: EPA, in partnership with the U.S. natural gas industry.

Costs of policy or measure: Through Natural Gas STAR, partner companies implement only cost-effective methane reduction

practices. Practices implemented since the program’s launch have saved U.S. natural gas companies billions of dollars worth of

gas that would otherwise have leaked to the atmosphere.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: Many of the practices that partner companies undertake to reduce methane

emissions also reduce emissions of air pollutants and improve safety.

Interaction with other policies or measures: None.

Contact: Paul Gunning, EPA, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, (202) 564-9736, gunning.paul@epa.gov.

8 Action 32 in the 1997 U.S.Climate Action Report; continuing.
208 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Coalbed Methane Outreach Program9

Description: This program reduces methane emissions associated with coal mining operations by (1) working with the coal

industry and other stakeholders to identify and remove obstacles to increased investment in coalbed methane recovery projects,

and (2) raising awareness of opportunities for profitable investments. 

Objective: The program aims to cost-effectively reduce methane emissions from U.S. coal mining operations.

Greenhouse gas affected: Methane.

Type of policy or measure: Information, education, and outreach.

Status of implementation: EPA began working with the coal mining industry in1990 and officially launched the Coalbed

Methane Outreach Program (CMOP) in 1994. In 1990, coal mines captured and utilized only 25 percent of the methane produced from their degasification systems. By 1999, the recovery fraction had grown to over 85 percent. To eliminate the remaining methane emitted from degasification systems, CMOP is working with industry to demonstrate the use of flare technology,

which has never been employed at a U.S. mine. 

With the program’s tremendous success in reducing methane emissions from degasification systems, CMOP has expanded its

focus to the methane emitted from coal mine ventilation systems. Ventilation air from coal mines typically contains methane at

concentrations of just a few percent, yet accounts for 94 percent of the remaining methane emissions from underground coal

mines—over 90 billion cubic feet of methane (about 36.6 teragrams of CO2 equivalent) annually. CMOP is working with industry to demonstrate and deploy newly developed technologies that can reduce these emissions substantially over the next few

years.

CMOP has developed a range of tools designed to overcome barriers to recovery and combustion of coal mine methane. These

include numerous technical and economic analyses of technologies and potential projects; mine-specific project feasibility assessments; state-specific analyses of project potential; guides to state, local, and federal assistance programs; and market evaluations.

CMOP has worked with operators of virtually every U.S. underground coal mine to apply these tools and nurture each project.

In 2000, EPA estimates that CMOP reduced methane emissions by more than 7 teragrams of CO2 equivalent (19 Bcf methane).

Because of unanticipated mine closures, EPA projections of reductions for the CMOP program have been reduced slightly since

the 1997 submission, from 11 to 10 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in 2010. However, CMOP’s expected success in reducing ventilation air methane over the next few years may lead to an upward revision in the projected reductions for 2010 and beyond.

Implementing entities: EPA, in partnership with the U.S. coal industry.

Costs of policy or measure: Coal mines implement only cost-effective methane recovery and utilization projects. Projects

implemented since the program’s launch have earned U.S. coal companies million of dollars in energy sales.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: CMOP improves both the efficiency of methane recovery from coal

mines and mine safety.

Interaction with other policies or measures: None.

Contact: Karl Schultz, EPA, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, (202) 564-9468, schultz.karl@epa.gov.

9 Action 35 in the 1997 U.S.Climate Action Report; continuing.
Appendix B ■ 209

Significant New Alternatives Program10

Description: Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorized EPA to develop a program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting chemicals. 

Objective: The Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP) facilitates the smooth transition away from ozone-depleting

chemicals in major industrial and consumer sectors, while minimizing risks to human health and the environment. Sectors that

the program focuses on include air conditioning, refrigeration, aerosols, solvent cleaning, foams, fire suppression and explosion

protection, adhesives, coatings and inks, and sterilants.

Greenhouse gases affected: Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs).

Type of policy or measure: While SNAP actions are regulatory, the program also serves as an information clearinghouse on

alternative chemicals and technologies, and collaborates extensively with industry and other government partners on various

research activities.

Status of implementation: Hundreds of alternatives determined to reduce overall risks to human health and the environment

have been listed as acceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals. EPA has also used the authority under Section 612 to

find unacceptable uses or narrow the scope of uses allowed for HFCs and PFCs with high global warming potentials for specific

applications where better alternatives exist. EPA estimates that the program has reduced emissions by 50 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in 2000 and projects reductions of 156 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in 2010.

Implementing entity: SNAP regulations are promulgated by EPA and enforced when needed at the national level.

Costs of policy or measure: Costs are considered to be neutral in aggregate. SNAP either expands lists of available alternatives

to ozone-depleting chemicals that have been, or are being, phased out under the Montreal Protocol, or restricts the use of potential substitutes. In the first case, potential users are not required to use any one particular alternative listed as acceptable. Where

SNAP finds the use of alternatives (e.g., PFCs) unacceptable, the decision is based on the fact that other viable (i.e., effective and

affordable) alternatives are available that pose less risk to human health or the environment.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: In addition to encouraging responsible use of greenhouse gases as substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals, SNAP has increased worker and consumer safety by restricting the use of flammable or

toxic chemicals, has encouraged the overall reduction in chemicals used in various applications (e.g., solvent cleaning), and, in

some cases, has restricted the use of volatile organic chemicals that generate ground-level ozone.

Interaction with other policies or measures: SNAP compliments the phase-out of ozone-depleting chemicals mandated

under the Montreal Protocol and Clean Air Act. The program has worked to maintain balance between the need to find safe and

effective alternatives to ozone-depleting chemicals, while mitigating the potential effects of those alternatives on climate. HFCs,

and in some cases, PFCs, have been listed as acceptable substitutes for specific end uses where safer or effective alternatives are

not available. Depending on the end use, efficacy has been defined as effectiveness in suppressing or preventing fires and explosions, thermal insulation value, or heat transfer efficiency. 

Contact: Jeff Cohen, EPA, Global Programs Division, (202) 564-0135, cohen.jeff@epa.gov.

10 Action 40 in the 1997 U.S.Climate Action Report.
210 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

HFC-23 Partnership11

Description: This partnership works to cost-effectively reduce emissions of the potent greenhouse gas HFC-23, which is a byproduct in the manufacture of HCFC-22.

Objective: Through this program, EPA encourages companies to develop and implement technically feasible, cost-effective processing practices or technologies to reduce HFC-23 emissions. 

Greenhouse gas affected: HFC-23.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary/negotiated agreement.

Status of implementation: This is an ongoing program with all the U.S. producers of HCFC- 22. The program partners have

effectively reduced emissions of HFC-23 through process optimization, reaching the total reductions that can likely be achieved

through this technique. In addition, some companies have used thermal destruction to reduce or eliminate their emissions. The

partnership has encouraged the industry to reduce the intensity of HFC-23 emissions (the amount of HFC-23 emitted per kilogram of HCFC-22 manufactured) by 35 percent. Thus, despite an estimated 35 percent increase in production since 1990, total

emissions have declined by 15 percent. EPA estimates reductions of 17 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in 2000 and projects reductions of 27 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in 2010.

Implementing entity: EPA is the sole government entity implementing this program. The program is open to all producers of

HCFC-22 operating in the United States.

Costs of policy or measure: Emission reductions achieved through process optimization are cost-effective.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: None.

Interaction with other policies or measures: None.

Contact: Sally Rand, EPA, Global Programs Division, (202) 564-9739, rand.sally@epa.gov.

11 Action 41 in the 1997 U.S.Climate Action Report.
Appendix B ■ 211

Partnership with Aluminum Producers12

Description: This partnership program with the primary aluminum smelting industry is designed to reduce perfluorocarbons

emitted as a by-product of the smelting process.

Objective: EPA is partnering with primary aluminum producers to reduce perfluoromethane and perfluoroethane where technically feasible and cost-effective. The overall goal of the partnership is to reduce emissions by 30–60 percent from 1990 levels by

2000. Future reduction goals are being set.

Greenhouse gas affected: Perfluoromethane and perfluoroethane.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary/negotiated agreement.

Status of implementation: Since the partnership was formed in 1996, it has had great success in further characterizing the emissions from smelter operations and reducing overall emissions. As of 2000, a new agreement has been negotiated to continue to

explore and implement emission reduction options through 2005. The overall goal for the program in 2000 has been met, with

emissions reduced by about 50 percent relative to 1990 levels, on an emissions per unit of product basis. Absolute emissions have

been reduced by an even greater percentage because some facilities have closed due to high energy costs in the Northwest. EPA

estimates reductions of 7 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in 2000 and projects reductions of 10 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in

2010.

Implementing entity: EPA is the sole government entity implementing this program. The program is open to all U.S. primary

aluminum producers.

Costs of policy or measure: Factors that cause these emissions are a sign of efficiency loss. Emission reductions result in process

enhancements.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: None.

Interaction with other policies or measures: None.

Contact: Sally Rand, EPA, Global Programs Division, (202) 564-9739, rand.sally@epa.gov.

12 Action 42 in the 1997 U.S.Climate Action Report.
212 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Environmental Stewardship Initiative13

Description: Environmental Stewardship Initiative was a new action proposed as part of the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report, based

on new opportunities to reduce emissions gases with high global warming potentials.

Objective: The objective initially was to limit emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, perfluororcarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride

(which are potent greenhouse gases) in three industrial applications: semiconductor production, electric power systems, and magnesium production. Additional sectors are being assessed for the availability of cost-effective emission reduction opportunities

and are being added to this initiative.

Greenhouse gases affected: Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluororcarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary/negotiated agreement.

Status of implementation: EPA launched the semiconductor partnership in 1996 and launched the electric power system and magnesium partnerships in 1999. Implementation of the magnesium and electric power system partnerships is ongoing, with no sunset

date. The semiconductor partnership will be ongoing through 2010. EPA currently projects that the programs will reduce emissions

by 93 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in 2010. Because resource constraints delayed implementation of the electric power system and

magnesium partnerships, EPA’s estimate of the reduction in 2000, 3 teragrams of CO2 equivalent, is less than expected.

Implementing entity: EPA is the sole government entity implementing this initiative. Partnerships are open to manufacturers

operating in the United States and to electric power systems with equipment containing greater than 15 pounds of sulfur hexafluoride and all primary and die-casting magnesium operations. 

Costs of policy or measure: Emission reductions are believed to be possible through inexpensive and cost-effective means. 

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: None.

Interaction with other policies or measures: None.

Contact: Sally Rand, EPA, Global Programs Division, (202) 564-9739, rand.sally@epa.gov.

13 New in the 1997 U.S. Climate Action Report.
Appendix B ■ 213

Agriculture

Agriculture Outreach Programs: AgSTAR; 

Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program14

Description: Specific practices aimed at directly reducing greenhouse gas emissions are developed, tested, and promoted

through such outreach programs as AgSTAR and the Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program (RLEP). 

Objectives: Through outreach to the agricultural community, these programs aim to demonstrate the technical feasibility of the

practices they promote. 

Greenhouse gases affected: All greenhouse gases, but the focus has been on methane.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary, information.

Status of implementation: These programs have been implemented. Their assessed impacts have changed since the 1997 submission. While their impact on greenhouse gas emissions has been small on a national scale, program stakeholders in the agricultural community have demonstrated that the practices promoted by the programs can be effective in reducing greenhouse gas

emissions and increasing productivity. 

Twelve digesters have been installed on AgSTAR charter farms, resulting in a 37,000 teragrams of CO2 equivalent per year reduction of emissions. An additional 13 facilities are in various stages of planning, pending additional funding. Installations at charter farms have demonstrated the technical and economic feasibility of biogas production and utilization on livestock production

facilities with a wide range of manure-handling systems. Workshops related to the program have been held around the country

to further promote biogas production and utilization technology. In all, 31 systems are operating in the United States, resulting

in a total annual reduction of approximately 110,000 teragrams of CO2 equivalent. 

The RLEP has funded the establishment of 50 demonstration farms throughout the Southeast. Production efficiency improvements have been recorded at these farms, and numerous field days have been held to transfer this knowledge to others. The RLEP

has also supported the development of a cow/calf management course aimed at improving animal performance measures directly

related to greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, with the support of state-level nongovernment organizations, such as the Virginia Forage and Grassland Council, the RLEP has helped to improve forage and pasture management by encouraging the effective use of rotational grazing practices.

EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will continue to evaluate these and other barriers and identify appropriate

actions to address them.

Implementing entities: EPA and USDA.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: Technologies used at certain confined animal feeding operations to

reduce methane concentrations are achieving other environmental benefits, including odor control and nutrient management

opportunities. In addition, many of the practices recommended by the RLEP for improving forage production remove carbon

dioxide from the atmosphere by storing carbon in the soil as organic matter.

14 Actions 38 and 39 in the 1997 U.S.Climate Action Report.
214 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Nutrient Management Tools15

Description: The Nitrogen Leaching and Economic Assessment Package (NLEAP) was enhanced to include the ability to quantify nitrous oxide losses to the atmosphere. USDA began collaborating with partners on the development of two nutrient management tools that could be used to improve overall nitrogen fertilizer use efficiency at the farm level. 

Objectives: This effort aims to build and make available to producers a database that documents nitrous oxide emissions from

different types of nitrogen fertilizer management. These efforts are intended to improve the overall efficiency of nitrogen fertilizer use at the farm level and to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from the application of nitrogen fertilizer. 

Greenhouse gas affected: Nitrous oxide.

Type of policy or measure: Research, information.

Status of implementation: The NLEAP model has been implemented. USDA is working with Purdue University to develop and

implement the Manure Management Planner (MMP), a nutrient budgeting tool. MMP enables producers, and others who provide producers nutrient management assistance, to allocate nutrients based on a crop-specific nutrient budget that matches actual nutrient application rates with recommended application rates or crop removal rates. The combination of MMP and NLEAP

will enable producers to both develop a detailed crop nutrient budget as well as assess its impact on nitrous oxide emissions.

Proper use and crediting of the nitrogen contributed by legume crops, and the availability and use of both NLEAP and MMP,

will assist in reducing nitrous oxide emissions. In the 1997 submission, projected reductions from this action were 18.3 teragrams

of CO2 equivalent. At this time, more analysis is needed to develop estimates and projections of emissions from this action.

Implementing entities: USDA, working with partners in 20 states.

15 Part of Action 17 in the 1997 U.S.Climate Action Report.
Appendix B ■ 215

USDA Commodity Credit 

Corporation Bioenergy Program

Description: USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Bioenergy Program pays U.S. commercial bioenergy producers to

increase their bioenergy production from eligible commodities. Payments are based on the increase in bioenergy production

compared to the previous year’s production fiscal year to date. To receive payments, producers must provide CCC evidence of

increased purchase of agricultural commodities and increased production of bioenergy. The program provides up to $150 million

for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, which is paid out on a quarterly fiscal year-to-date basis. A payment limitation restricts the amount

of funds any single producer may obtain annually under the program to 5 percent, or $7.5 million.

Objective: The program’s goal is to expand industrial consumption of agricultural commodities by promoting their use in the

production of bioenergy.

Greenhouse gas affected: Carbon dioxide.

Type of policy or measure: Economic.

Status of implementation: The program was implemented at $15 million in fiscal year 2001 and will receive $150 million in

fiscal year 2002.

Implementing entities: The program is administered by USDA’s Farm Service Agency and funded by CCC.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The program provides incentives for agriculture to be part of the nation’s

energy solutions by promoting the industrial consumption of agricultural commodities for bioenergy production; expands

demand for corn and other grains used in ethanol production and creates new markets for oilseed crops; and increases net returns

for ethanol and biodiesel processors, which will encourage expanded production capacity for these fuels and enhance rural development.
216 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Conservation Reserve Program: 

Biomass Project

Description: USDA has implemented Section 769 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2000. This act authorizes Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land for pilot biomass projects for the harvesting of biomass to be used for energy production. The program restricts all land subject to CRP contracts that participates in a biomass pilot project from being harvested for biomass more than once every other year. No more than 25 percent of

the total acreage enrolled in any crop-reporting district may be harvested in any year. And participants in a project must agree to a

25 percent reduction in their normal CRP annual rental payment for each year in which the acreage is harvested. 

Objective: The project’s objective is to provide biomass for energy production. 

Greenhouse gas affected: Carbon dioxide.

Type of policy or measure: Economic.

Status of implementation: The program has been implemented. The Secretary of Agriculture has approved four projects that

will produce electricity using grasses in Iowa, hybrid poplar trees in Minnesota, willows in New York, and switchgrass in New

York and Pennsylvania. 

Implementing entity: USDA.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: This project enhances rural development.
Appendix B ■ 217

Forestry

Forest Stewardship16

Description: USDA’s Forest Stewardship and Forest Stewardship Incentive Programs provide technical and financial assistance

to nonindustrial, private forest owners. The Forest Stewardship Program helps such owners prepare integrated management

plans, and the Stewardship Incentives Program cost-shares up to 75 percent of approved management practices, such as afforestation and reforestation. USDA’s Forest Service manages both programs, in cooperation with state forestry agencies. A recent survey of landowners with Forest Stewardship Plans found that they were three times as likely to implement these plans if they

received financial and technical assistance.

Objective: The programs’ intent is to improve conservation of our lands through enhanced planning and management. An original goal of the Stewardship Incentive Program was to increase tree planting in the United States by over 94,000 hectares

(232,180 acres) a year within five years and to maintain this expanded level of planting for another five years. 

Greenhouse gas affected: Carbon dioxide.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary, information.

Status of implementation: The programs have been implemented. During fiscal years 1991–99, 150,964 hectares (372,881

acres) of trees were planted. 

Implementing entities: USDA Forest Service in cooperation with state forestry agencies.

Costs of policy or measure: The cost of the program during this same period was about $23.5 million. The program was not

funded for fiscal years 1999 through 2001.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: About 147 million hectares of U.S. forests are nonindustrial, private

forestlands. Private forests provide many ecological and economic benefits. They currently provide about 60 percent of our

nation’s timber supply, with expectations of increases in the future. Improved planning and management on nonindustrial, private forestlands and marginal agricultural lands can help meet resource needs and provide important ancillary benefits that

improve environmental quality—e.g., wildlife habitat, soil conservation, water quality protection and improvement, and recreation. Additionally, tree planting and forest management increase the uptake of carbon dioxide and the storage of carbon in living biomass, soils, litter, and long-life wood products.

16 Action 44 in the 1997 U.S.Climate Action Report.
218 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Waste Management

Climate and Waste Program17

Description: This program encourages recycling and source reduction for the purpose of reducing greenhouse emissions. EPA is

implementing a number of targeted efforts within this program to achieve its climate goals. WasteWise is EPA’s flagship voluntary waste reduction program. EPA initiatives on extended product responsibility and biomass further reduction efforts through

voluntary or negotiated agreements with product manufacturers and market development activities. The Pay-As-You-Throw initiative provides information to community-based programs on cost incentives for residential waste reduction.

Objective: The program aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through progressive waste management activities.

Greenhouse gases affected: The program takes a life-cycle perspective on greenhouse gas emissions from waste management

practices, accounting for emissions and sinks from energy use, forest management, manufacturing, transportation, and waste management. The principal greenhouse gases affected are carbon dioxide and methane; nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbons are also

affected.

Type of policy or measure: The program is a voluntary effort, using partnerships, information dissemination, technical assistance, and research to promote greenhouse gas reductions.

Status of implementation: WasteWise currently has over 1,200 partners, representing 53 civic and industrial sectors and ranging from Fortune 1000 companies to small local governments. Extended product responsibility is facilitating negotiations

between industry and state leaders on product stewardship systems (e.g., carpets and electronics). The biomass effort includes a

compost quality seal program, compost use for state highway projects, and market development for bio-based products. Over

5,000 communities are participating in the program’s Pay-As-You-Throw educational initiative, which provides ongoing technical assistance to stakeholders ranging from industry to governments and international organizations. EPA estimates reductions of

8 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in 2000 and projects reductions of 20 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in 2010.

Implementing entities: EPA, working with government, industry, and nongovernment organizations, acts as the primary implementing agency.

Costs of policy or measure: Most of the waste-reduction measures result in cost savings or minimal costs when viewed from a

full-cost accounting perspective.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: Measures under this program yield collateral benefits, including energy savings, and reduced emissions from raw materials acquisition, virgin materials manufacturing, and waste disposal.

Interaction with other policies or measures: EPA’s Climate and Waste Program has assisted organizations interested in quantifying and voluntarily reporting greenhouse gas emission reductions (e.g., through DOE’s 1605b Program) from waste management activities. Also, EPA’s activities under Initiative 16 complement its methane reduction programs (Actions 33 and 34),

including the Landfill Methane Outreach Program.

17 Part of Action 16 in the 1997 U.S.Climate Action Report; continuing.
Appendix B ■ 219

Stringent Landfill Rule18

Description: Landfill gas, which is the largest contributor to U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions, also contains significant

quantities of nonmethane organic compounds. Landfill New Source Performance Standards and Emissions Guidelines (Landfill

Rule) require large landfills to capture and combust their landfill gas emissions. Due to climate concerns, this rule was made more

stringent (i.e., by lowering the emissions level at which landfills must comply with the rule from 100 to 50 megagrams of nonmethane organic compounds per year), resulting in greater landfill gas recovery and combustion.

The rule works hand-in-hand with EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program to promote cost-effective reductions in methane

emissions at larger landfills. The Landfill Methane Outreach Program provides landfills with technical, economic, and outreach

information to help them comply with the rule in a way that maximizes benefits to the environment while lowering costs. 

Objective: The rule requires U.S. landfills to capture and combust their landfill gas emissions. This reduces their emissions of

methane, as well as nonmethane organic compounds.

Greenhouse gas affected: Methane.

Type of policy or measure: Regulatory.

Status of implementation: The Landfill Rule was promulgated under the Clean Air Act in March 1996, and implementation

began at the state level in 1998. Preliminary data on the impact of the rule indicate that increasing its stringency has significantly

increased the number of landfills that must collect and combust their landfill gas. EPA estimates reductions in 2000 at 15 teragrams of CO2 equivalent. The current projection for 2010 is 33 teragrams of CO2 equivalent, although the preliminary data suggest that reductions from the more stringent rule may be even greater over the next decade.

Implementing entities: EPA promulgated the Landfill Rule, and individual states implement it.

Costs of policy or measure: The rule’s objective is to reduce nonmethane organic compound emissions because of their contribution to local air pollution. Combustion of the of nonmethane organic compound-containing landfill gas also reduces the

methane it contains, at no incremental cost. 

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: Combusting landfill gas reduces emissions of nonmethane organic compounds as well as methane. It also can reduce odors and improve safety by stopping landfill gas migration.

Interaction with other policies or measures: The rule interacts with the Landfill Methane Outreach Program.

18 Action 33 in the 1997 U.S.Climate Action Report; continuing.
220 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Landfill Methane Outreach Program19 

Description: Landfills are the largest source of U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions. Capture and use of landfill gas reduce

methane emissions directly and carbon dioxide emissions indirectly by displacing the use of fossil fuels. The Landfill Methane

Outreach Program (LMOP) works with landfill owners, state energy and environmental agencies, utilities and other energy suppliers, industry, and other stakeholders to lower the barriers to landfill gas-to-energy project development. 

While LMOP works hand-in-hand with EPA’s Landfill Rule to promote cost-effective reductions in methane emissions at larger

landfills, it focuses its outreach efforts on smaller landfills not regulated by the rule, encouraging the capture and use of methane

that would otherwise be emitted to the atmosphere. LMOP has developed a range of tools to help landfill operators overcome

barriers to project development, including feasibility analyses, software for evaluation project economics, profiles of hundreds of

candidate landfills across the country, a project development handbook, and energy end-user analyses.

Objective: The program aims to reduce methane emissions from U.S. landfills.

Greenhouse gases affected: Methane and carbon dioxide.

Type of policy or measure: Voluntary/negotiated agreements, information, education, and outreach.

Status of implementation: Launched in December 1994, LMOP has achieved significant reductions through 2000, reducing

methane emissions from landfills by an estimated 11 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in that year alone. The program includes over

240 allies and partners, and the number of landfill gas-to-energy projects has grown from less than 100 in the early 1990s to

almost 320 projects by the end of 2000. EPA projects reductions of 22 teragrams of CO2 equivalent in 2010.

Implementing entities: EPA, in partnership with landfills and the landfill gas-to-energy industry.

Costs of policy or measure: LMOP participants implement only cost-effective landfill gas-to-energy projects. Projects implemented since the program’s launch have created millions of dollars of revenue for public and private landfill owners and others.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: Combusting landfill gas reduces emissions of nonmethane organic compounds as well as methane. It also can reduce odors and improve safety by stopping landfill gas migration.

Interaction with other policies or measures: The program interacts with the Landfill Rule.

Contact: Paul Gunning, EPA, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, (202) 564-9736, gunning.paul@epa.gov.

19 Action 34 in the 1997 U.S.Climate Action Report; continuing.
Appendix B ■ 221

Cross-sectoral 

Federal Energy Management Program 

Description: The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) is a separate DOE sector. It reduces energy use in federal buildings, facilities, and operations by advancing energy efficiency and water conservation, promoting the use of renewable energy,

and managing the utility choices of federal agencies. FEMP accomplishes its mission by leveraging both federal and private

resources to provide technical and financial assistance to other federal agencies. FEMP helps agencies achieve their goals by providing alternative financing tools and guidance to use the tools, technical and design assistance for new construction and retrofit projects, training, technology transfer, procurement guidance, software tools, and reporting and evaluation of all agencies’

programs.

Objective: The program aims to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy use in federal buildings, facilities, and operations.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds.

Types of policy or measure: Economic, information, and education.

Status of implementation: Implemented.

Implementing entities: DOE and other federal agencies.

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: The program has non-greenhouse gas environmental benefits, improves

energy efficiency, promotes interaction and information sharing across federal agencies, provides education and training to federal personnel, and supports technology development and deployment.
222 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

State and Local Climate Change 

Outreach Program

Description: This program provides a variety of technical and outreach/education services related to climate change, including

guidance documents, impacts information, modeling tools, policy and technology case studies, electronic newsletters and communications, technical assistance, networking opportunities, and modest financial support for analysis and activities. The expected results are increased awareness about climate change, well-informed policy choices, and accelerated reductions in greenhouse

gas emissions, as well as additional economic and clean air benefits achieved from lower emissions. 

Objective: The program aims to enable state and local decision makers to incorporate climate change planning into their priority planning, so as to help them maintain and improve their economic and environmental assets.

Greenhouse gases affected: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds.

Type of policy or measure: Information, education, and research (policy analysis).

Status of implementation: The program has been ongoing since the early 1990s and has recently expanded its focus to encourage comprehensive, multi-pollutant policy planning. The program’s budget for fiscal year 2000 was $0.8 million; for fiscal year

2001, it was $1.23 million.

Implementing entities: EPA provides technical and financial support to state and local governments through this effort. The

state and local governments, in turn, develop greenhouse gas inventories and action plans where they set reduction targets for

themselves. They also conduct outreach and demonstration projects in their jurisdictions to increase awareness about climate

change and facilitate replication of successful mitigation opportunities. 

Costs of policy or measure: State and local governments have identified tremendous potential and actual opportunities from

greenhouse gas emission reductions. For example, 12 of the state plans completed so far have forecast reductions of 2010 emissions by 13 percent (256 teragrams of CO2 equivalent) cumulatively, with a cost savings exceeding $7.8 billion if the actions are

implemented as recommended. Local governments are reporting actual savings of about 7 teragrams of CO2 equivalent per year

from their efforts, with cost savings of $70 million. 

Non-GHG mitigation benefits of policy or measure: Local governments are reporting actual savings of 28,000 tons of air pollution and $70 million in energy and fuel costs each year. State plans have identified annual potential energy and fuel savings of

almost $8 billion, plus the creation of more than 20,000 jobs from climate change mitigation policies. One state plan identified

mitigation policies that would reduce cumulative acid rain precursors and ground-level ozone precursors by 24 and 30 percent,

respectively, through 2020. 

Interaction with other policies or measures: Rather than trying to be an expert at all levels, the program serves as a one-stop

shop for state and local governments looking to reduce greenhouse gases. When governments express interest in particular activities and technologies that are covered under a national program, the program refers them to the appropriate program so they

may acquire additional information and move forward under the guidance of national experts.

Contact: Julie Rosenberg, EPA, Global Programs Division, (202) 564-9154, rosenberg.julie@epa.gov.
Appendix C 

Part 1: Selected Technology Transfer Activities

Part 2: Table 7.3—U.S. Direct Financial Contributions and Commercial Sales

Related to Implementation of the UNFCCC
224 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Renewable Energy Power Generation & 

Renewable Energy in Rural Areas

Purpose: Promote the appropriate and sustainable use of renewable-energy (RE) technologies in Mexico to (1) increase the quality and lower the costs of RE technologies and systems by expanding markets for, and providing feedback to, the U.S. and

Mexican RE industry; (2) increase the use of clean energy sources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit pollution; and

(3) increase the economic, social, and health standards in rural, off-grid communities by utilizing energy for productive-use applications.

Recipient country: Mexico.

Sector: Mitigation: energy.

Total funding: $12 million.

Years in operation: 1994–present.

Description: The program implements RE projects that demonstrate the technology and its application on a larger scale by the

Government of Mexico. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) helped government counterpart agencies

develop two national plans that promote RE through expansion/replication of USAID pilot efforts. For example in 1999, more

than 100 RE systems were installed that will generate more than 14,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity over their lifetimes

that would have otherwise been generated by fossil fuel plants. The majority of this power generation is taking place in the town

of San Juanico, Baja California Sur, where a large USIJI-approved hybrid RE (wind and photovoltaic) project will avoid the generation of approximately 100,000 teragrams of CO2 emissions over the project’s estimated 30-year lifetime. 

Factors that led to project’s success: The model for the Mexico Renewable Energy Program is based on guidelines provided

by the Photovoltaic System Assistance Center (15 years of domestic and international interactions) at Sandia National

Laboratories and 8 years of experience gained by the program from working in Mexico. The fundamental principles of the model

are (1) partnerships, (2) capacity building, (3) technical assistance, (4) pilot project implementation, (5) project replication, and

(6) monitoring.

Technology transferred: Equipment to prevent the anthropogenic generation of GHGs: Photovoltaic and small wind electric systems tied

to specific applications, such as water pumping, electrification, home lighting systems, and communications.

Impact on greenhouse gas emissions/sinks (optional): Not calculated.
Appendix C ■ 225

EcoHomes Project/Sustainable Homes Initiative

Purpose: To promote energy-efficient housing design to increase savings in space heating and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

EcoHomes trains lenders, builders, and community groups to increase their awareness of low-cost, environmentally sound, energyefficient housing that can be incorporated into South Africa’s housing program.

Recipient country: South Africa.

Sector: Mitigation: energy.

Total funding: $750,000.

Years in operation: EcoHomes: 1997–2001; SHI: 1999–2002.

Description: USAID’s approach to environmental programs in South Africa is aligned with the country’s immediate development

needs (i.e., housing) and the South African government’s development policy, which seeks to implement environmentally benign

development projects. USAID has supported these two sustainable housing initiatives that link renewable energy use with new

housing developments as a solution for nonurban areas having no access to the power grid. These initiatives aim to promote the

development of energy-efficient, environmentally sustainable, and affordable housing. 

USAID co-sponsors the Sustainable Homes Initiative (SHI), a national effort to increase awareness and construction of environmentally sustainable, affordable housing. SHI provides professional assistance to housing designers and developers to increase

energy efficiency and environmental sustainability; develop and market building materials and products; train builders, lenders,

and policymakers; disseminate products, designs, and professional resources; and develop case studies documenting the cost and

environmental benefits of energy-efficient housing.

Factors that led to project’s success: Active participation of all stakeholders involved, ranging from the local and national

governments to banks and builders; compatibility with the national government’s development objectives. 

Technology transferred: Equipment to prevent the anthropogenic generation of GHGs: Passive-solar building design, appropriate building

materials for home insulation; landscape design with shade trees.

Impact on greenhouse gas emissions/sinks (optional): 

1999: Kutlwanong Civic Association/Eco-Homes project saved an estimated 210 metric tons of CO2 per year. The Gugulethu

Community Development Corporation’s construction of model homes led to a savings of 13 metric tons of CO2.

2000: With the addition of 11,400 houses, 99.4 gigagrams of CO2 will be avoided over the project’s 25-year lifetime.
226 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Coastal Resources Management Program

Purpose: To promote the essential elements of sustainable development—protecting the world’s environment, fostering balanced economic growth, encouraging democratic participation in governance, and improving the health and well-being of people in developing countries—in the context of coastal resource management.

Recipient countries: Indonesia, Tanzania, Mexico.

Sector: Adaptation: coastal zone management, protection of coral reefs and other marine resources.

Total Funding: $31 million.

Years in operation: 1999–2003.

Description: This program promotes integrated coastal management. It includes such activities as development of watershed

management plans; protection of marine areas; conservation of critical coastal habitats to protect from storm surge, sea level rise,

and erosion; and development of best practices for coastal planning. 

Factors that led to project’s success: An integrated, participatory approach by stakeholders at the local and national levels

to coastal management, which allows for effective response to development challenges, including those posed by climate vulnerability, variability, and sea level rise. 

Technology transferred: Capacity building for integrated coastal management; geographic information systems (GIS) for mapping coastal resources.

Impact on greenhouse gas emissions/sinks (optional): Not applicable.
Appendix C ■ 227

Philippine Climate Change Mitigation Program

Purpose: To mitigate greenhouse gas emissions through energy-sector initiatives without adversely affecting economic growth.

The program focuses on four principal efforts to help the Government of the Philippines and the local private sector to (1)

increase the use of clean fuels, including natural gas and renewable energy; (2) improve the policy environment for power-sector restructuring and privatization; (3) increase energy efficiency; and (4) strengthen the institutional capability of government

agencies involved in the restructuring of the energy sector.

Recipient country: Philippines.

Sector: Mitigation: energy.

Total funding: $8.9 million.

Years in operation: 1998–2001.

Description: This joint program of USAID and the Government of the Philippines is a direct response to mitigate global climate change. It promotes more efficient generation, distribution, and consumption of electricity by expanding the use of clean

fuels, building public and private-sector capacity for improved energy-sector development and management.

Factors that led to project’s success: The development of policies that lead to the adoption of legislative and administrative

actions that result in increased efficiency and/or cleaner energy production.

Technology transferred: Capacity building.

Impact on greenhouse gas emissions/sinks (optional): Avoidance of approximately 19.2 teragrams of CO2 equivalent per

year by 2002 through the use of cleaner fuels; and avoidance of at least 1.7 teragrams of CO2 equivalent per year by 2002 through

improvements in energy efficiency.
228 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Program

Purpose: (1) To promote sustainable development by reducing vulnerability to natural hazards in existing and planned development; (2) to improve public awareness and development decision making by accurately mapping hazard-prone areas; (3) to

improve hazard risk management by the insurance industry and help maintain adequate catastrophe protection for the region;

(4) and to promote community-based disaster preparedness and prevention activities with support from the private sector.

Recipient countries: Caribbean region, Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Haiti,

Jamaica, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, St. Lucia.

Sector: Adaptation: weather related disaster preparedness; vulnerability assessments.

Total funding: $5 million.

Years in operation: 1993–1999.

Description: Implemented for USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance by the Organization of American States’ Unit of

Sustainable Development and Environment, this program’s activities target six major themes: (1) community-based preparedness,

(2) hazard assessment and mapping, (3) hazard-resistant building practices, (4) vulnerability and risk audits for lifeline facilities,

(5) promotion of hazard mitigation within the property insurance industry, and (6) incorporation of hazard mitigation into postdisaster recovery.

Factors that led to project’s success: (1) Close coordination with development finance institutions; (2) training of Caribbean

professionals, which raised awareness and provided potential long-term capacity for this type of work; (3) outreach to institutions that share a concern for disaster preparedness /loss reduction and have resources to contribute (e.g., financial services industry: banks and the property insurance industry); (4) USAID/OAS team approach to problem solving; (5) Technical Advisory

Committee’s ability to keep the project relevant to the needs of the region; and (6) implementation of the National Mitigation

Policy and Planning Activity, which helped to facilitate the use of many mitigation tools, policies, and practices introduced by

the project.

Impact on greenhouse gas emissions/sinks (optional): Not applicable.
Appendix C ■ 229

Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWS NET)

Purpose: To help establish more effective, sustainable, and African-led food security and response networks that reduce vulnerability to food insecurity.

Recipient countries: Burkina Faso, Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda,

Somalia, Southern Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Sector: Adaptation: agriculture.

Total funding: $6.3 million.

Years in operation: FEWS: 1985–2000; FEWS NET: 2000–2005 (planned).

Description: FEWS NET assesses short- to long-term vulnerability to food insecurity with environmental information from satellites and agricultural and socioeconomic information from field representatives. The program conducts vulnerability assessments,

contingency and response planning, and other activities aimed at strengthening the capacities of host country food security networks. Network members include host country and regional organizations that work on food security, response planning, environmental monitoring, and other relevant areas. 

Factors that led to project’s success: (1) The combined environmental monitoring expertise of the U.S. National Aeronautics

and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S Geological

Survey (USGS); (2) implementation by African field staff.

Technology transferred: Information networks: remote-sensing data acquisition, processing, and analysis; geographic information system (GIS) analytical skills. Equipment to facilitate adaptation: GIS hardware and software.

Impact on greenhouse gas emissions/sinks (optional): Not applicable.
230 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Río Bravo Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project in Belize

Purpose: To reduce, avoid, and mitigate approximately 2.4 teragrams of carbon over the life of the project through the prevention of deforestation and sustainable forest management practices.

Recipient country: Belize.

Sector: Mitigation: forest conservation.

Total funding: $5.6 million (U.S.) for first 10 of 40 years.

Years in operation: January 1995–present. Project duration is 40 years.

Description: This project is one of the first fully funded forest-sector projects implemented under USIJI. It was developed by

The Nature Conservancy in collaboration with Programme for Belize (PfB, a local NGO) and Winrock International. The project is underway at the Río Bravo Conservation and Management Area on 104,892 hectares (260,000 acres) of mixed lowland,

moist subtropical broadleaf forest. PfB manages the project along with the entire private reserve. In addition to support from PfB,

a number of energy companies provided $5.6 million to fund the first 10 years of the project, after which it is expected to be

self-sustaining. These companies include Cinergy, Detroit Edison, PacifiCorp, Suncor, Utilitree Carbon Company, and

Wisconsin Electric/Wisconsin Gas, and American Electric Power.

Factors that led to project’s success: A well-designed forest conservation and management project can produce significant

net carbon benefits that are scientifically valid and long lasting. The project also helps conserve biodiversity, improve local environmental quality, and meet a variety of sustainable development goals by enhancing local capacity to manage and secure the

protected area. Management practices include (1) creation of undisturbed buffer areas and protection zones, (2) silvicultural treatments to boost biomass volume between cutting cycles, (3) reduced-impact harvesting techniques, (4) promotion of highly

durable timber products, and (5) enhanced fire management and site security.

Technology transferred: Training: Jobs and training in forestry, forest management, and park security. 

Impact on greenhouse gas emissions/sinks (optional): A total of 59,720 hectares (153,000 acres) of mixed lowland, moist

subtropical broadleaf forest will be included under the project, leading to the protection of up to 240 tree species, 70 mammal

species, and 390 bird species.
Appendix C ■ 231

Coal Mine Methane Recovery Project in China

Purpose: To work with the Government of China and the Chinese coal industry (1) to identify opportunities to reduce methane

emissions from coal mining and use these emissions as energy; (2) to develop the domestic capacity to implement coal mine

methane technologies; and (3) to develop commercial partnerships between Chinese and foreign companies to realize profitable

projects that reduce methane emissions.

Recipient country: China.

Sector: Mitigation: energy, industry.

Total funding: $150,000.

Years in operation: 1989–present.

Description: Chinese mines are the greatest global source of methane emissions from coal mining. This U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) project involves assessments and pilot projects for capturing abundant gas resources at Chinese mines,

with concurrent mine safety, power production, and climate benefits. A Coalbed Methane Information Clearinghouse is housed

at the China Coal Information Institute and has conducted considerable outreach to U.S. and other companies interested in this

market. The clearinghouse has published journals in Chinese and English, has hosted several domestic and international seminars, and has developed with EPA an economic analysis model to identify profitable projects to reduce methane emissions. It currently is participating in studies that will ultimately lead to significant investment in commercial-scale projects. The

clearinghouse and EPA signed an agreement in April 1999 at the Gore–Zhou Energy and Environment Forum, outlining a twoyear market data development project, that, building on the Clearinghouse’s experience, is providing information and analyses

on specific coal mine methane project opportunities for Chinese and Western investors and developers.

Factors that led to project’s success: (1) Interest generated by coal sector in methane recovery for safety, productivity, and

energy value of coal mine methane recovery; (2) interest generated by the Government of China in developing coalbed methane

resources for energy supply, energy security, and local/regional environmental benefits; (3) interest generated by international

organizations and companies in the global environmental and energy benefits of coal mine methane; and (4) nurturing of partnerships with responsible Chinese organizations in developing the nation’s coal mine methane resources.

Technology transferred: Equipment to reduce anthropogenic sources of GHGs: Coal mine methane gas production technologies (surface

and in-mine); coal mine methane use technologies. Training/Capacity Building: Financial analysis and marketing to international

companies.

Impact on greenhouse gas emissions/sinks (optional): Emission reductions have more than quadrupled since 1990 to

approximately 500 million cubic meters of methane per year (more than 7 teragrams of CO2 equivalent per year).
232 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002
Appendix C ■ 233
234 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002
Appendix C ■ 235
236 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002
Appendix C ■ 237
238 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002
Appendix C ■ 239
240 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002
Appendix C ■ 241
242 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002
Appendix C ■ 243
244 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002
Appendix C ■ 245
246 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002
Appendix C ■ 247
248 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002
Appendix D

Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions1
250 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

This National Research Council study originated from a May 11, 2001, White House request to help inform the Administration’s

review of U.S. climate change policy. In particular, the written request asked for the National Academies’ “assistance in identifying the areas in the science of climate change where there are the greatest certainties and uncertainties,” and “views on whether

there are any substantive differences between the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] Reports and the IPCC

summaries.” In addition, based on discussions with the Administration, a number of specific questions were incorporated into the

statement of task for the study.

SUMMARY

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely

mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural

variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. Secondary

effects are suggested by computer model simulations and basic physical reasoning. These include increases in rainfall rates and

increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought. The impacts of these changes will be critically dependent on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs. 

The mid-range model estimate of human-induced global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

is based on the premise that the growth rate of climate forcing2 agents such as carbon dioxide will accelerate. The predicted

warming of 3°C (5.4°F) by the end of the 21st century is consistent with the assumptions about how clouds and atmospheric relative humidity will react to global warming. This estimate is also consistent with inferences about the sensitivity3 of climate

drawn from comparing the sizes of past temperature swings between ice ages and intervening warmer periods with the corresponding changes in the climate forcing. This predicted temperature increase is sensitive to assumptions concerning future concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols. Hence, national policy decisions made now and in the longer-term future will

influence the extent of any damage suffered by vulnerable human populations and ecosystems later in this century. Because there

is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to

future adjustments (either upward or downward). 

Reducing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current model predictions of global climate change will require major

advances in understanding and modeling of both (1) the factors that determine atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases

and aerosols, and (2) the so-called “feedbacks” that determine the sensitivity of the climate system to a prescribed increase in

greenhouse gases. There also is a pressing need for a global observing system designed for monitoring climate. 

The committee generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC Working Group I

(WGI) scientific report, but seeks here to articulate more clearly the level of confidence that can be ascribed to those assessments

and the caveats that need to be attached to them. This articulation may be helpful to policy makers as they consider a variety of

options for mitigation and/or adaptation. In the sections that follow, the committee provides brief responses to some of the key

questions related to climate change science. More detailed responses to these questions are located in the main body of the text.

What is the range of natural variability in climate?

The range of natural climate variability is known to be quite large (in excess of several degrees Celsius) on local and regional spatial scales over periods as short as a decade. Precipitation also can vary widely. For example, there is evidence to suggest that

droughts as severe as the “dust bowl” of the 1930s were much more common in the central United States during the 10th to 14th

centuries than they have been in the more recent record. Mean temperature variations at local sites have exceeded 10°C (18°F)

in association with the repeated glacial advances and retreats that occurred over the course of the past million years. It is more

difficult to estimate the natural variability of global mean temperature because of the sparse spatial coverage of existing data and

difficulties in inferring temperatures from various proxy data. Nonetheless, evidence suggests that global warming rates as large

as 2°C (3.6°F) per millennium may have occurred during retreat of the glaciers following the most recent ice age.

1 The text in this appendix is from the foreword and summary of NRC 2001a, found at http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange. 2 A climate forcing is defined as an imposed perturbation of the Earth’s energy balance. Climate forcing is typically measured in watts per square meter (W/m2). 3 The sensitivity of the climate system to a prescribed forcing is commonly expressed in terms of the global mean temperature change that would be expected after a time sufficiently

long for both the atmosphere and ocean to come to equilibrium with the change in climate forcing. 
Appendix D ■ 251

Are concentrations of greenhouse gases and other emissions that contribute to climate change increasing at an accelerating rate, and are different greenhouse gases and other emissions increasing at different rates? Is human activity the

cause of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and other emissions that contribute to climate change?

The emissions of some greenhouse gases are increasing, but others are decreasing. In some cases the decreases are a result of policy decisions, while in other cases the reasons for the decreases are not well understood.

Of the greenhouse gases that are directly influenced by human activity, the most important are carbon dioxide, methane, ozone,

nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Aerosols released by human activities are also capable of influencing climate.

Table D-1 lists the estimated climate forcing due to the presence of each of these “climate-forcing agents” in the atmosphere.

Concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) extracted from ice cores drilled in Greenland and Antarctica have typically ranged from

near 190 parts per million by volume (ppmv) during the ice ages to near 280 ppmv during the warmer “interglacial” periods, like

the present one that began around 10,000 years ago. Concentrations did not rise much above 280 ppmv until the Industrial Revolution. By 1958, when systematic atmospheric measurements began, they had reached 315 ppmv. They are currently ~370 ppmv

and rising at a rate of 1.5 ppmv per year (slightly higher than the rate during the early years of the 43-year record). Human activities are responsible for the increase. The primary source, fossil fuel burning, has released roughly twice as much CO2 as would

be required to account for the observed increase. Tropical deforestation also has contributed to CO2 releases during the past few

decades. The oceans and land biosphere have taken up the excess CO2.

Like CO2, methane (CH4) is more abundant in Earth’s atmosphere now than at any time during the 400,000-year ice core record,

which dates back over a number of glacial/interglacial cycles. Concentrations increased rather smoothly by about 1 percent per

year from 1978 until about 1990. The rate of increase slowed and became more erratic during the 1990s. About two-thirds of

the current CH4 emissions are released by human activities, such as rice growing, the raising of cattle, coal mining, use of landfills, and natural gas handling—all of which have increased over the past 50 years.

A small fraction of the ozone (O3) produced by natural processes in the stratosphere mixes into the lower atmosphere. This “tropospheric ozone” has been supplemented during the 20th century by additional O3, created locally by the action of sunlight

upon air polluted by exhausts from motor vehicles, emissions from fossil fuel burning power plants, and biomass burning.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is formed by many microbial reactions in soils and waters, including those acting on the increasing amounts

of nitrogen-containing fertilizers. Some synthetic chemical processes that release N2O have also been identified. Its concentration has increased approximately 13 percent in the past 200 years.

Atmospheric concentrations of chlorofluorocarbons rose steadily following their first synthesis in 1928 and peaked in the early

1990s. Many other industrially useful fluorinated compounds—e.g., carbon tetrafluoride (CF4), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—

have very long atmospheric lifetimes, which is of concern, even though their atmospheric concentrations have not yet produced

large radiative forcings. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are replacing CFCs, have a greenhouse effect, but it is much less

pronounced because of their shorter atmospheric lifetimes. The sensitivity and generality of modern analytical systems make it

quite unlikely that any currently significant greenhouse gases remain to be discovered.

What other emissions are contributing factors to climate change (e.g., aerosols, carbon monoxide, black carbon soot),

and what is their relative contribution to climate change?

Besides greenhouse gases, human activity also contributes to the atmospheric burden of aerosols, which include both sulfate particles and black carbon (soot). Both are unevenly distributed, owing to their short lifetimes in the atmosphere. Sulfate particles

scatter solar radiation back to space, thereby offsetting the greenhouse effect to some degree. Recent “clean coal technologies”

and use of low-sulfur fuels have resulted in decreasing sulfate concentrations, especially in North America, reducing this offset.

Black carbon aerosols are end-products of the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass burning (forest fires and land

clearing). They impact radiation budgets both directly and indirectly; they are believed to contribute to global warming,

although their relative importance is difficult to quantify at this point.
252 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

How long does it take to reduce the buildup of greenhouse gases and other emissions that contribute to climate

change? Do different greenhouse gases and other emissions have different drawdown periods?

A removal time of 100 years means that much, but not all, of the climate-forcing agent would be gone in 100 years. Typically,

the amount remaining at the end of 100 years is 37 percent; after 200 years, 14 percent; after 300 years, 5 percent; and after 400

years, 2 percent (see Table D-1).

TABLE D-1 Removal Times and Climate-Forcing Values for Specified Atmospheric Gases and Aerosols

A removal time of 100 years means that much, but not all, of the climate-forcing agent would be gone in 100 years. Typically, the amount

remaining at the end of 100 years is 37 percent; after 200 years, 14 percent; after 300 years, 5 percent; and after 400 years, 2 percent.

Climate-Forcing Agents Approximate Removal Times Climate Forcing Up to the Year 2000

(Watts/m2)

Greenhouse Gases

Carbon Dioxide >100 years 1.3–1.5

Methane 10 years 0.5–0.7

Tropospheric Ozone 10–100 days 0.25–0.75

Nitrous Oxide 100 years 0.1–0.2

Perfluorocarbon Compounds >1,000 years 0.01

(including SF6

)

Fine Aerosols

Sulfate 10 days -0.3 to -1.0

Black Carbon 10 days 0.1–0.8

Is climate change occurring? If so, how?

Weather station records and ship-based observations indicate that global mean surface air temperature warmed between about

0.4° and 0.8°C (0.7° and 1.5°F) during the 20th century. Although the magnitude of warming varies locally, the warming trend

is spatially widespread and is consistent with an array of other evidence detailed in this report. The ocean, which represents the

largest reservoir of heat in the climate system, has warmed by about 0.05°C (0.09°F) averaged over the layer extending from the

surface down to 10,000 feet, since the 1950s.

The observed warming has not proceeded at a uniform rate. Virtually all the 20th-century warming in global surface air temperature occurred between the early 1900s and the 1940s and during the past few decades. The troposphere warmed much more

during the 1970s than during the two subsequent decades, whereas Earth’s surface warmed more during the past two decades

than during the 1970s. The causes of these irregularities and the disparities in the timing are not completely understood. One

striking change of the past 35 years is the cooling of the stratosphere at altitudes of ~13 miles, which has tended to be concentrated in the wintertime polar cap region.

Are greenhouse gases causing climate change?

The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. The stated degree of

confidence in the IPCC assessment is higher today than it was 10—or even 5—years ago. However, uncertainty remains because

of (1) the level of natural variability inherent in the climate system on time scales of decades to centuries, (2) the questionable

ability of models to accurately simulate natural variability on those long time scales, and (3) the degree of confidence that can

be placed on reconstructions of global mean temperature over the past millennium based on proxy evidence. Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and has been particularly strong within the past 20 years.

Whether it is consistent with the change that would be expected in response to human activities is dependent upon what

assumptions one makes about the time history of atmospheric concentrations of the various forcing agents, particularly aerosols.
Appendix D ■ 253

By how much will temperatures change over the next 100 years and where?

Climate change simulations for the period of 1990 to 2100 based on the IPCC emissions scenarios yield a globally averaged surface temperature increase by the end of the century of 1.4–5.8°C (2.5–10.4°F) relative to 1990. The wide range of uncertainty

in these estimates reflects both the different assumptions about future concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols in the various scenarios considered by the IPCC and the differing climate sensitivities of the various climate models used in the simulations. The range of climate sensitivities implied by these predictions is generally consistent with previously reported values.

The predicted warming is larger over higher latitudes than over lower latitudes, especially during winter and spring, and larger

over land than over sea. Rainfall rates and the frequency of heavy precipitation events are predicted to increase, particularly over

the higher latitudes. Higher evaporation rates would accelerate the drying of soils following rain events, resulting in lower relative humidities and higher daytime temperatures, especially during the warm season. The likelihood that this effect could prove

important is greatest in semi-arid regions, such as the U.S. Great Plains. These predictions in the IPCC report are consistent with

current understanding of the processes that control local climate.

In addition to the IPCC scenarios for future increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, the committee considered a scenario

based on an energy policy designed to keep climate change moderate in the next 50 years. This scenario takes into account not

only the growth of carbon emissions, but also the changing concentrations of other greenhouse gases and aerosols.

Sufficient time has elapsed now to enable comparisons between observed trends in the concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases with the trends predicted in previous IPCC reports. The increase of global fossil fuel CO2 emissions in the past

decade has averaged 0.6 percent per year, which is somewhat below the range of IPCC scenarios, and the same is true for atmospheric methane concentrations. It is not known whether these slowdowns in growth rate will persist.

How much of the expected climate change is the consequence of climate feedback processes (e.g., water vapor, clouds, 

snow packs)?

The contribution of feedbacks to climate change depends upon “climate sensitivity,” as described in the report. If a central estimate of climate sensitivity is used, about 40 percent of the predicted warming is due to the direct effects of greenhouse gases and

aerosols; the other 60 percent is caused by feedbacks. 

Water vapor feedback (the additional greenhouse effect accruing from increasing concentrations of atmospheric water vapor as

the atmosphere warms) is the most important feedback in the models. Unless the relative humidity in the tropical middle and

upper troposphere drops, this effect is expected to raise the temperature response to increases in human-induced greenhouse gas

concentrations by a factor of 1.6. The ice–albedo feedback (the reduction in the fraction of incoming solar radiation reflected

back to space as snow and ice cover recede) also is believed to be important. Together, these two feedbacks amplify the simulated climate response to the greenhouse gas forcing by a factor of 2.5. In addition, changes in cloud cover, in the relative

amounts of high versus low clouds, and in the mean and vertical distributions of relative humidity could either enhance or reduce

the amplitude of the warming. 

Much of the difference in predictions of global warming by various climate models is attributable to the fact that each model

represents these processes in its own particular way. These uncertainties will remain until a more fundamental understanding of

the processes that control atmospheric relative humidity and clouds is achieved.

What will be the consequences (e.g., extreme weather, health effects) of increases of various magnitudes?

In the near term, agriculture and forestry are likely to benefit from CO2 fertilization and an increased water efficiency of some

plants at higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The optimal climate for crops may change, requiring significant regional adaptations. Some models project an increased tendency toward drought over semi-arid regions, such as the U.S. Great Plains. Hydrologic impacts could be significant over the western United States, where much of the water supply is dependent on the amount

of snow pack and the timing of the spring runoff. Increased rainfall rates could impact pollution runoff and flood control. With

higher sea level, coastal regions could be subject to increased wind and flood damage, even if tropical storms do not change in

intensity. A significant warming also could have far-reaching implications for ecosystems. The costs and risks involved are difficult to quantify at this point and are, in any case, beyond the scope of this brief report.
254 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

Health outcomes in response to climate change are the subject of intense debate. Climate is one of a number of factors influencing the incidence of infectious disease. Cold-related stress would decline in a warmer climate, while heat stress and smoginduced respiratory illnesses in major urban areas would increase, if no adaptation occurred. Over much of the United States,

adverse health outcomes would likely be mitigated by a strong public health system, relatively high levels of public awareness,

and a high standard of living.

Global warming could well have serious adverse societal and ecological impacts by the end of this century, especially if globallyaveraged temperature increases approach the upper end of the IPCC projections. Even in the more conservative scenarios, the models project temperatures and sea levels that continue to increase well beyond the end of this century, suggesting that assessments

that examine only the next 100 years may underestimate the magnitude of the eventual impacts.

Has science determined whether there is a “safe” level of concentration of greenhouse gases?

The question of whether there exists a “safe” level of concentration of greenhouse gases cannot be answered directly because it

would require a value judgment of what constitutes an acceptable risk to human welfare and ecosystems in various parts of the

world, as well as a more quantitative assessment of the risks and costs associated with the various impacts of global warming. In

general, however, risk increases with increases in both the rate and the magnitude of climate change.

What are the substantive differences between the IPCC reports and the summaries?

The Committee finds that the full IPCC Working Group I (WGI) report is an admirable summary of research activities in climate science, and the full report is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary. The full WGI report and its Technical 

Summary are not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers reflects less emphasis on communicating the basis for

uncertainty and stronger emphasis on areas of major concern associated with human-induced climate change. This change in

emphasis appears to be the result of a summary process in which scientists work with policymakers on the document. Written

responses from U.S. coordinating and lead scientific authors to the committee indicate, however, that (a) no changes were made

without the consent of the convening lead authors (this group represents a fraction of the lead and contributing authors) and 

(b) most changes that did occur lacked significant impact.

It is critical that the IPCC process remain truly representative of the scientific community. The committee’s concerns focus primarily on whether the process is likely to become less representative in the future because of the growing voluntary time commitment required to participate as a lead or coordinating author and the potential that the scientific process will be viewed as

being too heavily influenced by governments which have specific postures with regard to treaties, emission controls, and other

policy instruments. The United States should promote actions that improve the IPCC process, while also ensuring that its

strengths are maintained.

What are the specific areas of science that need to be studied further, in order of priority, to advance our understanding of climate change?

Making progress in reducing the large uncertainties in projections of future climate will require addressing a number of fundamental scientific questions relating to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the behavior of the climate system. Issues that need to be addressed include (1) the future use of fossil fuels; (2) the future emissions of methane; (3) the fraction

of the future fossil-fuel carbon that will remain in the atmosphere and provide radiative forcing versus exchange with the oceans

or net exchange with the land biosphere; (4) the feedbacks in the climate system that determine both the magnitude of the

change and the rate of energy uptake by the oceans, which together determine the magnitude and time history of the temperature increases for a given radiative forcing; (5) details of the regional and local climate change consequent to an overall level of

global climate change; (6) the nature and causes of the natural variability of climate and its interactions with forced changes; and

(7) the direct and indirect effects of the changing distributions of aerosols. Maintaining a vigorous, ongoing program of basic

research, funded and managed independently of the climate assessment activity, will be crucial for narrowing these uncertainties.
Appendix D ■ 255

In addition, the research enterprise dealing with environmental change and the interactions of human society with the environment must be enhanced. This includes support of (1) interdisciplinary research that couples physical, chemical, biological, and

human systems; (2) an improved capability of integrating scientific knowledge, including its uncertainty, into effective decisionsupport systems; and (3) an ability to conduct research at the regional or sectoral level that promotes analysis of the response of

human and natural systems to multiple stresses.

An effective strategy for advancing the understanding of climate change also will require (1) a global observing system in support of long-term climate monitoring and prediction; (2) concentration on large-scale modeling through increased, dedicated

supercomputing and human resources; and (3) efforts to ensure that climate research is supported and managed to ensure innovation, effectiveness, and efficiency.
Appendix E

Bibliography
Appendix E ■ 257

Academy for Educational Development, “Let Kids Lead.” <www.letkidslead.org>

American Planning Association, Growing Smartsm Legislative Guidebook.

Bove et al. 1998—Bove, M.C., J.B. Elsner, C.W. Landsea, X. Niu, and J.J. O’Brien, “Effect of El Niño on U.S. Landfalling

Hurricanes, Revisited,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 79, pp. 2477–82.

Business Roundtable 2001—Unleashing Innovation: The Right Approach to Climate Change; Turning the Promise of Technology into Reality

(Washington, DC: Business Roundtable). <http://www.brtable.org/pdf/524.pdf>

Changnon et al. 1996—Changnon, S.S., K.E. Kunkel, and B.C. Reinke, “Impacts and Response to the 1995 Heat Wave: A Call

to Action,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 77, pp. 1497–1506.

EOP 1993—Executive Office of the President, Climate Change Action Plan (Washington, DC).

EOP 2001a—Executive Office of the President, Action on Climate Change Review Initiatives, Washington, DC.

EOP 2001b—Executive Office of the President, Climate Change Review––Initial Report, Washington, DC. 

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/climatechange.pdf>

Florida State University, Center for Ocean–Atmospheric Prediction Studies. <http://www.coaps.fsu.edu>

4-H Youth Curriculum, “Going Places, Making Choices.” <www.fourhcouncil.edu>

Groisman et al. 2001—Groisman, P. Ya, R.W. Knight, and T.R. Karl, “Heavy Precipitation and High Streamflow in the

Contiguous United States: Trends in the Twentieth Century,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 82, pp. 219–46.

Hartmann, Dennis, Reports to the Nation on Our Changing Planet: Our Changing Climate (Boulder, CO: University Center for

Atmospheric Research and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fall 1997).

<http://www.ogp.noaa.gov/library/rtn4.pdf>

IGFA 2000—International Group of Funding Agencies for Global Change Research, National Updates (Oslo, Norway: IGFA

Secretariat). <http://www.igfagcr.org/PDF/2000Nat’l.pdf> 

IPCC 1991—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change: The IPCC Response Strategies (Washington, DC: Island

Press).

IPCC 1996a—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation of Climate

Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses, R.T. Watson et al., eds. (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press). 

IPCC 1996b—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, J.T. Houghton,

L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callandar, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell, eds. (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University

Press). <http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/sarsum1.htm>

IPCC 1998—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability, R.T.

Watson et al., eds. (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press).

IPCC 1999—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Aviation and the Global Atmosphere: A Special Report of IPCC Working

Groups I and III in Collaboration with the Scientific Assessment Panel to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, J.E.

Penner, D.H. Lister, D.J. Griggs, D.J. Dokken, and M. McFarland, eds. (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press).

<http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/av(E).pdf>
258 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

IPCC 2000a—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National

Greenhouse Gas Inventories, J. Penman, D. Kruger, I. Galbally, T. Hiraishi, B. Nyenzi, S. Emmanul, L. Buendia, R. Hoppaus, T.

Martinsen, J. Meijer, K. Miwa, and K. Tanabe, eds. (Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies). <http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/gpgaum.htm>

IPCC 2000b—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Trends in Technology Transfer: Financial Resource Flows,” in

Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press).

IPCC 2001a—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution

of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A.

Leary, D.J. Dokken, and K.S. White, eds. (Cambridge, U.K., and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press).

<www.ipcc.ch/>

IPCC 2001b—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the

Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O. Davidson, R. Swart, and J. Pan, eds. (Cambridge,

U.K., and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press). <www.ipcc.ch/> 

IPCC 2001c—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. Contribution to the Third Assessment

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, R.T. Watson, D.L. Albritton, T. Barker, I.A. Bashmakov, O. Canziani, R.

Christ, U. Cubasch, O. Davidson, H. Gitay, D. Griggs, J. Houghton, J. House, Z. Kundzewicz, M. Lal, N. Leary, C. Magadza,

J.J. McCarthy, J.F.B. Mitchell, J.R. Moreira, M. Munasinghe, I. Noble, R. Pachauri, B. Pittock, M. Prather, R.G. Richels, J.B.

Robinson, J. Sathaye, S. Schneider, R. Scholes, T. Stocker, N. Sundararaman, R. Swart, T. Taniguchi, and D. Zhou, eds.

(Cambridge, U.K., and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press). <www.ipcc.ch/>

IPCC 2001d—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I

to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van

der Linden, and D. Xiasou, eds. (Cambridge, U.K., and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press). <www.ipcc.ch/> 

IPCC/UNEP/OECD/IEA 1997—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United Nations Environment Programme,

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, International Energy Agency, Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Paris, France: IPCC/UNEP/OECD/IEA). 

<http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs1.htm>

Karl et al. 1995—Karl, T.R., V.E. Derr, D.R. Easterling, C.K. Folland, D.J. Hofmann, S. Levitus, N. Nicholls, D.E. Parker, and

G.W. Withee, “Critical Issues for Long-Term Climate Monitoring,” Climatic Change, vol. 31.

Keeling, C.D., and T.P. Whorf, “Atmospheric CO2 Records from Sites in the SIO Air Sampling Network,” in Trends: A

Compendium of Data on Global Change (Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory, 2000).

McCabe, G.J., and D.M. Wolock, “General-Circulation-Model Simulations of Future Snowpack in the Western United States,

Journal of the American Water Resources Association, vol. 35 (1999), pp. 1473–84. 

Mills et al. 2001—Mills, Evan, Eugene Lecomte, and Andrew Peara, U.S. Insurance Industry Perspectives on Global Climate Change

(Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Energy). <http://eetd.lbl.gov/insurance>

NAAG 2002—National Agriculture Assessment Group, Agriculture: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, J.

Reilly et al., eds. (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press and U.S. Department of Agriculture, for the U.S. Global

Change Research Program). <http://www.usgcrp.gov>

NASA 2001—National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Earth Observing System Global Change Media Directory 2001

(Greenbelt, MD: Earth Observing System Project Science Office, Goddard Space Flight Center).

<http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/>
Appendix E ■ 259

NAST 2000—National Assessment Synthesis Team, Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate

Variability and Change: Overview (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press and U.S. Global Change Research Program).

<http://www.usgcrp.gov>

NAST 2001—National Assessment Synthesis Team, Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate

Variability and Change: Foundation (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press and U.S. Global Change Research Program).

<http://www.usgcrp.gov>

NCAG 2000—National Coastal Assessment Group, Coastal: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for the U.S. Global

Change Research Program). <http://www.usgcrp.gov>

NEPD Group 2001—National Energy Policy Development Group, National Energy Policy (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office). <http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy>

NFAG 2001—National Forest Assessment Group, Forests: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change (Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, for the U.S. Global Change Research Program). <http://www.usgcrp.gov>

NHAG 2000—National Health Assessment Group (J.A. Patz, M.A. McGeehin, S.M. Bernard, K.L. Ebi, P.R. Epstein, A.

Grambsch, D.J. Gubler, P. Reiter, I. Romeiu, J.B. Rose, et al.), “The Health Impacts of Climate Variability and Change for the

United States: Executive Summary of the Report of the Health Sector of the U.S. National Assessment,” Environmental Health

Perspectives, vol. 108, pp. 367–76. <http://www.usgcrp.gov>

NHAG 2001—National Health Assessment Group, Health: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change (Washington,

DC: Johns Hopkins University, School of Public Health, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for the U.S. Global

Change Research Program). <http://www.usgcrp.gov>

NJ 2000—State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey Sustainability Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan

(December 1999, 1st reprint May 2000). <http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/gcc/gcc-download.htm>

NRC 1999—National Research Council, Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).

NRC 2001a—National Research Council, Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of

Some Key Questions (Washington, DC: National Academy Press). <http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange>

NRC 2001b—National Research Council, Committee on Climate, Ecosystems, Infectious Disease, and Human Health, Under

the Weather: Climate, Ecosystems, and Infectious Disease (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).

NSC 2000—National Safety Council, Reporting on Climate Change: Understanding the Science (Washington, DC: National Safety

Council, Environmental Health Center). <http://www.nsc.org/ehc/guidebks/climtoc.htm>

NSTC 2000—National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources,

Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Our Changing Planet: The FY 2001 U.S. Global Change Research Program (U.S.

Government Printing Office: Washington, DC).

NWAG 2000—National Water Assessment Group, Water: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change (Washington,

DC: U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, and Pacific Institute, for the U.S. Global Change Research

Program). <http://www.usgcrp.gov>

OECD 2000—Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, Environmental Goods and Services: An Assessment of the

Environmental, Economic and Development Benefits of Further Global Trade Liberalisation (Paris, France: OECD, Trade Directorate &

Environment Directorate).
260 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

OMB 2001—Office of Management and Budget, Report to Congress on Federal Climate Change Expenditures (Washington, DC). 

OOSDP 1995—Ocean Observing System Development Panel, Scientific Design for the Common Module of the Global Ocean Observing

System and the Global Climate Observing System: An Ocean Observing System for Climate.

< http://www-ocean.tamu.edu/OOSDP/FinalRept/t_of_c.html>

Powell et al. 1993—Powell, D.S., J.L. Faulkner, D.R. Darr, Z. Zhu, and D.W. MacCleery, Forest Resources of the United States–1992,

Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-234. (Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture).

Timmermann et al. 1999—Timmermann, A., J. Oberhuber, A. Bacher, M. Esch, M. Latif, and E. Roeckner, “Increased El Niño

Frequency in a Climate Model Forced by Future Greenhouse Warming,” Nature, vol. 398, pp. 694–97.

UNFCCC—United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC Guidelines on Reporting and Review.

US–AEP/USAID 2000—United States–Asia Environmental Partnership/U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S.

Environment Industry Export Competitiveness in Asia. 

USAID 2000a—U.S. Agency for International Development, Annual Report 2000: EcoLinks (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office).

USAID 2000b—U.S. Agency for International Development, Market Opportunities for Climate Change Technologies and Services in

Developing Countries (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office).

USAID 2000c—U.S. Agency for International Development, Partnership Grants 2000: EcoLinks (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office).

USAID 2001a—U.S. Agency for International Development, EcoLinks (fact sheet) (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office).

USAID 2001b—U.S. Agency for International Development, “Towards a Water Secure Future: USAID’s Obligations in Water

Resources Management for FY2000,” Part II (Draft, May 18, 2001).

U.S. Congress 1993—U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Preparing for an Uncertain Climate, vols. I and II

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office), OTA-O-567 and 568.

U.S. CSP 1997—U.S. Country Studies Program, Global Climate Change Mitigation Assessment Results for Fourteen Transition and

Developing Countries.

U.S. CSP 1998—U.S. Country Studies Program, Climate Change Assessments by Developing and Transition Countries.

USDA 2000—U.S. Department of Agriculture, Submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on

Methodological Issues Related to Carbon Sinks.

USDA 2001—U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Agricultural Policy: Taking Stock for the New Century (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office), SN-001-000-04696-9. <http://www.usda.gov/farmpolicy/farmpolicy.htm>

USDA/ERS 2000—U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators:

2000 (Washington, DC: USDA). <http://www.ers.usda.gov/emphases/harmony/issues/arei2000/>

USDA/ERS 2001a—U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Major Uses of Land in the United States,”

Marlow Vesterby and Kenneth S. Krupa, eds., ERS Statistical Bulletin No. 973 (Washington, DC: USDA/ERS).

<http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/majorlanduses/>
Appendix E ■ 261

USDA/ERS 2001b—U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Major Land Uses data files, October 2001.

<http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/majorlanduses/> 

USDA/NRCS 2000—U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Summary Report: 1997 National

Resources Inventory (Ames, IA: Iowa State University Statistical Laboratory). <http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/NRI/1997> 

USDA/NRCS 2001—U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Food and Agricultural Policy:

Taking Stock for the New Century. <http://www.usda.gov>

U.S. DOC/BEA 2000—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts

(Washington, DC: DOC/BEA). <http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.htm> 

U.S. DOC/Census 2000—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000,

120th edition (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office). <http://www.census.gov/statab/www/> 

U.S. DOC/Census 2001—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, “States Ranked by Numeric Population

Change: 1990 to 2000,” data released on April 2, 2001. <http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t2/tab02.txt> 

U.S. DOC/NOAA 1998a—U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Climatic Data Center, Historical Climatology Series 5-1 (Asheville, NC: NOAA).

<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/documentlibrary/hcs/hcs.html#overview5-1>

U.S. DOC/NOAA 1998b—U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Climatic Data Center, Historical Climatology Series 5-2 (Asheville, NC: NOAA).

<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/documentlibrary/hcs/hcs.html#overview5-2>

U.S. DOC/NOAA 1999a—U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Climatic Data Center, Historical Climatology Series 5-1 (Asheville, NC: NOAA).

<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/documentlibrary/hcs/hcs.html#overview5-1>

U.S. DOC/NOAA 1999b—U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Climatic Data Center, Historical Climatology Series 5-2 (Asheville, NC: NOAA).

<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/documentlibrary/hcs/hcs.html#overview5-2>

U.S. DOC/NOAA 2001a—U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Climatic Data Center, Historical Climatology Series 5-1 (Asheville, NC: NOAA).

<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/documentlibrary/hcs/hcs.html#overview5-1>

U.S. DOC/NOAA 2001b—U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Climatic Data Center, Historical Climatology Series 5-2 (Asheville, NC: NOAA).

<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/documentlibrary/hcs/hcs.html#overview5-2>

U.S. DOC/NOAA 2001c—U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Climatic Data Center, The U.S. Detailed National Report on Systematic Observations for Climate (Silver Spring, MD: NOAA).

<http://www.eis.noaa.gov/gcos> 

U.S. DOE/EIA 1999—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, A Look at Residential Energy Consumption:

1997 (Washington, DC: U.S. DOE), DOE/EIA-0632(97). <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs>

U.S. DOE/EIA 2000a—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1999

(Washington, DC: U.S. DOE), DOE/EIA-0384(99). <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html> 
262 ■ U.S. CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2002

U.S. DOE/EIA 2000b—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 1999, vols. II and

III (Washington, DC: U.S. DOE), DOE/EIA-0348(99)/2. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epav2/epav2.pdf> 

U.S. DOE/EIA 2000c—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United

States, 1999 (Washington, DC: U.S. DOE), DOE/EIA-0573(99). 

U.S. DOE/EIA 2000d—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook (Washington,

DC: U.S. DOE), DOE/EIA-0202(00). <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html>. 

U.S. DOE/EIA 2001a—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook, 2002

(Washington, DC: U.S. DOE), DOE/EIA-0384(2000). <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo> 

U.S. DOE/EIA 2001b—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review, 2000

(Washington, DC: U.S. DOE), DOE/EIA-0384(2000). <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html> 

U.S. DOE/EIA 2001c—U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United

States, 2000 (Washington, DC: U.S. DOE), DOE/EIA-0573(2000).

U.S. DOE/OPIA 2001—U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Policy and International Affairs, preliminary data. 

U.S. DOL/BLS—U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Current Population Survey: Household Data

(2000)–Annual Averages,” Table 17. <http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_over.htm>

U.S. DOS 1994—U.S. Department of State, Office of Global Change, U.S. Climate Action Report: Submission of the United States of

America Under the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOS).

U.S. DOS 1997—U.S. Department of State, Office of Global Change, Climate Action Report: 1997 Submission of the United States of

America Under the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOS).

U.S. DOS 2000—U.S. Department of State, United States Submission on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry, U.S. submission to

the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

<http://www.state.gov/www/global_issues/climate/climate_2000_submission.html>

U.S. DOT/BTS 2000a—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Air Carrier Traffic Statistics

Monthly, Dec. 2000/1999, Dec. 1999/1998, Dec. 1998/1997 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOT).

U.S. DOT/BTS 2000b—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics:

2000 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOT), BTS01-01. <http://www.bts.gov/btsprod/nts/>

U.S. DOT/FAA 1998—U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Statistical Handbook of Aviation

1996 (Washington, DC: U.S. DOT), BTS99-03. <http://www.api.faa.gov/handbook96/toc96.htm>

U.S. DOT/FHWA 1999—U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Draft 1998 Highway Statistics

(Washington, DC: DOT/FHWA), report FHWA-PL-96-023-annual.

U.S. DOT and U.S. EPA—U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “It All Adds Up To

Cleaner Air.” <www.epa.gov/otaq/traq/traqpedo/italladd>

U.S. EPA 1989—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States, J.B. Smith

and D.A. Tirpak, eds. (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA), 230-05-89-050. 

U.S. EPA 1999—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Methane Emissions 1990–2020: Inventories, Projections, and Opportunities

for Reductions (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA). <www.epa.gov/ghginfo>
Appendix E ■ 263

U.S. EPA 2000—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, National Air Pollutant

Emissions Trends Report, 1900–1999 (Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. EPA). <http://www.epa.gov/air/data/net.html>

U.S. EPA 2001a—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Addendum to U.S. Methane Emissions 1990–2020: Inventories, Projections,

and Opportunities for Reductions (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA). <www.epa.gov/ghginfo>

U.S. EPA 2001b—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft U.S. Nitrous Oxide Emissions 1990–2020: Inventories, Projections, and

Opportunities for Reductions (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA). <www.epa.gov/ghginfo>

U.S. EPA 2001c—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Improving Air Quality Through Land Use Activities.

<http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/EPA420R01001.html>

U.S. EPA 2001d—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–1999

(Washington, DC: U.S. EPA), 236-R-01-001. <http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/emissions/national> 

U.S. EPA 2001e—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. High GWP Emissions 1990–2010: Inventories, Projections, and

Opportunities for Reductions (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA). <www.epa.gov/ghginfo>

U.S. EPA, NASA, and NOAA 1999—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climate Change Presentation Kit, 

<http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/Catalog/EPA236C99001.html>

U.S. EPA and NPS 2001—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Park Service, Climate Change, Wildlife, and

Wildlands: A Toolkit for Teachers and Interpreters. <http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/outreach/orwkit.html>

USGCRP 1998–2000—U.S. Global Change Research Program, Acclimations (on-line newsletter of the National Assessment of

the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change). <http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc>

U.S. IJI 2000—U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation, Activities Implemented Jointly: Fifth Report to the Secretariat of the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change.

WMO 1995—World Meteorological Organization, GCOS Plan for Space-based Observations, GCOS-14, WMO Technical

Document No. 681 (Geneva, Switzerland: WMO). <http://www.wmo.ch/web/gcos/gcoshome.html>

WMO 1997—World Meteorological Organization, GCOS/GTOS Plan for Terrestrial Climate-related Observations, version 2.0,

GCOS-32, WMO Technical Document No. 796 (Geneva, Switzerland: WMO).

<http://www.wmo.ch/web/gcos/gcoshome.html>

World Bank 2000—World Development Indicators 2000 (Washington, DC: World Bank).

<http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi/home.html>